5 ms·

the best way to move energy development forward is to force real pricing of energy, ie. by pricing in rights to emit carbon dioxide or any other pollutants. Tha

the best way to move energy development forward is to force real pricing of energy, ie. by pricing in rights to emit carbon dioxide or any other pollutants. That would level the playing field and make profitable development of other sources of energy (and generate political will for it as a result :). It would even be much more cheaper to put Virginia coal-miners on 10x welfare and move forward than the whole economy and technological progress being kept hostages of making the miners happy electorate. related : http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2266841 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2266841

Benjo 16y ago
I agree. The free market and competition have created more value than any other tool in human history and it's absolutely the best tool for this job. There seems to be a common misconception that free markets will arise naturally and any government involvement will jeopordize them. In reality, government is the method that a capitalist society must use to ensure that no resources are undervalued; that the system is truly generating value, not just moving it from one place to another at a loss. In the case of energy, the role of goverment should be to determine the immediate value and future costs fossil fuel energy production. In practice of course, goverment is too heavily influenced by those who currently happen to have the most resources. As a result, they are incapable of correctly evaluating the true value of immediate energy output versus future greenhouse gas levels. It makes the question of how to solve the energy problem moot, because there's no way to implement that solution under the current political conditions.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  what you say is true at the national level. Yet there is a hope. This is classical case of "tragedy of commons". Right now the US enjoys the most benefits while the cost is carried by the whole world. In short time China will be enjoying disproportionally much benefits while the costs is spread around the world (i.e. in particular US will be carrying more costs than benefits). This dynamic disbalance will force reconsideration of the current world order.
- jpadkins 16y ago
  > not just moving it from one place to another at a loss. By definition, unprofitable ventures will run out of capital and stop without government intervention. > There seems to be a common misconception that free markets will arise naturally History is full examples of humans freely trading with humans. International trade is completely co-operative, free of government oversight (there is no world government). It is not a misconception that people can trade without a central authority figure. And the presence of the black market in all cultures shows us that it is universal that people want to trade freely. > the role of goverment should be to determine the immediate value and future costs fossil fuel energy production. Can you cite an example of when price fixing has improved living standard of the general population? And is there ever been a time when raising energy costs has improved the human condition? Do you really propose lowering the standard of living for the poor and middle class because of an unproven theory that the climate is a positive feedback loop and 2 degree change will snowball into catastrophic effects?
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    >"not just moving it from one place to another at a loss." >By definition, unprofitable ventures will run out of capital and stop without government intervention. in the context of this discussion it means : "not just moving it from one place to another to generate personal profit at a somebody else's [usually wide public's] loss." The government role is to prevent such profitable ventures which profit at the loss of the general public - free market isn't able to do so on its own. >Do you really propose lowering the standard of living for the poor and middle class because of an unproven theory that the climate is a positive feedback loop and 2 degree change will snowball into catastrophic effects? this is just Red Book of Cheyney. Anyway, technological progress, including development of new sources of energy, has generally benefited poor. Where is limiting market competition by subsidizing ineffective outdated technological processes (which de-facto happens right now with coal and other fossil fuel energy) has always restricted technological progress and thus impacted the whole society, including poor. >And the presence of the black market in all cultures shows us that it is universal that people want to trade freely. presence of black market in the Soviet Union was showing universal people desire to smoke Marlboro and wear LEVI's jeans. Desire to trade freely would created the black market in bread as well, yet no such market existed. Such market exist in Zimbabwe though, where it shows universal people desire to eat.
patrickgzill 16y ago
CO2 is not a pollutant; that is a mind-trick used to justify control by powermongers (socialist or otherwise) over 100% of everything , since everything, including YOU, emits CO2. Now if you are talking about a refinery that does lead smelting, that is quite different. BTW I suggest you read up on the CO2 trading scams that came to light in Europe a while ago, and that a rational person would realize are endemic to such markets ... relatively non-partisan link from Canada's CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/12/11/eu-carbon-credit-trading-fraud.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/12/11/eu-carbon-c...
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >CO2 is not a pollutant unbalanced (by say consumption by forests) emitting of CO2 shifts the make-up of the atmosphere and thus energy balance of the planet's surface. unbalanced (by say atropine injection) emitting of VX gases into your body would shift the make-up of enzymes in your nerve system : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_%28nerve_agent%29#Chemical_characteristics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_%28nerve_agent%29#Chemical_c... How about "toxin" instead of "pollutant"?
  - patrickgzill 16y ago
    What happens when there is more CO2 present (I mean a lot more in a controlled area for testing)? Plants grow faster. See: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm Name me a toxin that does that ... CO2 != mercury in the water supply
    - VladRussian 16y ago
      >What happens when there is more CO2 present (I mean a lot more in a controlled area for testing)? Plants grow faster. great. We're making progress. You've just recognized the fact that CO2 emissions affect ecosphere. Supposedly you pointing to the negative feedback in this dynamic system [more CO2 - > more plants -> more CO2 consumption]. Next step - show that this dynamic system is stable (or at least not unstable) as mere presence of negative feedback doesn't guarantee stability and may even be cause of increased instability. Let suppose there is some stability. Normal (as of 1900 lets say or pick any other) CO2 , increased CO2, decreased CO2 [back to normal?], and repeat ... The issue, is what happens with energy surplus [Quantum Mechanical "green house" effect] and its effects accumulated during periods of increased CO2.

