• Sharebar

If there is one bright spot to the financial crisis it is the slowdown of the global hype machine that is Global Warming.

This closeted socialist doctrine has thankfully left the headlines for the time being.

But don't be fooled into thinking it gone for good.

During the current de facto moratorium on the subject, I think it a reasonable idea to reminisce over its lunacy and true intended goals. As your generation moves towards being the decision making body of our country and our world it bares worth examining not just the short run cost benefits of an idea, but the long term impacts, as well.

Militant environmentalism is nothing more than a pseudo socialist power grab and I always enjoy seeing it debunked in public. Carbon tariffs, quotas and taxes are not the topic du jour these days, but it is good to remember that they are constantly lurking around the next corner...waiting to take more dollars of your paycheck and out of your pocket.

Now that my rant for the day is complete, I would like to proudly present to some and reintroduce to others...

The World's Most Highly Regarded and

Respected Speaker on The Subject

The President of the Czech Republic, Mr. Vaclav Klaus.

I wholeheartedly reiterate my suggestion to read his bookand learn in depth.

For those who are interested in a more academic perspective on the subject, however, here is HBS's James Heskettand his widely circulated paper on the market impact angle.

Comments (83)

  • happypantsmcgee's picture

    Someone I know talked to you about that book once

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • In reply to coach.captain
    happypantsmcgee's picture

    coach.captain wrote:
    Seriously Midas? Please stop watching Fox News. It fucks up your brain.

    There are a lot of people much smarter than you that think Global Warming is a scam. Environmental engineers, scientists, etc.

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • coach.captain's picture

    Well, the majority of the scientists in the world state global warming is real and its effects are real. And it is man made.

    I'm not talking about the few conspiracy theorists who believe global warming is a hoax made up by the left and Obama and muslims and gays and unicorns (yeah they're all working together to trick you..GET YOUR GUNS OUT).

  • coach.captain's picture

    And seriously...to have the title "Climate Control = Communism?", that's just pathetic. I know this is a wall street forum so obviously there will be a conservative bias but I mean lets not go mental.

  • Matthias's picture

    Regardless of all the political leanings and everything I think the easiest way to break this down is to look at it logically. The Earth is a systems that has largely been in balance or cyclical or whatever for 4+ billion years. Now humans come along and in the last 2000 years have reshaped the landscape, cut down trees, burned things, created all kinds of waste (nuclear, heavy metal, and otherwise). Just based on this its ridiculous to think the system won't change at all in response to what humans have done. Now to what extent it will change and in what ways is a different beast.

    Similar events have happened in the past - about 2.5 billion years ago the Earth had its first large scale "pollution crisis" as the oxygen concentration in the atmosphere went from around 1% to 15%. This led to one of the largest mass extinctions in Earth's history and life had to adapt and react and go from using anaerobic methods of respiration to aerobic. Of course this happened over hundreds of millions of years... So whether our carbon production now will cause a similar global crisis before we all kill each other in a global nuclear war is something I really don't know.

  • IlliniProgrammer's picture

    Midas,

    I hate to say it but you've gone off the deep end this time.

    Most academics I know accept global warming. And global temperatures this year are at their highest level ever, despite a very short-term average temperature measure being lower in the midst of rising average temperatures over the past 50 years.

    I think the real question is whether it is the government's role to stop negative externalities like global warming and air pollution. And if it isn't, where do we stop? If a large oil company spills millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, maybe they should leave it to homeowners to clean up the mess. Maybe when rich people commit fraud, they should be given a pass- because prosecuting them would constitute socialism. Maybe we should make society a place where he who has the most guns wins- to defend the weak and prevent injustice would constitute socialism.

    Of course, without the enforcement of contracts, property rights, and the elimination or recompense for negative externalities, we can't really have a capitalist society, either. Instead, what we really have without recompense for negative externalities is a plutocracy. That's just as inefficient, unfair, and anti-capitalist as communism.

