Re: finite world/resource depletion

[Paul Henry Rosenberg <rad@xxxxxxx>]

John B. O'Donnell wrote:

> Paul Henry Rosenberg wrote:
> >
> > ...<snip>...
> >
> > 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?

Those taxes are pretty much devoted to auto-related public expenses.  Of
course, they don't pay anything close to the true costs of auto-parking
and rights-of-way.  Neither would a direct change-over to another fuel,
of course.  That's a whole other topic.  But then there's the cost of
military patrols and preparedness in the Middle East -- something that's
NEVER connected in these kinds of accounting.  And there are various
kinds of corporate subsidies.  There have been enormous subsidies to
nuclear as well, as there continue to be.

> > 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.

For those interested, *The Heat Is On* is primarily a documentation of
the disinformation campaign being waged by Big Oil and the ways it is
interfering with the formation of sound policy.

John here is just offering a typical bit of Big Oil propaganda.  It has
no basis in the actual scientific literature.

There never was a scientific concensus about a "coming ice age", this
was just a bit of  media-frenzy.  There was a period of mild cooling
that occured from around the 1940s to the 1970s, which did not offset
the previous warming trend, much less the far more severe warming trend
since the mid-70s.  Explanations for that time period (such as the role
of particulate pollution, for instance) are being explored, as are all
manner of other still-open questions in climatology, of which there are
many.  Despite all those open questions, though, there's no real
scientific doubt about the big picture of global warming.

But, for those who think that nothing is real but economics, the
insurance industry weather-related losses have skyrocketedin 1990s and
they are becoming quite active in promoting serious attention to Global
Warming.

> > 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.

Sounds like an ignorant know-nothing comment to me.  But, then, I don't
want to start a flame war! <G>

So, let's just say I'm not criticizing John here.  I'm criticizing
someone else, not present, who might make the sort of comment he just
did, in the same spirit that he's calling people not present "stupid"
and accusing them of "emotional shrieking."

> > 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.

Hmmm... And I though that ENGLISH was the preferred language on this
list. <G>

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

I might well agree with you, if only I had the faintest idea what you're
talking about.


--
Paul Rosenberg
Reason and Democracy
rad@xxxxxxx

"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"