Hi Carl:
I love how the liberals always manage to come up with these "heads I win, tails you lose" proposals
Conservatives generally claim the mantle of responsibility, and liberals are generally saddled with the label of shirking accountability. So I don't understand your comment. Furthermore, my proposal in effect is to monetarize the risk of long term nuclear use. I'm taking no sides on whether the current estimates of long term cleanup and storage are being correctly included in the sale of such energy. Let each individual make that choice with their wallet and their kids inheritance. I don't live in Nevada either, where understandably some individuals might take a more critical view of such estimates.
In one sense I agree with you however. American society tends to favor a capitalistic view of reward, and a socialistic view of risk, an asymmetry I would like to see changed. Mining laws and practices are probably the most classic example of this. I happen to think that things like nuclear energy as well as global warming are handled in a similarly poor fashion. My preference for addressing the reward/risk asymmetry is to adopt a capitalistic view of risk, a view I would nominally call conservative, not liberal. The liberal approach would be to socialize the reward side of the equation instead.
The simple fact is that there isn't enough wind power to give people the power that they want. The only solution is either nukes, or raising rates high enough to price most people out of the market.
Depends on how aggressive we want to be on wind. I’ve seen estimates that 8% of S. Dakota real estate could supply 100% of the US electricity. But that is a lot of windmills. I happen to think that more direct means of solar to energy hold the most likely promise, just my WAG.
If you want the Democratic party to revive, I suggest building lots of nukes. If you insist instead on raising prices high enough that people will cut back on their expenditures, you'll discover that California can be a red state too.
Rather than try and sweep back the ocean (and make a significant change in world CO2 emissions), it would be better to spend effort trying to figure out how, for example, Florida is going to deal with being underwater.
Before it is submerged, Florida will turn a deep shade of blue. CA as well. If the eastern US becomes arid, you’ll see all those states blue as well.
Regarding early ag on warming. I have read some of that before. The problem as always is in determining ancient causes. Did you catch that line about “after ruling out other causes”?
There is a good-sized group of individuals, including some prominent scientists (I’d guess more economists than ecologists) that think global warming is great news. The models, such as they are suggest that my area will see increased rainfall, more mild winters, and surprisingly, more mild summers. So it would work well for me. But other areas, that are pleasant and productive ag land now, might well become deserts.
So I would like to see consumption of all greenhouse-emitting sources also tracked, for future liability. When you fill up the SUV (or moped) you are also purchasing the long-term liability. Make both risk and reward market based. I would much prefer that to a regulatory framework which is the traditional liberal approach to most problems.
PS, I once strayed to the Politics for Pros thread, and somehow this subject came up. The idea of monetarizing risk was universally abhorred by the inhabitants of that thread (mostly conservatives) so you may be correct that conservatives are morally opposed to accountability. But if so, someone should inform the Republican Party, so it can changes its tune as needed. |