    So here's the real question:

    -If an energy company dumps oil on my beach, should they be required to make me whole?
    -If a mine pollutes my groundwater, should they be allowed to walk away?
    -If somebody puts my property underwater, am I entitled to recompense from that person?

    If you answered those questions the way any capitalist would answer those question, then the answer must be that we need to do something to deal with global warming. Maybe it involves some combination of geoengineering and nuclear- both of which environmentalists will hate- but the fact is that we're dealing with a negative externality here and something has to be done to correct it.

  • In reply to IlliniProgrammer
    prinmemo's picture

    IlliniProgrammer wrote:
    Midas,

    I hate to say it but you've gone off the deep end this time.

    Most academics I know accept global warming. And global temperatures this year are at their highest level ever, despite a very short-term average temperature measure being lower in the midst of rising average temperatures over the past 50 years.

    I think the real question is whether it is the government's role to stop negative externalities like global warming and air pollution. And if it isn't, where do we stop? If a large oil company spills millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, maybe they should leave it to homeowners to clean up the mess. Maybe when rich people commit fraud, they should be given a pass- because prosecuting them would constitute socialism. Maybe we should make society a place where he who has the most guns wins- to defend the weak and prevent injustice would constitute socialism.

    Of course, without the enforcement of contracts, property rights, and the elimination or recompense for negative externalities, we can't really have a capitalist society, either. Instead, what we really have without recompense for negative externalities is a plutocracy. That's just as inefficient, unfair, and anti-capitalist as communism.

    So here's the real question:

    -If an energy company dumps oil on my beach, should they be required to make me whole?
    -If a mine pollutes my groundwater, should they be allowed to walk away?
    -If somebody puts my property underwater, am I entitled to recompense from that person?

    If you answered those questions the way any capitalist would answer those question, then the answer must be that we need to do something to deal with global warming. Maybe it involves some combination of geoengineering and nuclear- both of which environmentalists will hate- but the fact is that we're dealing with a negative externality here and something has to be done to correct it.

    nice post!

  • In reply to happypantsmcgee
    IlliniProgrammer's picture

    happypantsmcgee wrote:

    There are a lot of people much smarter than you that think Global Warming is a scam. Environmental engineers, scientists, etc.

    I dunno. Illinois' engineering program had a lot of very conservative profs- probably one or two steps away from the most conservative you can be while still calling yourself a serious academic. The bioengineers and geological engineers I knew all bought global warming beyond all reasonable doubt. They just had a lot of other solutions to it besides reducing energy consumption. You develop processes to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and convert it to graphite. You replace the coal plants with nuclear. You reduce natural gas emissions- one of the biggest drivers of global warming (not CO2). (Yes, cows produce more global warming emissions than some compact cars, but that is only a fraction of our CO2 emissions and even without cows, we'd be in trouble long run.)

    I think Al Gore permanently screwed up the global warming debate with "An Inconvenient Truth". Less fearmongering= better politics = less knee-jerk reactions that global warming is a scam.

    I guess my thing is that the US has been on an anti-regulation streak for the past 30 years. The deregulation that happened under Reagan was clearly healthy and necessary- and needs to stay. But the question is where do we stop? I think it needs to stop before we get to the point that only the rich and powerful are entitled to justice and the protection of their civil liberties and property rights.

  • Virginia Tech 4ever's picture

    Complete intellectual dishonesty from the Leftist crowd.

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64734

    "More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate."

  • IlliniProgrammer's picture

    Regardless, I am not worried about us turning into Venus in the long term as we will probably run out of flammable carbon before that happens. But we are already starting to feel the impacts of global warming, there was a lot less land during the carboniferous period when all of our oil/coal deposits were in the atmosphere, and at the very least, there is an obvious connection between human activity and atmospheric CO2. Take a look at the recessions in the graph and line them up with the US's economic recessions:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_data_mlo.svg

    We don't need a socialist environut solution- but we do need to start working on an engineering solution to global warming. We either need to focus on more nuclear power and perhaps solar satellites- or we need to focus on geoengineering where we remove carbon from the atmosphere or push SO2 into the upper atmosphere to increase the planet's albedo.

