Re: finite world/resource depletion

["John B. O'Donnell" <jackodonnell@xxxxxxxx>]

Paul Henry Rosenberg wrote:
>
> John B. O'Donnell wrote:
>
> > Gregoire de Nowell (ci-devant) wrote:
> >
> >   ...<snip>...
> >
> > > It is in my view likely that as with coal the oil
> > > question will become technologically irrelevant long
> > > before economically exploitable resources will be
> > > exhausted.  In my view this is unfortunate, because
> > > I have been involved in teh professional advocacy of
> > > alternative fuel strategies and the resource depletion
> > > argument, so prima facie logical, is tough to let go
> > > of.  And indeed many alternative fuel advocates
> > > continue to hang onto it.
> >
> > Don't be so pessimistic. The inevitability that price
> > allocation of whatever is or can be made available will
> > allocate those resources to their best use is one of the
> > most rational arguments that economists can claim as
> > their own. When fuel alternatives become priced as an
> > improvement over fossil fuels, the substitution will
> > occur unless, of course, stupid political "solutions" are
> > imposed.
>
> In *The Heat Is On*, published earlier this year, Ross
> Gelbspan argues just the opposite has taken place:
> continuing subsidies for fossile fuels have artificially
> limited the breakout of fuel alternatives from niche
> markets into broad competetive superiority.

Any chance of identifying just what these subsidies are. Would they be
somehow related to the fact that U.S. state and federal taxes on motor
fuels, while exorbitant, are less than imposed in a good part of the
rest of the world?

> The stupid political solution is to continue doing this AND
> not recognize that global warming is a cost the marketplace
> cannot possibly price "right".

Is this "Global Warming" any relation to the coming ice age of a few
years ago? There are enough real problems to address without bringing in
the imaginary ones of Chicken Little. Examination of even these peculiar
theories [The coming ice age, global warming, etc.] does make sense, but
plunging toward "solutions" to problems suspected to be by every
headline seeking kook is just plain stupid without first determining if
the "problem" is real.

> The solution Gelbspan advocates is a complete transfer
> of all fossil fuel subsidies to fuel aternatives.

Solve a nonexistent problem by imposing a stupid political solution.
Sounds like government by Chicken Little emotional shrieking to me.

> Here's a concrete example where the finite-Earth perspective
> makes the logic of a policy decision quite compelling and
> obvious, while the conventional economic perspective could
> well leave us arguing till it's way too late to do anything.
>
> BTW, like me, Gelbspan is a techno-optimist *PROVIDING* that
> political problems can be solved.  Current economic paradigms
> are part of the political problems that need solving.

Not me. I'm an economics basher willing to place credit where credit is
due. These arguments are placing blame at the doorsteps of economics
that is not deserved. Optimism of getting political action by making
silly noises is, to their credit, not a mode of argument regularly seen
coming from economists speaking econoeze.

Economists do, however, seem to hold as true some beliefs that any fool
can see are tautologically impossible.


			-- jbod
___________________________________________________
Come visit and see a new economic perspective --
       http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1067
           Comments/arguments welcome.
..