Comments on: New Options for Climate Policy? http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3773 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Dano http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3773&cpage=1#comment-3700 Dano Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:45:35 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3773#comment-3700 I like how Benny has to link to someone performing a thought exercise rather than someone reporting evidence to make "his"...er...point. Best, D I like how Benny has to link to someone performing a thought exercise rather than someone reporting evidence to make “his”…er…point.

Best,

D

]]> By: Rabett http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3773&cpage=1#comment-3699 Rabett Tue, 04 Apr 2006 00:08:06 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3773#comment-3699 If property is theft, what are intellectual property policies:) If property is theft, what are intellectual property policies:)

]]> By: john frankis http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3773&cpage=1#comment-3698 john frankis Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:34:29 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3773#comment-3698 Benny, some may admire your willingness to cite newspaper articles but I think that to debate with the scientists who I suppose you should assume may be reading Roger Pielke Jr's blog, you could consider making a few more citations to the specialist literature or at least to recognised reference works to support your many claims and assertions. I confess that I for one am not willing to go read a newspaper story simply because you cite it, unless you can make a brief case in your own words for why it should be instructive. I think it's probably also clear to most readers bothered enough to be following this thread that your response above: "If we were beginning to run out of coal, its cost would gradually rise accordingly, up to such a level that investment in alternative energy would become significantly more economical" is non sequitur to anything other than your own comments, sounding (I'm sorry) like evasion - but possibly just misunderstanding - of the issues under discussion. You'll recall that Roger posted "... Nordhaus points our attention away from Kyoto and toward internationally harmonized carbon taxes ... discussion of such options should take place not only among individual scholars but also more formally through authoritative institutions of climate science and policy ...". It was interest in Roger's thoughts that attracted me (at least) to comment here. And Benny, as for your reliance upon a command and control nanny state to protect your supposedly "private property" from my aspiration to take it from you - good luck pal 'cos me and my libertarian, take-no-prisoner buddies are coming to relieve you of it unless you're good enough, by yourself and without hiding behind the skirts of your do-gooder nanny government and nanny laws, to stop us. Benny, some may admire your willingness to cite newspaper articles but I think that to debate with the scientists who I suppose you should assume may be reading Roger Pielke Jr’s blog, you could consider making a few more citations to the specialist literature or at least to recognised reference works to support your many claims and assertions. I confess that I for one am not willing to go read a newspaper story simply because you cite it, unless you can make a brief case in your own words for why it should be instructive.

I think it’s probably also clear to most readers bothered enough to be following this thread that your response above: “If we were beginning to run out of coal, its cost would gradually rise accordingly, up to such a level that investment in alternative energy would become significantly more economical” is non sequitur to anything other than your own comments, sounding (I’m sorry) like evasion – but possibly just misunderstanding – of the issues under discussion. You’ll recall that Roger posted “… Nordhaus points our attention away from Kyoto and toward internationally harmonized carbon taxes … discussion of such options should take place not only among individual scholars but also more formally through authoritative institutions of climate science and policy …”. It was interest in Roger’s thoughts that attracted me (at least) to comment here.

And Benny, as for your reliance upon a command and control nanny state to protect your supposedly “private property” from my aspiration to take it from you – good luck pal ‘cos me and my libertarian, take-no-prisoner buddies are coming to relieve you of it unless you’re good enough, by yourself and without hiding behind the skirts of your do-gooder nanny government and nanny laws, to stop us.

]]> By: Benny Peiser http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3773&cpage=1#comment-3697 Benny Peiser Mon, 03 Apr 2006 20:23:56 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3773#comment-3697 I wasn't linking the Kyoto Protocol to Marxism or Soviet-Communist 10-year plans. I freely admit, however, that such a comparison does appear rather alluring. Regardless, I was refering to the law of unintended consequences, the notorious little spoil-sport of top-down politics that has wrecked countless plans concocted by big governments, small dictators and overweight bureaucracies. Some astute observers, nevertheless, have noticed a semblence between the "nightmare science" of Marxist activists and that of climate science activists. Here are some very sharp observations that got to the heart of the role of science in today's climate of political science advocay. http://www.greenbiz.com/news/columns_third.cfm?NewsID=30446 I wasn’t linking the Kyoto Protocol to Marxism or Soviet-Communist 10-year plans. I freely admit, however, that such a comparison does appear rather alluring.