  • In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
    IlliniProgrammer's picture

    Virginia Tech 4ever wrote:
    Complete intellectual dishonesty from the Leftist crowd.

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64734

    "More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate."


    Dude, I normally agree with you on a lot of stuff, but I don't think WND is a reputable source. Regardless, this is a tiny fraction of the PhDs who support the notion of global warming and if you factor out all of the PhDs from more ideological and less research-oriented schools like Liberty University, the number is much smaller.

    Engineering at Va Tech has a lot of similarities to Illinois in terms of research strength and politics (maybe it is one step more conservative). How did your profs approach global warming? Didn't most of them buy it like at Illinois?

  • Virginia Tech 4ever's picture

    Anthropogenic global warming debate is basically Leftists/Europeans and American Democrats saying, "No, no, nope, no, no, the debate is over. The sun revolves around the earth. No, that guy is an MIT atomospheric scientist but he has no credibility. Nope, that scientist is from Colorado - Boulder but he has no credibility. He's a nut. Nope, those 31,000 scientists come from all types of fields, including unrelated fields, like engineering. Nope. Let's repeat it over and over again--the debate is over--and maybe the world will believe us."

  • In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
    IlliniProgrammer's picture

    Virginia Tech 4ever wrote:
    Anthropogenic global warming debate is basically Leftists/Europeans and American Democrats saying, "No, no, nope, no, no, the debate is over. The sun revolves around the earth. No, that guy is an MIT atomospheric scientist but he has no credibility. Nope, that scientist is from Colorado - Boulder but he has no credibility. He's a nut. Nope, those 31,000 scientists come from all types of fields, including unrelated fields, like engineering. Nope. Let's repeat it over and over again--the debate is over--and maybe the world will believe us."

    What is your take on the fact that the slope of the CO2 concentrations/time graph as measured at Mauna Loa is roughly correlated with global economic activity? In particular, the Arab Oil embargo caused a significant flattening of the atmospheric CO2 concentrations graph between 1973 and 1974? Is it all just a coincidence?

  • Virginia Tech 4ever's picture

    Illini, the argument isn't about whether or not there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, it's whether or not it creates significant global temperature change. There is DEFINITELY debate about that point. I'm sick and tired of you liberals telling us that the debate is over! That's part of the scientific method! Debate. Especially when there is considerable evidence on the other side and a huge number of people who disagree with the mainstream.

  • In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
    IlliniProgrammer's picture

    Virginia Tech 4ever wrote:
    Illini, the argument isn't about whether or not there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, it's whether or not it creates significant global temperature change. There is DEFINITELY debate about that point. I'm sick and tired of you liberals telling us that the debate is over! That's part of the scientific method! Debate. Especially when there is considerable evidence on the other side and a huge number of people who disagree with the mainstream.

    I'm not saying the debate is over. I'm just saying that if we accept that humans are causing CO2 increases and if we agree that CO2 is a global warming gas like what we see on Venus, and from earth's geological history, then it follows that it may be possible that human activities are causing the planet to warm up. I do know that if you do not believe the planet is more than 7,000 years old like some of the signatories rejecting global warming, that's definitely going to limit the evidence you have available to study.

    I am not a meteorologist, physicist, or geologist, so I don't know what an atmospheric CO2 increase from 320- 390 ppm over the past 50 years means. I do know that it's a 20% change in the fourth most prevalent gas in our atmosphere and that we see some relatively clear correlations between it and human behavior.

    Finally, one last overlooked part on the global warming front isn't CO2 emissions but CH4 emissions. Methane spends less time in the atmosphere than CO2, but it is a much more powerful warming agent. Human activities related to increased beef consumption and natural gas drilling might be responsible for a lot more global warming over the past 50 years than just CO2. So many of these scientists might have overlooked other warming connections besides just CO2.

