4 ms·

Your central argument rests on anthropogenic, CO2-caused global warming being irrefutably true. This statement is not yet known to be certain, and the reality i

by pvnick 13y ago

Your central argument rests on anthropogenic, CO2-caused global warming being irrefutably true. This statement is not yet known to be certain, and the reality is that the economic effect of such an infinitely-increasing tax must be weighed against the risk of that statement being wrong. Your proposition is example of exactly the extremist control scheme I was talking about.

AnthonyMouse 13y ago
>Your central argument rests on anthropogenic, CO2-caused global warming being irrefutably true. Nonsense. There is in any event finitely much petroleum in the ground. Even if CO2-caused global warming is complete rubbish, it is still preferable to transition to renewable energy in a gradual fashion rather than hitting a global price spike that would induce an enormous economic catastrophe when a supply panic occurs at a time when all the world's infrastructure is still tooled for fossil fuels.
- pvnick 13y ago
  >hitting a global price spike Again, this is not a certainty. Prices may very likely rise gradually on their own, allowing market forces to dictate a shift towards renewables. No reason to get incompetent bureaucrats involved
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    Why does it have to be a certainty rather than a significant risk we can insure against?
    - pvnick 13y ago
      That's not unreasonable, but there should be proper risk management involved first. The decision is too important to leave up to scare tactics and knee-jerk reactions.
- gwright 13y ago
  It isn't reasonable to think that oil will suddenly become unavailable leading to an abrupt price spike. Instead, the cost to extract the oil will increase over time causing the market to adjust via lower demand or substitute products. The 'invisible hand of the market' will have no problem in directing a transition. The recent increase in oil production due to fracking and horizontal drilling is a perfect example of the market directing investment in response to an increase in price.
simonster 13y ago
How likely does it need to be that we will destroy the world in the next century due to our present energy policy before it is worth the economic cost to change it? (I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't say 100%...)

by pvnick 13y ago

AnthonyMouse 13y ago

>Your central argument rests on anthropogenic, CO2-caused global warming being irrefutably true. Nonsense. There is in any event finitely much petroleum in the ground. Even if CO2-caused global warming is complete rubbish, it is still preferable to transition to renewable energy in a gradual fashion rather than hitting a global price spike that would induce an enormous economic catastrophe when a supply panic occurs at a time when all the world's infrastructure is still tooled for fossil fuels.

pvnick 13y ago
>hitting a global price spike Again, this is not a certainty. Prices may very likely rise gradually on their own, allowing market forces to dictate a shift towards renewables. No reason to get incompetent bureaucrats involved
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  Why does it have to be a certainty rather than a significant risk we can insure against?
  - pvnick 13y ago
    That's not unreasonable, but there should be proper risk management involved first. The decision is too important to leave up to scare tactics and knee-jerk reactions.
gwright 13y ago
It isn't reasonable to think that oil will suddenly become unavailable leading to an abrupt price spike. Instead, the cost to extract the oil will increase over time causing the market to adjust via lower demand or substitute products. The 'invisible hand of the market' will have no problem in directing a transition. The recent increase in oil production due to fracking and horizontal drilling is a perfect example of the market directing investment in response to an increase in price.

simonster 13y ago

How likely does it need to be that we will destroy the world in the next century due to our present energy policy before it is worth the economic cost to change it? (I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't say 100%...)