Regardless, I was refering to the law of unintended consequences, the notorious little spoil-sport of top-down politics that has wrecked countless plans concocted by big governments, small dictators and overweight bureaucracies.

Some astute observers, nevertheless, have noticed a semblence between the “nightmare science” of Marxist activists and that of climate science activists. Here are some very sharp observations that got to the heart of the role of science in today’s climate of political science advocay.
http://www.greenbiz.com/news/columns_third.cfm?NewsID=30446

]]> By: Dano http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3773&cpage=1#comment-3696 Dano Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:43:44 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3773#comment-3696 Ooooh! Enacting Kyoto is like Marxism or Commanism or something. Good one Benny. And thanks for referring to Julian Simon. Makes it easy for some if they missed your Socialism Scare FUD before. Best, D Ooooh! Enacting Kyoto is like Marxism or Commanism or something. Good one Benny.

And thanks for referring to Julian Simon. Makes it easy for some if they missed your Socialism Scare FUD before.

Best,

D

]]> By: Benny Peiser http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3773&cpage=1#comment-3695 Benny Peiser Mon, 03 Apr 2006 12:57:06 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3773#comment-3695 John If we were beginning to run out of coal, its cost would gradually rise accordingly, up to such a level that investment in alternative energy would become significantly more economical. The historical lessons of this relationship between energy sources, consumption and technological progress was well summarised by the late Julian Simon http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR11.txt Prohibition sounds nice on paper, James. But let’s not forget the warning from history. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,605556,00.html http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel010401.shtml A heavy dose of reservation is warranted about any authoritarian command-and-control solutions. Just consider the human and societal self-destruction wrought by the prohibition of private property. It is not that long ago that tens of thousands of scientists around the world were convinced that capitalism was the biggest problem and that societies devoid of private enterprise would turn Socialism into economic powerhouses and a workers paradise. As the saying goes: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No question, political decisions have to be taken, but they need to be carefully costed and carefully tested. Most importantly, they need to show that they are effective and cost-effective. Otherwise, the economic and social demolition caused will, as so often, offset any envisaged gains. John

If we were beginning to run out of coal, its cost would gradually rise accordingly, up to such a level that investment in alternative energy would become significantly more economical. The historical lessons of this relationship between energy sources, consumption and technological progress was well summarised by the late Julian Simon http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR11.txt

Prohibition sounds nice on paper, James. But let’s not forget the warning from history.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,605556,00.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel010401.shtml

A heavy dose of reservation is warranted about any authoritarian command-and-control solutions. Just consider the human and societal self-destruction wrought by the prohibition of private property. It is not that long ago that tens of thousands of scientists around the world were convinced that capitalism was the biggest problem and that societies devoid of private enterprise would turn Socialism into economic powerhouses and a workers paradise.

As the saying goes: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No question, political decisions have to be taken, but they need to be carefully costed and carefully tested. Most importantly, they need to show that they are effective and cost-effective. Otherwise, the economic and social demolition caused will, as so often, offset any envisaged gains.

]]> By: Steve Hemphill http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3773&cpage=1#comment-3694 Steve Hemphill Mon, 03 Apr 2006 04:07:19 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3773#comment-3694 What do you think the population would be right now on Earth if the average number of children would have been 2.1 per couple over the last 1,000,000 years? Figure it out. If you think cataclysm has not shaped Homo sapiens with mankind emerging stronger every time, you are very naive. But, that goes without saying if you believe in simplistic CO2 models. What do you think the population would be right now on Earth if the average number of children would have been 2.1 per couple over the last 1,000,000 years?

Figure it out. If you think cataclysm has not shaped Homo sapiens with mankind emerging stronger every time, you are very naive.

But, that goes without saying if you believe in simplistic CO2 models.