    If there was a 10% chance trans fats dramatically increased your risk of a heart attack, would you stop eating Crisco?

    If there was a 5% chance that living immediately next to a power line increased your risk of cancer, would you think about building your house a couple dozen feet further from the lines if it were feasible and your front lawn still looke reasonable?

    That's my point. There's some strong evidence- both logical and modeled- in support of global warming- and you don't need a smoking gun to respond.

  • Virginia Tech 4ever's picture

    This debate is absurd. Neither of us is a scientist. Richard Lindzen from MIT could eviscerate every single one of your points about CO2. And plenty of scientists could, too.

    This approach to the debate gets so old by the Left. Attack the person, not his methods. Attack the funding, not the research. Attack everything that isn't relevant. Repeat over and over again, and in the most condescending way possible, that the debate is over and that almost no one rejects anthropogenic global warming. Throw up the same stats over and over again, many that have already been eviscerated by the skeptics. This tripe gets old. I grew up in D.C. around the most liberal of people--I know exactly your type, brother.

  • In reply to IlliniProgrammer
    Midas Mulligan Magoo's picture

    IlliniProgrammer wrote:
    Midas,

    I hate to say it but you've gone off the deep end this time.

    Most academics I know accept global warming. And global temperatures this year are at their highest level ever, despite a very short-term average temperature measure being lower in the midst of rising average temperatures over the past 50 years.

    I think the real question is whether it is the government's role to stop negative externalities like global warming and air pollution. And if it isn't, where do we stop? If a large oil company spills millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, maybe they should leave it to homeowners to clean up the mess. Maybe when rich people commit fraud, they should be given a pass- because prosecuting them would constitute socialism. Maybe we should make society a place where he who has the most guns wins- to defend the weak and prevent injustice would constitute socialism.

    Of course, without the enforcement of contracts, property rights, and the elimination or recompense for negative externalities, we can't really have a capitalist society, either. Instead, what we really have without recompense for negative externalities is a plutocracy. That's just as inefficient, unfair, and anti-capitalist as communism.

    So here's the real question:

    -If an energy company dumps oil on my beach, should they be required to make me whole?
    -If a mine pollutes my groundwater, should they be allowed to walk away?
    -If somebody puts my property underwater, am I entitled to recompense from that person?

    If you answered those questions the way any capitalist would answer those question, then the answer must be that we need to do something to deal with global warming. Maybe it involves some combination of geoengineering and nuclear- both of which environmentalists will hate- but the fact is that we're dealing with a negative externality here and something has to be done to correct it.

    Very disappointed with you IP. You haven't watched the videos or ( much more importantly) read the book, have you? I expect the usual ad hominem from our resident liberal idiots in attendance, but I'd like to think of you as the sort of person who researches an argument before he speaks or (in the least) is aware of what the argument is.

    The topic is not the validity of the global warming theorem (don't be so sure you are talking to the right people, there has yet to be anything but opinion presented on both sides of the argument), it is specifically about the underlying economic issues which serve to act as behavior modifiers and not problem or issue solvers.

    You should ask yourself why there has not been a single comment with regards to Mr. Klaus in this thread and then watch the videos again. I am sure you will find the answer poignant if you proceed unbiased.

  • In reply to TNA
    coach.captain's picture

    ANT wrote:
    I support the Tea Party. People need to read their actual stated goals instead of listening to CNN.

    Not CNN. The majority of the scientists in the world. Its a fact that the Earth is becoming warmer - if you don't believe that you're just an idiot and can't see what's happening in the world and are unable to read the facts.

    Where most scientists' opinions differ is the cause of this change, whether it is human made or part of the planet's natural cycle? And amongst most scientists, the consensus is that the rise in temperature is mainly due to greenhouse gas emissions.

    SOURCE : The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 2007
    "With the release of the revised statement[104] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming."

