The Illusion Of A New Green Economy
z0n0b
July 3 2009
QUOTE: If I really believed that manmade global warming was a serious threat
to life on Earth, I would be actively campaigning to 'fix' the problem.
I don't think Al Gore in his wildest dreams could have imagined how
successful the "climate crisis" movement would become. It is probably safe
to assume that this success is not so much the result of Gore's charisma as
it is humanity's spiritual need to be involved in something transcendent -
like saving the Earth.
After all, who wouldn't want to Save the Earth? I certainly would.
If I really believed that manmade global warming was a serious threat to
life on Earth, I would be actively campaigning to 'fix' the problem.
But there are two practical problems with the theory of anthropogenic global
warming: (1) global warming is (or at least was) likely to be a mostly
natural process; and
(2) even if global warming is manmade, it will be immensely difficult to
avoid further warming without new energy technologies that do not currently
exist.
On the first point, since the scientific evidence against global warming
being anthropogenic is what most of the rest of this website is about, I won't
repeat it here.
But on the second point.what if the alarmists are correct?
What if humanity's burning of fossil fuels really is causing global warming?
What is the best path to follow to fix the problem?
Cap-and-Trade
The most popular solution today is carbon cap-and-trade legislation. The
European Union has hands-on experience with cap-and-trade over the last
couple of years, and it isn't pretty. Over there it is called their
Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Here in the U.S., the House of
Representatives last Friday narrowly passed the Waxman-Markey bill. The
Senate plans on taking up the bill as early as the fall of 2009.
Under cap-and-trade, the government institutes "caps" on how much carbon
dioxide can be emitted, and then allows companies to "trade" carbon credits
so that the market rewards those companies that find ways to produce less
CO2. If a company ends up having more credits than they need, they can then
sell those credits to other companies.
While it's advertised as a "market-based" approach to pollution reduction,
it really isn't since the market did not freely choose cap-and-trade.it was
imposed upon the market by the government. The 'free market' aspect of it
just helps to reduce the economic damage done as a result of the government
regulations.
The Free Market Makes Waxman-Markey Unnecessary
There are several serious problems with cap-and-trade. In the big picture,
as Europe has found out, it will damage the economy. This is simply because
there are as yet no large-scale, practical, and cost-competitive
replacements for fossil fuels. As a result, if you punish fossil fuel use
with either taxes or by capping how much energy is allowed to be used, you
punish the economy.
Now, if you are under the illusion that cap-and-trade will result in the
development of high-tech replacements for fossil fuels, you do not
understand basic economics. No matter how badly you might want it, you can
not legislate a time-travel machine into existence. Space-based solar power
might sound really cool, but the cost of it would be astronomical (no pun
intended), and it could only provide the tiniest fraction of our energy
needs. Wind power goes away when the wind stops, and is only practical in
windy parts of the country. Land-based solar power goes away when the sun
sets, and is only practical in the sunny Southwest U.S. While I personally
favor nuclear power, it takes forever to license and build a nuclear power
plant, and it would take 1,000 1-gigawatt nuclear power plants to meet
electricity demand in the United States.
And no one wants any of these facilities near where they live.
Fortunately, cap-and-trade legislation is not necessary anyway because
incentives already exist - right now - for anyone to come up with
alternative technologies for energy generation and energy efficiency.
Taxpayers and consumers already pay for billions of dollars in both
government research (through taxes) and private research (through the cost
of goods and services) to develop new energy technologies.
Whoever succeeds in these efforts stands to make a lot of money simply
because everything we do requires energy. And I do mean everything.even
sitting there and thinking. Using your brain requires energy, which requires
food, which requires fossil fuels to grow, distribute, refrigerate and cook
that food.
Economic Competitiveness in the Global Marketplace
Secondly, when instituted unilaterally by a country, cap-and-trade
legislation makes that country less competitive in the global economy.
Imports and trade deficits increase as prices at home rise, while companies
or whole industries close and move abroad to countries where they can be
more competitive.
The Obama administration and congress are trying to minimize this problem by
imposing tariffs on imports, but this then hurts everyone in all of the
countries involved. Remember, two countries only willingly engage in trade
with each other because it economically benefits both countries by reducing
costs, thus raising the standard of living in those countries.
The Green Mafia
Third, cap-and-trade is a system that is just begging for cheating, bribing,
and cooking the books. How will a company's (or a farm's) greenhouse gas
emissions be gauged, and then monitored over time? A massive new bureaucracy
will be required, with a litany of rules and procedures which have limited
basis in science and previous experience.
And who will decide how many credits will initially be given by the
government to each company/farm/industry? Does anyone expect that these
decisions will be impartial, without political favoritism shown toward one
company over another, or one industry over another? This is one reason why
some high-profile corporations are now on the global warming bandwagon. They
(or at least a few of their executives) are trying to position themselves
more favorably in what they see to be an inevitable energy-rationed economic
system.