]]> By: coby http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3773&cpage=1#comment-3693 coby Mon, 03 Apr 2006 03:34:34 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3773#comment-3693 Just to add to the "dogpile on Benny", I am a little horrified that he characterises things like 75% death rate from bubonic plague and the 50 millions dying in the pandemic at the turn of the 20th century as "adapting" But if that is the benchmark he is aiming for, I agree we will meet it. Just to add to the “dogpile on Benny”, I am a little horrified that he characterises things like 75% death rate from bubonic plague and the 50 millions dying in the pandemic at the turn of the 20th century as “adapting”

But if that is the benchmark he is aiming for, I agree we will meet it.

]]> By: James Annan http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3773&cpage=1#comment-3692 James Annan Mon, 03 Apr 2006 03:09:37 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3773#comment-3692 It may be worth reminding Benny that in many cases, the way we have "adapted" to threats is by controlling or even banning what gives rise to the problem. When the benefits accrue to some and the costs to others, then some form of collective decision-making is pretty much the only option. It may be worth reminding Benny that in many cases, the way we have “adapted” to threats is by controlling or even banning what gives rise to the problem. When the benefits accrue to some and the costs to others, then some form of collective decision-making is pretty much the only option.

]]> By: john frankis http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3773&cpage=1#comment-3691 john frankis Sun, 02 Apr 2006 22:09:05 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3773#comment-3691 The fact that we've always been very good at adapting is indeed fair reason to hope. The ability of homo sapiens to adapt depends upon our mastery and application of reasoning you'd agree - not on our teeth, claws or good fortune - which we've always had to set against hysteria, alarmism, and the spreading of fear, uncertainty and doubt by those of lesser reasoning capabilities. You'll agree too that far from being 5m years old what we consider to be civilisation today is certainly less than 10k years old, but for your and my idea of "civilisation" better considered to be less than 3k years old. Perhaps only a few hundred years of modern civilisation - you tell me. The we've dominated the planet in macroecological terms for perhaps a couple of hundred years only, so we're actually in hitherto unseen territory today in terms of the consequences of our own impacts on our own backyard, globally speaking. There've been no civilisation threatening asteroids, volcanos, tsunamis or climate changes in the history of our civilisation either, you'll perhaps agree. I'll try to restate the thought experiment this way: had the world run out of (cheap) coal twenty years back and nuclear power be generating today the bulk of the world's electrical power - can you tell us whether you would expect that the world as a consequence would be an economic ruin even as we speak, maybe even something of a Stalinist hell-hole, or do you think we might have adapted OK in economic terms (as well as having far lower CO2 emissions I suppose)? And, who do you think is going to pay tomorrow for your clean coal technologies when their perhaps commie competitors are undercutting them all day long in the marketplace; isn't this mere wishful thinking on your part? The fact that we’ve always been very good at adapting is indeed fair reason to hope. The ability of homo sapiens to adapt depends upon our mastery and application of reasoning you’d agree – not on our teeth, claws or good fortune – which we’ve always had to set against hysteria, alarmism, and the spreading of fear, uncertainty and doubt by those of lesser reasoning capabilities. You’ll agree too that far from being 5m years old what we consider to be civilisation today is certainly less than 10k years old, but for your and my idea of “civilisation” better considered to be less than 3k years old. Perhaps only a few hundred years of modern civilisation – you tell me.

The we’ve dominated the planet in macroecological terms for perhaps a couple of hundred years only, so we’re actually in hitherto unseen territory today in terms of the consequences of our own impacts on our own backyard, globally speaking. There’ve been no civilisation threatening asteroids, volcanos, tsunamis or climate changes in the history of our civilisation either, you’ll perhaps agree.

I’ll try to restate the thought experiment this way: had the world run out of (cheap) coal twenty years back and nuclear power be generating today the bulk of the world’s electrical power – can you tell us whether you would expect that the world as a consequence would be an economic ruin even as we speak, maybe even something of a Stalinist hell-hole, or do you think we might have adapted OK in economic terms (as well as having far lower CO2 emissions I suppose)? And, who do you think is going to pay tomorrow for your clean coal technologies when their perhaps commie competitors are undercutting them all day long in the marketplace; isn’t this mere wishful thinking on your part?

]]>