  • In reply to Midas Mulligan Magoo
    IlliniProgrammer's picture

    Midas Mulligan Magoo wrote:

    Very disappointed with you IP. You haven't watched the videos or ( much more importantly) read the book, have you? I expect the usual ad hominem from our resident liberal idiots in attendance, but I'd like to think of you as the sort of person who researches an argument before he speaks or (in the least) is aware of what the argument is.


    1.) Can't watch the videos at work.
    2.) Not an ad-hominem. Just think it's crazy to suggest that global warming is a liberal conspiracy. This is the right's equivalent of the left saying that Iraq was a Republican conspiracy. You'd say I'd gone off the deep end too if I posted an anti-capitalist conspiracy theory.

    Quote:
    The topic is not the validity of the global warming theorem (don't be so sure you are talking to the right people, there has yet to be anything but opinion presented on both sides of the argument), it is specifically about the underlying economic issues which serve to act as behavior modifiers and not problem or issue solvers.

    Yes. My point is that given global warming generates a contingent liability for people on the coasts, that's a negative externality that needs to get resolved. We either need to be paying coastal residents in low-lying areas money when we put CO2 into the air, or we need to consider spending some money on mitigating global warming's impact.

    Quote:
    You should ask yourself why there has not been a single comment with regards to Mr. Klaus in this thread and then watch the videos again. I am sure you will find the answer poignant if you proceed unbiased.

    There has not been a single comment with regard to Mr. Klaus in this thread because we can't see the video.

    And the notion that global warming is a liberal conspiracy is as silly as the notion that the fed is privately owned and the FOMC is appointed by corporations.

    I will agree with you that if you spend too much time watching/promoting an Inconvenient Truth- and there are a number of mischaracterizations in that movie, you will turn into a leftist. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Global Warming is a legitimate concern and traditional ways of resolving negative externalities in capitalist societies (regulating and transferring costs) are perfectly legitimate components of capitalism.

  • In reply to Virginia Tech 4ever
    Midas Mulligan Magoo's picture

    Virginia Tech 4ever wrote:
    This debate is absurd. Neither of us is a scientist. Richard Lindzen from MIT could eviscerate every single on eof your points about CO2. And plenty of scientists could, too.

    This approach to the debate gets so old by the Left. Attack the person, not his methods. Attack the funding, not the research. Attack everything that isn't relevant. Repeat over and over again, and in the most condescending way possible, that the debate is over and that almost no one rejects anthropogenic global warming. Throw up the same stats over and over again, many that have already been eviscerated by the skeptics. This tripe gets old.

    This is what makes Mr. Klaus such an intriguing character. He has spent a good chunk of the last decade traveling the debate circuit with Al Gore, debunking this emotion and bias perverted theorem.

    This is precisely why I made Vaclav Klaus the focus of this post. Notice, (as you already have) how the Jr. Marxist crowd has attacked everyone/everything in the thread except Vaclav Klaus.

    Perhaps it is not due do to ignorance, perhaps they are well aware (as most educated debaters of the topic outside of the U.S. are) the Mr. Klaus has been mopping the floor with Gore and his neocolonialist global tax vehicle, that he is the WORLD'S most sought after UNBIASED speaker on the subject, that nobody has ever publicly been able to refute ANYTHING he says on the subject.

    You have no clue how much fun I am having reading some of these comments. Pure comedy.

  • In reply to coach.captain
    txjustin's picture

    coach.captain wrote:
    ANT wrote:
    I support the Tea Party. People need to read their actual stated goals instead of listening to CNN.

    Not CNN. The majority of the scientists in the world. Its a fact that the Earth is becoming warmer - if you don't believe that you're just an idiot and can't see what's happening in the world and are unable to read the facts.

    Where most scientists' opinions differ is the cause of this change, whether it is human made or part of the planet's natural cycle? And amongst most scientists, the consensus is that the rise in temperature is mainly due to greenhouse gas emissions.

    SOURCE : The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 2007
    "With the release of the revised statement[104] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming."

    Please post a link that states most scientists believe global warming is because of greenhouse gases.

