0
brenthutch

Global warming results in below average temps.

By brenthutch, in Speakers Corner

Recommended Posts

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
[Reply]If a person is doing something that will have ill effects on the other members of the society or a public resource (like clean air, drinking water, power, etc), it is totally within the purview of the government to regulate that activity.



Understood. But what is happening is that it is political, ie, money is being brought from the public and concentrated into one or two places. It's not "regulating" but is "redistributing" for a stated purpose of accomplishing some goal.

Example: I have burn restrictions preventing wood fireplace burning in the winter due to particulate and air pollution. That's fine - regulation of a commons (the alternative is for my neighbor to sue me for nuisance, which is how self-regulation used to work). But what's going on in climate policy is that it is placing the priority on removing carbon. Remediation. And because it is expensive and inefficient, it must be subsidized. Thus instead of paying the true cost for a product, i.e. $10 for a green widget when the other widget is $5, the taxpayer will pay $4 for the green widget to cost $6 for the sale. Making it competitive in the marketplace but constituting a windfall for the green manufacturer. And all because of the threat for the future. Meanwhile, the cure may be worse than the disease (we saw that a decade ago with MTBE as a fuel additive - for the environment).

[Reply]If the state of California says, "New homes must be capable of maintaining a temperature between X and Y without using more than Z kWh per year".



Yep. They can do that. Kinda like banning incandescent bulbs. We can, of course, obtain them. There's quite a black market set up.

And it would be just like the government to do that, thus making sure that homes on the central coast of Cali must meet the same standard for heating and cooling as homes in Barstow or Tahoe.

[Reply]If a person wants a house that isn't as energy efficent (and thus likely costs less), they should build it somewhere other than California.



Funny - businesses are leaving California in droves. They can leave. Thus ensuring that there is no net benefit. Businesses are leaving the US, too. That whole "human nature" thing.

It's how policies end up having high costs with low benefits that enrich a few.

[Reply]You certainly have a right to prioritize a 5-star crash rating over fuel economy, however you must understand that every extra gallon of fuel you purchase is a gallon that is unavailable to the rest of your community.



Actually, I don't view it that way. Every gallon I purchase is money out of my pocket. There's the argument. But to me it's peace-of-mind - paying more for fuel is worth my peace of mind knowing that if somebody falls asleep in a smart car and crosses the center divider my and my kids' chances of surviving are way higher than if I had a Prius. It's like paying for insurance - peace of mind. Because it's what I value.

[Reply]If they decide to place per-capita limitations on fuel consumption, you'll be free to abide by such rules or move.



Like the per capita limitations on the purchase of marijuana, I'm sure it will be effective. Government just loves to create black markets.

[Reply]And I'm not talking about immediately evacuating X' MSL. It's more about changing long-term land-use planning, building codes, zoning, and considering potential futures when planning infrastructure projects (e.g. if we want fewer CO2 emissions per capita, we should make denser urban areas, restrict suburban sprawl, make mass transit more user-friendly, etc).



Right. Decreasing CO2 by increasing populations density (and all the problems it causes - which aren't marginal) leads to other issues. Building up requires energy, as does the energy required to simply transfer things like water up to tall buildings. Problems with disease vectors. And if power ever goes out for a week (plausible) you've now got millions of people without power, meaning no water or food. Some dig city life. Some dig a more pastoral existence. Some people (like me) actually like having a back yard where I can grow some food and have the kids play. Urbanization and "home garden" are not two words that go together.

It's a neat thing - we all have different things we find important. When one looks at CO2 remediation as being the most important thing then other matters start to be secondary and it leads to things like packing people in cities, putting them on buses and rail, megamart shopping, etc. It works for some.

And you're right - if I don't like it I can move. Which is, of course, exactly what one would expect a despot to say. I say there is room for Megapolis. Suburb and rural. I won't promote a policy that requires people to live on farms - seems to me to be just wrong.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites