Hi neolib; Re: "Conservatives generally claim the mantle of responsibility, and liberals are generally saddled with the label of shirking accountability."
This is BS, not that it matters. The liberals are constantly going on about how they are responsible for saving the world in all sorts of ways. Everyone claims "the mantle of responsibility", and accuses the other side of not caring about the future.
Re: "... 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."
The problem is that you don't have the slightest idea what the risk (or advantage) of long term nuclear use is. As far as turning rock into watts, ton for ton, nuclear energy is extremely efficient, especially with fast breeders. There are wastes produced, but the burning of coal produces vast wastes as well, and nuclear power contributes less to the CO2 load. For that matter, the manufacture of expensive wind energy turbines also produces waste, and based on the dollar cost of the raw materials consumed, it appears that wind energy therefore does have an environmental impact (and therefore an unfunded liability).
Re: "Let each individual make that choice with their wallet and their kids inheritance."
Hey, that's a good idea! Let's have the Democrats threaten consumers with being charged with unknown costs at some future date because of their using standard power now! Since there's not enough "green" power for even half the consumers, it's a certainty that most of them will be forced to risk their kids inheritances! With any luck at all, we can eliminate the Democrats forever! Great idea!
Re: "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."
If by "mining laws" you mean claims, I support the current system. Back during the socialist times of the 1930s, there was an attempt to retain ownership by the federal government. The overall effect of this sort of law change will be to eliminate small time prospectors (who cannot afford to bid on the right to develop) in favor of the big mining companies. I am against this sort of change. The way the system is set up now, the small guys have a chance.
If by "mining laws" you mean laws about reclamation and the like, then I say that the US has quite progressive laws on this and no change need be made. I've looked at more than my share of old mines and once they're 50 years old they are usually difficult to recognize. If the tailings piles are big enough they will be recognizable, at least if you know what to look for, but even old tailings from sulphide ore mines in low rainfall regions will, after 50 years, have their tops covered by new growth. And these are lands that were abandoned with no reclamation whatsoever.
It is always possible to find some really bad environmental cases out there, but the same could be said about any other industry. Instead of looking at the worst cases, I suggest you look instead at the average. For that matter, there are plenty of streams in the mineralized parts of the West that were already sterile long before anyone started mining there.
Re: "I happen to think that things like nuclear energy as well as global warming are handled in a similarly poor fashion."
Hey, if you want to get rid of nuclear energy, then accept the increase in global warming. And if you want to reduce CO2 production, then warm yourself up to nuclear energy.
Re: "I’ve seen estimates that 8% of S. Dakota real estate could supply 100% of the US electricity."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
This reminds me of the enviro-weedies that are always going on about how marijuana makes better and cheaper paper than trees. Here it is, 30 years after the big oil crisis and no one has had the brilliant idea: "hey, let's make ourselves rich with wind generated electricity". Give me a break.
Re: "Before it is submerged, Florida will turn a deep shade of blue."
Unfortunately, there is no way for the politicians of Florida (or the US as a whole) to significantly influence world production of CO2. Local pollution can be affected by local politicians, but global production of CO2 is quite immune. The Kyoto treaty was toothless.
So Florida, or the US in general, turns "deep blue". The Democrats are elected. Now what the hell are they going to deliver to their constituency? Certainly they won't be able to sweep back the sea. On the other hand, there are some other things that they can deliver: more and easier abortion, more acceptance of lifestyles the general public finds abhorrent (atheists, swingers, gays, etc.), more government intrusion in the workplace, etc. A few years afterwards, when it becomes obvious that (a) the Democrats cannot possibly deliver on global warming and (b) the Democrats have a bunch of other issues that they will deliver on, but that are unpopular, the Republicans will return to office.
A long-term problem for the Democrats is that their leaders tend to be "true believers" that are in power in order to change the world. Because of this, Democrats tend to support things that have a long term effect of giving power to the Republicans. When Democrats want to cut their throats (sometimes with the assistance of the judiciary), the Republicans will not get in their way. A great example of this was Johnson and Civil rights. The result was that Nixon got elected and what did he do? Naturally, he saw the trend and signed more civil rights legislation. Bill Clinton's success was largely due to his concentration on simply retaining personal power, rather than pushing the Democratic agenda. This country needs two parties in order to maintain a balanced government, but the Democrats concentrate their power in the judiciary while the Republicans concentrate theirs in the legislative and executive.
When the water starts rising around Florida, the enviros will, as usual, go on and on about how it's all our fault. This will go over about as well as Jimmy Carter's reelection campaign. The Republicans will suggest building dikes, just like the Netherlands. Then the enviros will claim that dikes would harm the environment (they're basically against doing anything "manmade"), but when it comes down to choosing between possible damage to the environment, and losing their home, the public will vote for dikes and to hell with the environment.
This conversation reminds me of the ones before the war when the left wing was so certain that the American public would punish Bush for his war in Iraq that they put up a candidate so left wing that he couldn't beat the stupidest president in modern history.
Re: "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."
The environmentalists pretty much eliminated research and development of nuclear power in the US. The result of this has been a significant increase in fossil fuel usage. This is a "future liability" that, by your own logic, should be attributed to the people who stopped nuclear power.
But take a real look at the politics behind your idea. You're trying to take the example of the lawsuits against the tobacco companies and apply it to the usage of energy. The only reason the tobacco lawsuits went over is because (a) tobacco companies don't have very many votes, and (b) only a fraction of the population smokes and they're not proud of it. Compare this with, for example, driving. Almost all voters drive, so you're going to make drivers liable for an unknown liability? DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THAT'S A GOOD IDEA FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY?
From my point of view, the long term political health of this country is due to its two party system. The kind of thinking you're coming up with will destroy the Democratic party. This could lead to some pretty harsh times. Try thinking smaller.
-- Carl |