  • In reply to Midas Mulligan Magoo
    coach.captain's picture

    Midas Mulligan Magoo wrote:
    IlliniProgrammer wrote:
    Midas,

    I hate to say it but you've gone off the deep end this time.

    Most academics I know accept global warming. And global temperatures this year are at their highest level ever, despite a very short-term average temperature measure being lower in the midst of rising average temperatures over the past 50 years.

    I think the real question is whether it is the government's role to stop negative externalities like global warming and air pollution. And if it isn't, where do we stop? If a large oil company spills millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, maybe they should leave it to homeowners to clean up the mess. Maybe when rich people commit fraud, they should be given a pass- because prosecuting them would constitute socialism. Maybe we should make society a place where he who has the most guns wins- to defend the weak and prevent injustice would constitute socialism.

    Of course, without the enforcement of contracts, property rights, and the elimination or recompense for negative externalities, we can't really have a capitalist society, either. Instead, what we really have without recompense for negative externalities is a plutocracy. That's just as inefficient, unfair, and anti-capitalist as communism.

    So here's the real question:

    -If an energy company dumps oil on my beach, should they be required to make me whole?
    -If a mine pollutes my groundwater, should they be allowed to walk away?
    -If somebody puts my property underwater, am I entitled to recompense from that person?

    If you answered those questions the way any capitalist would answer those question, then the answer must be that we need to do something to deal with global warming. Maybe it involves some combination of geoengineering and nuclear- both of which environmentalists will hate- but the fact is that we're dealing with a negative externality here and something has to be done to correct it.

    You should ask yourself why there has not been a single comment with regards to Mr. Klaus in this thread and then watch the videos again. I am sure you will find the answer poignant if you proceed unbiased.

    As for the

    Really? That's your comeback...make a decision by watching Glenn Beck videos I put up? You're in finance and well respected on this forum, so I know you can't be a moron.

    Hate to say it but the nutjobs on the right screaming "Global warming is a hoax" sound a lot like the psychos on the left saying "9/11 was an inside job".

    Please STOP!

  • In reply to Midas Mulligan Magoo
    IlliniProgrammer's picture

    Midas Mulligan Magoo wrote:
    Perhaps it is not due do to ignorance, perhaps they are well aware (as most educated debaters of the topic outside of the U.S. are) the Mr. Klaus has been mopping the floor with Gore and his neocolonialist global tax vehicle, that he is the WORLD'S most sought after UNBIASED speaker on the subject, that nobody has ever publicly been able to refute ANYTHING he says on the subject.

    Klaus is a politician, often called the "Margie Thatcher" of the EU. But rather than going into attacks on him, I'm going to take some of his arguments- in an article I can actually read- head on:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/20...

    Quote:
    I am convinced this is a misguided strategy - not only because of the uncertainty about the dangers that global warming might pose, but also because of the certainty of the damage that policies aimed at mitigation will cause.

    Absolutely. In finance, we call this an out-of-the-money put or an insurance policy. You put up a certain amount of money right now to help mitigate something that may or may not be a problem later. It's actually a very capitalist, very conservative, very self-reliant concept. And given that there are no known extraplanetary entities to bail us out if we really screw this up, we *need* to play a bit of a conservative game on global warming.

    Quote:
    With the global financial crisis and the sudden economic downturn, two things are becoming clear. First, it will be difficult to afford these expensive new sources of energy. Second, energy rationing policies like cap-and-trade will be a permanent drag on economic activity. Ironically, emissions have not decreased as a result of these policies, but are doing so now as the world economy moves into recession.

    Yes, but there are other approaches that we can take which will have huge expected benefits in the future without being as big of a drag on our economy.

    For instance, generating electricity from nuclear ultimately costs about 2 cents/kwh in operating expenses and about 4 cents/kwh in capital expenses at a 10% ROI. This is about 1 cent more expensive than coal and natural gas. Why not provide subsidies for closing coal and natural gas plants and replacing them with nuclear plants so that we can mitigate the damage of global warming if science finds a smoking gun or much stronger evidence later?