Big Oil and Big Coal Will Not Pay for Cap-and-Trade
Fourth, it is the consumer - the citizen - who will pay for all of this,
either in the form of higher prices, or reduced availability, or reduced
economic growth. Companies have no choice but to pass increased costs on to
consumers, and decreased profits to investors. You might think that "Big
Business" will finally be paying their "fair share", but Big Business is
what provides jobs. No Big Business, no jobs.
The Green Jobs Illusion
Fifth, the allure of "green jobs" might be strong, but the economic benefit
of those jobs is an illusion. The claim that many thousands of new green
jobs will be created under such a system is probably true. But achieving low
unemployment through government mandates does not create wealth - it
destroys wealth.
Let me illustrate. We could have full employment with green jobs today if we
wanted to. We could pay each other to dig holes in the ground and then fill
the holes up again, day after day, month after month. (Of course, we'll use
shovels rather than backhoes to reduce fossil fuel use.) How's that for a
green jobs program?
My point is that it matters a LOT what kinds of jobs are created. Let's say
that today 1,000 jobs are required to create 1 gigawatt of coal-fired
electricity. Now, suppose we require that electricity to come from a
renewable source instead. If 5,000 jobs are needed to create the same amount
of electricity with windmills that 1,000 jobs created with coal, then
efficiency and wealth generation will be destroyed.
Sure, you can create as many green jobs as you want, but the comparative
productivity of those jobs is what really matters. In the end, when the
government manipulates the economy in such a fashion, the economy suffers.
And even if a market for green equipment (solar panels, windmills, etc.)
does develop, there is little doubt that countries like China will be able
to manufacture that equipment at lower cost than the United States.
Especially considering all of our laws, regulations, limits, and
restrictions.
So, What's the Alternative?
If anthropogenic global warming does end up being a serious problem, then
what can be done to move away from fossil fuels? I would say: Encourage
economic growth, and burn fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow! Increased
demand will lead to higher prices, and as long as the free market is allowed
to work, new energy technologies will be developed.
As long a demand exists for energy (and it always will), there will be
people who find ways to meet that demand. There is no need for silly awards
for best inventions, etc., because the market value of those inventions will
far exceed the value of any gimmicky, government-sponsored competitions.
Why are Politicians so Enamored by Cap-and-Trade?
Given the pain (and public backlash) the EU has experienced from two years'
experience with its Emissions Trading Scheme, why would our politicians
ignore that foreign experience, as well as popular sentiment against
cap-and-trade here at home, and run full-steam with eyes closed into this
regulatory quagmire?
The only answer I can come up with is: more money and more power for
government. As a former government employee, I am familiar with the mindset.
While the goal of a private sector job is to create wealth, the government
employee's main job is to spend as much of that wealth as possible. A
government agency's foremost goal is self preservation, which means
perpetuating a public need for the agency. The idea that our government
exists to help enable a better life for its citizens might have been true
100 years ago, but today it is hopelessly na�ve.
All Pain, No Gain
And finally, let's remember what the whole purpose of carbon cap-and-trade
is: to reduce future warming of the climate system. Even some prominent
environmentalists are against Waxman-Markey because they do not believe it
will substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions here at home. To the
extent that provisions are added to the bill to make it more palatable to
politicians from agricultural states or industrial states, it then
accomplishes even less of what it is intended to accomplish: reductions in
carbon dioxide emissions.
And even if cap-and-trade does what is intended, the reduction in CO2
emissions as a fraction of global CO2 emissions will moderate future warming
by, at most, around one tenth of a degree C by late in this century. That is
probably not even measurable.
Of course, this whole discussion assumes that the climate system is very
sensitive to our carbon dioxide emissions. But if the research we are doing
is correct, then manmade global warming is being overestimated by about a
factor of 5, and it is the climate system itself that causes climate
change.not humans.
If that is the case, then nothing humanity does is going to substantially
affect climate one way or the other. Indeed, given the fact that life on
Earth depends upon the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, I continue to
predict that more atmospheric CO2 will, in the end, be a good thing for life
on Earth.
Yet, many politicians are so blinded by the additional political power and
tax revenue that will come from a cap-and-trade system that they do not want
to hear any good news from the science. For instance, in my most recent
congressional testimony, the good news I presented was met with an ad
hominem insult from Senator Barbara Boxer.
I can only conclude that some politicians actually want global warming to be
a serious threat to humanity. I wonder why?
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
News
"z0n0b" <i...@j.com> wrote in message news:4a518fa4$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> QUOTE: If I really believed that manmade global warming was a serious
> threat to life on Earth, I would be actively campaigning to 'fix' the
> problem.
Oh this knobhead again, in the pay of oil companies.
What A. Fool
You are silly if you think any company pays anybody
to post messages here.
Unless it is Woger.
News
"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
news:6tn4559g3tskg3b0i...@4ax.com...
They try any anenue.
What A. Fool
Stupid, they can sell all they pump, why even advertise?
