8 ms·
The Climate-Industrial Complex
- biohacker42 17y agoWhile I'm sure windmill makers are lobbying as hard as they can, can you honestly be concerned about them given their fossil fuel position like coal, oil, natural gas, and car companies?
- lukifer 17y agoI agree: this problem is small potatoes compared to the entrenched fossil fuel interests, who've effectively dictated national policy for decades.
- anigbrowl 17y ago[specious]and do we want to let that happen again, only with greenies?![/specious]
- mnemonicsloth 17y agoSuppose it turns out that (for example) unpredictable variation in output of wind-powered generating stations introduces too much uncertainty into the grid to effectively balance supply against load, so control and distribution requirements limit wind power's contribution to about 5% of demand [1]. Then, if we aren't careful, we'll wind up with an over-subsidized wind turbine industry with nothing to do other than provide service to a niche market and lobby congress for more money for "research and development," promising that someday, maybe the right solution will come along. Rent-seeking by a big company does not justify rent-seeking by a small company that hopes to become a big company, because success will make it another big rent-seeking company. [1] This is a real problem that hasn't been solved yet. There are ideas about what to do, but none of them is a slam dunk.
- eli 17y agoAnd the author, Mr Lomborg, makes money by being skeptical of climate change. shrug
- greyboy 17y agoUnlike Al Gore and his fearmongering?
- pj 17y agoThree words: Blood and Gore.
- eli 17y agoYes, that's pretty much what the author of the linked article said -- did you read it? Personally, I think Al Gore's a pretty smart guy and if he just wanted to get rich, there are easier ways... But sure, lets agree that both sides have something to gain and move on. This silliness about the "Big Green" lobby is distracting from a meaningful discussion about global warming and how seriously to take it.
- gaius 17y agoif he just wanted to get rich, there are easier ways... Al Gore married into his money. He's motivated by an urge to remain in the public eye and wield political power despite being rejected by the voters.
- eli 17y agoI think, frankly, there are easier ways to do that too. Less controversial ways.
- brc 17y agolets agree that both sides have something to gain and move on. This silliness about the "Big Green" lobby is distracting from a meaningful discussion about global warming and how seriously to take it. I disagree with this. The main thrust against any refutation of human caused global warming is always that the author is in the paid service of an oil company, lobby group. You cannot have it both ways. You can't allow people to use that argument to brand people who refute or discount human-caused global warming as paid skeptics, and then brush it aside when the argument is used in reverse.
- eli 17y agoA counter-point: Björn Lomborg's claim that sea levels are not rising faster than predicted are unfounded and used by those wanting to downplay climate change http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/mar/03/sea-levels-rising http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/mar/03/...
- brc 17y agoFTA : the German government's Advisory Council on Global Change has proposed to limit long-term sea level rise to a maximum of one meter, as a policy goal along-side the European Union's goal to limit warming to 2C. And that's it in a nutshell. The politicians are so out of touch with reality, they think they can hold back the sea and change the temperature of the world by writing things on bits of paper.
- pj 17y agoThe climate issue is the most irrational topic in the world right now.
- lutorm 17y agoPredictable, given the author and the venue. No information content. "... despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test." Really? Which evidence is that?
- tjic 17y ago> Predictable, given the author and the venue. No information content. The name of the rhetorical flaw you've engaged in is "ad hominem attack". That is to say, you didn't give a single disagreement with the facts presented, you just said "well, the person who said it is a pederast and a simpleton..."
- lutorm 17y agoI merely said that the content was predictable once you knew the author and venue and contained nothing new for me. Surely that is a valid sentiment? For sure, it can not constitute an "ad hominem attack" unless you consider saying that people are predictable an "attack". I didn't even say I disagree with the conclusion (though I do).
- miked 17y ago>> I merely said that the content was predictable once you knew the author and venue and contained nothing new for me. "But research shows that each new job cost Spain 571,138 euros, with subsidies of more than one million euros required to create each new job in the uncompetitive wind industry. Moreover, the programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs for every job created." You could have predicted that by knowing the author and the venue? And if that disqualifies him/them, why is anything Al Gore says at a climate change conference valid?
- anamax 17y ago> Really? Which evidence is that? The UN's climate change committee's numbers. They found that action now was economically justified now only if they used a negative discount rate. Do you want to argue that they dramatically overstated the costs now? Or, do you want argue that they understated the costs later? If you like both of their numbers, then you get to argue, as they tried, that spending $1 now to eliminate a problem that will cost <$1 to fix later is a good idea. It's almost unheard of to use a negative discount rate because time is worth money.
- nazgulnarsil 17y agoif you're against nuclear power go read up on the subject until you realize that you're wrong.
- eli 17y agoOk... I'm still against it. Do I win a prize? I think it generates relatively expensive energy and creates an undue amount of risk for harm to people and the environment. If we're going to build new government-subsidized power plants, I'd prefer solar or wind.
- Devilboy 17y agoSolar and wind is nowhere near price-competitive with nuclear plants. Nuclear is the only real alternative to coal-fired plants (which are much worse than nuclear in pretty much every way, including the amount of radioactive waste generated) Solar and wind cannot provide base-load power. Nuclear and coal plants can. Which should we build then if wind / solar is not practical?
- gaius 17y agoincluding the amount of radioactive waste generated That's the fact that absolutely blows the mind of the anti-nuclear types. And those that doesn't, it reveals that it was never about radioactivity at all; their objection to it is purely political (dig a little deeper and find that they object to all capitalist/industrial economy).
- brc 17y agoDon't forget about the number of people who die each and every year in coal mining - fatalities which stack up year after year, as opposed to one major failure causing fatalities in the entire history of the nuclear industry.
- eli 17y agoErr, no, my objections are not purely political, and yes I do think radioactive waste is a pretty significant issue. Further, I would love for you to explain how it's anti-capitalist to suggest that we shouldn't use government subsidies to build new nuclear plants? (Because that's pretty much all I said in the parent comment, and nuclear plants certainly don't get built without massive subsidies.) I think that if the government is going to help fund new power plants to reduce our carbon output, then we can do better than nuclear. You disagree? Or would you rather argue with your straw man hippie stereotype?