    One other thing we can do is regulate natural gas pipelines and producers and limit CH4 emissions- a much more power warming agent. Devoting a little more energy here is something we can do to mitigate potential damage later. And the fact that there are legitimate, material concerns about global warming means that the government does have the authority to impose some modest restrictions on it until we have more information- in the same way that an injunction works.

    Quote:
    It is necessary to look at the bigger picture. Profits can be made when energy is rationed or subsidised, but only within an economy operating at lower, or even negative, growth rates. This means that over the longer term, everyone will be competing for a piece of a pie that is smaller than it would have been without energy rationing.

    Not necessarily true. You take steps to mitigate *NET* emissions by shifting towards nuclear, wind, and geoengineered carbon sequestration and you can still have a growing economy. It might not grow quite as fast, but we can still grow the energy base while keeping emissions under control.

    I still think the most important thing right now is to focus on making non-emissions generating technologies cost-effective rather than completely eliminating greenhouse gas emissions. If we allow nuclear plants to have their licenses extended to 80 years after a careful inspection by the NRC, regulate just natural gas emissions from fracking- which have a much more immediate and stronger impact on warming than CO2, and find ways to make wind and solar more cost effective- we can naturally bend the global warming curve down not necessarily between 2010 and 2020 but between 2020 and 2030.

    Quote:
    You have no clue how much fun I am having reading some of these comments. Pure comedy.

    Likewise :D It's interesting how some of the self-described capitalists seem to oppose any consideration for the property rights of coastal homeowners.

  • eokpar02's picture

    MMM, the man is a politician. He isn't an engineer or scientist. I hate how politicized global warming has become. Either carbon dioxide and nitrogenic emmissions are increasing the temperature of the globe or they aren't. While there are a few deniers, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists think global warming is a man made phenomena.

    To those denying climate change,/global warming, do you disagree with the science or do you disagree with the politcal affiliations/aspirations of those who believe it?

    I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
    -Styles P

  • IlliniProgrammer's picture

    Bottom line, when lower Manhattan floods in 40 years and employees at a certain prestigious lower-Manhattan BB investment bank need to take boats to work, I have a feeling that the ultraconservative business Republicans out there might become a little more capitalist when it comes to dealing with the negative externalities of global warming.

    In the late '70s, Jimmy Carter spent a lot of federal funding on energy research. Back then, conservatives called it a boondoggle. But a lot of that technology paved the way for higher mileage cars, economical wind turbines, and (perhaps soon) economical solar energy.

    I think we need to take a few of the next steps today- developing plans for rehabbing old nuclear reactors and keeping them safe, geoengineering the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, and perhaps working on carbon nanotubes that have the ability to act as a space elevator and economically get energy-collecting satellites into orbit. If we devote $5 Billion in research to these ends, it might just save us hundreds of billions in a decade or so like Carter's energy research initiatives.

    If we had to run our economy on mid '70s energy technology, the economy would still be in free-fall with oil at $90/barrel.

  • In reply to txjustin
    IlliniProgrammer's picture

    txjustin wrote:
    ^^^I'll ask you as well Eok, please post a link where it says "the overwhelming majority of climate scientists think global warming is a man made phenomena".

    I'll admit that's a strong statement, but here's a quick list of organizations that endorse global warming. You can find the actual citations at the bottom of the article. These organizations represent a double-digit multiple of the 9,000 scientists who signed a petition opposed to global warming:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...

    To be fair, most of these organizations don't argue that there is a total consensus. But I think "majority"- perhaps even "relatively strong majority"- is a fair term to use here.

    And I'll admit there's not a 100% chance of global warming. But if there were a 10% chance or a 20% chance, wouldn't it be worth taking at least some moderate economic action on? Maybe not to the point where we're cutting economic growth by 1%, but perhaps by 0.1%? I think the put might be worth at least worth that much growth- about $13 Billion/year of the US GDP.