Last Post
> "z0n0b" <i...@j.com> wrote in messagenews:4a518fa4$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> > QUOTE: If I really believed that manmade global warming was a serious
> > threat to life on Earth, I would be actively campaigning to 'fix' the
> > problem.
>
> Oh this knobhead again, in the pay of oil companies.
••What an asinine idiot!!!
– –
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.
2- the religious fanatic
If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."
3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years
There is no way to convince the terrorists,
anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what
they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.
News
"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
>
> Stupid, they can sell all they pump, why even advertise?
Fool, they want image and in 20 years time they may not be pumping as much
as they did, which means less $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Last Post
> "What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in messagenews:v7p455htehsqgj737...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:44:57 +0100, "News" <Kills...@invalid.kill> wrote:
>
> >>"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
> >>news:6tn4559g3tskg3b0i...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>"z0n0b" <i...@j.com> wrote in messagenews:4a518fa4$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> >>>>> QUOTE: If I really believed that manmade global warming was a serious
> >>>>> threat to life on Earth, I would be actively campaigning to 'fix' the
> >>>>> problem.
>
> >>>>Oh this knobhead again, in the pay of oil companies.
>
> >>> You are silly if you think any company pays anybody
> >>> to post messages here.
>
> >>They try any avenue.
>
> > Stupid, they can sell all they pump, why even advertise?
>
> Fool, they want image and in 20 years time they may not be pumping as much
> as they did, which means less $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
•• Sorry bud, in 20 years half the world will be
drawing their oil from a half dozen wells in the
mid Atlantic, off the shore of Brazil. There will be
no shortages and all the ethanol plants will be
broke and shut down. Gore and Hansen will be in
prison and if we are lucky Obama and Pelosi too.
–– ––
What A. Fool
>
>"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
>news:v7p455htehsqgj737...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:44:57 +0100, "News" <Kill...@invalid.kill> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
>>>news:6tn4559g3tskg3b0i...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 17:12:26 +0100, "News" <Kill...@invalid.kill> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"z0n0b" <i...@j.com> wrote in message news:4a518fa4$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>> QUOTE: If I really believed that manmade global warming was a serious
>>>>>> threat to life on Earth, I would be actively campaigning to 'fix' the
>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh this knobhead again, in the pay of oil companies.
>>>>
>>>> You are silly if you think any company pays anybody
>>>> to post messages here.
>>>
>>>They try any avenue.
>>
>> Stupid, they can sell all they pump, why even advertise?
>
>Fool, they want image and in 20 years time they may not be pumping as much
>as they did, which means less $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
From now on, they will be pumping all they can sell,
at least unless more big rigs start drilling for oil.
Bruce Richmond
> "What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in messagenews:v7p455htehsqgj737...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:44:57 +0100, "News" <Kills...@invalid.kill> wrote:
>
> >>"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
> >>news:6tn4559g3tskg3b0i...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>"z0n0b" <i...@j.com> wrote in messagenews:4a518fa4$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> >>>>> QUOTE: If I really believed that manmade global warming was a serious
> >>>>> threat to life on Earth, I would be actively campaigning to 'fix' the
> >>>>> problem.
>
> >>>>Oh this knobhead again, in the pay of oil companies.
>
> >>> You are silly if you think any company pays anybody
> >>> to post messages here.
>
> >>They try any avenue.
>
> > Stupid, they can sell all they pump, why even advertise?
>
> Fool, they want image and in 20 years time they may not be pumping as much
>
> - Show quoted text -
The less they pump the more $$$$$ they will get for what they do pump.
Last Post
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:46:45 +0100, "News" <Kills...@invalid.kill> wrote:
>
> >"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
> >news:v7p455htehsqgj737...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
> >>>news:6tn4559g3tskg3b0i...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>>"z0n0b" <i...@j.com> wrote in messagenews:4a518fa4$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> >>>>>> QUOTE: If I really believed that manmade global warming was a serious
> >>>>>> threat to life on Earth, I would be actively campaigning to 'fix' the
> >>>>>> problem.
>
> >>>>>Oh this knobhead again, in the pay of oil companies.
>
> >>>> You are silly if you think any company pays anybody
> >>>> to post messages here.
>
> >>>They try any avenue.
>
> >> Stupid, they can sell all they pump, why even advertise?
>
> >Fool, they want image and in 20 years time they may not be pumping as much
> >as they did, which means less $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> From now on, they will be pumping all they can sell,
> at least unless more big rigs start drilling for oil.
•• Somehow that sentence does not make sense
What A. Fool
wrote:
Unless you are aware that only about half the big
drilling rigs are in use and usable condition, and most
of those at work are drilling for natural gas.
This was the case even when oil prices were high,
and at least part of the reason is the difficulty in getting
permits to drill.
New and constantly improving non-vertical
drilling is increasing production per well drilled, but
even at that, demand in Asia means that production
will not keep up.
Add to that the fact that cap and trade laws
all over the world simply make possible people
with money burning all the fossil fuel they want.