Benjo 16y ago

I agree. The free market and competition have created more value than any other tool in human history and it's absolutely the best tool for this job. There seems to be a common misconception that free markets will arise naturally and any government involvement will jeopordize them. In reality, government is the method that a capitalist society must use to ensure that no resources are undervalued; that the system is truly generating value, not just moving it from one place to another at a loss. In the case of energy, the role of goverment should be to determine the immediate value and future costs fossil fuel energy production. In practice of course, goverment is too heavily influenced by those who currently happen to have the most resources. As a result, they are incapable of correctly evaluating the true value of immediate energy output versus future greenhouse gas levels. It makes the question of how to solve the energy problem moot, because there's no way to implement that solution under the current political conditions.

VladRussian 16y ago
what you say is true at the national level. Yet there is a hope. This is classical case of "tragedy of commons". Right now the US enjoys the most benefits while the cost is carried by the whole world. In short time China will be enjoying disproportionally much benefits while the costs is spread around the world (i.e. in particular US will be carrying more costs than benefits). This dynamic disbalance will force reconsideration of the current world order.
jpadkins 16y ago
> not just moving it from one place to another at a loss. By definition, unprofitable ventures will run out of capital and stop without government intervention. > There seems to be a common misconception that free markets will arise naturally History is full examples of humans freely trading with humans. International trade is completely co-operative, free of government oversight (there is no world government). It is not a misconception that people can trade without a central authority figure. And the presence of the black market in all cultures shows us that it is universal that people want to trade freely. > the role of goverment should be to determine the immediate value and future costs fossil fuel energy production. Can you cite an example of when price fixing has improved living standard of the general population? And is there ever been a time when raising energy costs has improved the human condition? Do you really propose lowering the standard of living for the poor and middle class because of an unproven theory that the climate is a positive feedback loop and 2 degree change will snowball into catastrophic effects?
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >"not just moving it from one place to another at a loss." >By definition, unprofitable ventures will run out of capital and stop without government intervention. in the context of this discussion it means : "not just moving it from one place to another to generate personal profit at a somebody else's [usually wide public's] loss." The government role is to prevent such profitable ventures which profit at the loss of the general public - free market isn't able to do so on its own. >Do you really propose lowering the standard of living for the poor and middle class because of an unproven theory that the climate is a positive feedback loop and 2 degree change will snowball into catastrophic effects? this is just Red Book of Cheyney. Anyway, technological progress, including development of new sources of energy, has generally benefited poor. Where is limiting market competition by subsidizing ineffective outdated technological processes (which de-facto happens right now with coal and other fossil fuel energy) has always restricted technological progress and thus impacted the whole society, including poor. >And the presence of the black market in all cultures shows us that it is universal that people want to trade freely. presence of black market in the Soviet Union was showing universal people desire to smoke Marlboro and wear LEVI's jeans. Desire to trade freely would created the black market in bread as well, yet no such market existed. Such market exist in Zimbabwe though, where it shows universal people desire to eat.

patrickgzill 16y ago

CO2 is not a pollutant; that is a mind-trick used to justify control by powermongers (socialist or otherwise) over 100% of everything , since everything, including YOU, emits CO2. Now if you are talking about a refinery that does lead smelting, that is quite different. BTW I suggest you read up on the CO2 trading scams that came to light in Europe a while ago, and that a rational person would realize are endemic to such markets ... relatively non-partisan link from Canada's CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/12/11/eu-carbon-credit-trading-fraud.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2009/12/11/eu-carbon-c...

VladRussian 16y ago
>CO2 is not a pollutant unbalanced (by say consumption by forests) emitting of CO2 shifts the make-up of the atmosphere and thus energy balance of the planet's surface. unbalanced (by say atropine injection) emitting of VX gases into your body would shift the make-up of enzymes in your nerve system : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_%28nerve_agent%29#Chemical_characteristics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_%28nerve_agent%29#Chemical_c... How about "toxin" instead of "pollutant"?
- patrickgzill 16y ago
  What happens when there is more CO2 present (I mean a lot more in a controlled area for testing)? Plants grow faster. See: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm Name me a toxin that does that ... CO2 != mercury in the water supply
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    >What happens when there is more CO2 present (I mean a lot more in a controlled area for testing)? Plants grow faster. great. We're making progress. You've just recognized the fact that CO2 emissions affect ecosphere. Supposedly you pointing to the negative feedback in this dynamic system [more CO2 - > more plants -> more CO2 consumption]. Next step - show that this dynamic system is stable (or at least not unstable) as mere presence of negative feedback doesn't guarantee stability and may even be cause of increased instability. Let suppose there is some stability. Normal (as of 1900 lets say or pick any other) CO2 , increased CO2, decreased CO2 [back to normal?], and repeat ... The issue, is what happens with energy surplus [Quantum Mechanical "green house" effect] and its effects accumulated during periods of increased CO2.