    When the market gets overbought and a correction is *possible* though not necessarily likely, the conservative course of action is to maybe buy puts on 25-40% of your portfolio if they're cheap. Not because you're hoping a correction will happen but because just in case you get one, you're a little bit safer.

    The irony here is that deep out of the money puts on global warming benefit from *NEGATIVE* kurtosis and skew. It's pretty darned easy to draw up a plan as to how we're going to approach global warming if we have to deal with it than to be 100% certain it won't be a problem. And developing cheap, efficient non-GHG-generating technology now is a really cheap way for the government to fulfill its role of mitigating and transferring negative externalities.

    Emissions caps are a very heavy-handed way of mitigating the negative externality. But if we can figure out a way to make wind or nuclear cheaper than coal so that we don't have to worry about the negative externality in the first place and the economy gets more efficient, everyone wins.

  • In reply to txjustin
    eokpar02's picture

    txjustin wrote:
    ^^^I'll ask you as well Eok, please post a link where it says "the overwhelming majority of climate scientists think global warming is a man made phenomena".

    Lets make this a closed example. Lets only include scientists from America, Canada, the UK, and Northern Europe.

    Using those parameters, there are 1372 engineers and scientists who are actively doing research, writing and investigating climate science. Of those 1372 active climatologists, 97% believe that climate change is man made! Also, their is a prominence gap.

    Many of those supporting the claim are prolific researchers on meterology and climate, while the there are very few deniers who are prominent in climate science.

    the telegraph wrote:

    Climate change sceptic scientists 'less prominent and authoritative'
    Scientists who believe in man-made climate change have better scientific credentials than global warming sceptics, according to a study.

    Scientists were grouped as "convinced" or "unconvinced", and researchers examined how many times they had published papers on the climate By Nick Collins 8:03AM BST 22 Jun 2010
    38 Comments
    The research indicates that scientists who blame human activity for global warming have published more relevant and influential papers than those who question man's impact.

    The analysis of climate scientists claims the "vast majority" of climate change researchers agree on the issue, and that those who oppose the consensus are "not actually climate researchers or not very productive researchers".

    But the study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has been dismissed as misleading by critics.

    Opponents said that the paper divided scientists into artificial groups and did not consider a balanced spectrum of scientists.

    They also pointed out that climate sceptics often struggled to get their papers accepted by journals, as they must first be reviewed and approved by climate change "believers".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clima...
    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/...
    Again, I think this is an issue that has been hijacked by large companies that would be affected by any benevolent legislation on climate change and by prominent, active environmental groups.

    I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
    -Styles P

  • MMBinNC's picture

    Although I am not sure what causes global warming, I think that we should try to move towards sustainable energy for purely economics reasons. Our dependance on OPEC is disgusting, independence from them will be better in the future. Continued investment in alternative energy will bring costs down to sustainable levels eventually. I don't think carbon caps are good for this, we need to invest in finding a cheaper way of doing non-carbon energy production.

    Reality hits you hard, bro...

  • In reply to MMBinNC
    eokpar02's picture

    MMBinNC wrote:
    Although I am not sure what causes global warming, I think that we should try to move towards sustainable energy for purely economics reasons. Our dependance on OPEC is disgusting, independence from them will be better in the future. Continued investment in alternative energy will bring costs down to sustainable levels eventually. I don't think carbon caps are good for this, we need to invest in finding a cheaper way of doing non-carbon energy production.

    Of course. I have been doing research on wave reactors. Wave reactors use nuclear waste to generate heat. Currently, we have enough waste to provide electricity to every American household, nonstop, for 200 years. We really need to convert al electricity production into nuclear and nuclear waste.

    I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
    -Styles P

  • IlliniProgrammer's picture

    A little more color on the scientific views on global warming:

    Quote:
    Bray and von Storch, 2008Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[107] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[108]

    The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

    In the section on climate change impacts questions 20, 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20 "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" got 67.1% very much agree, 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

    It's interesting to note that most scientists agree with the notion of anthropogenic global warming, but a sizeable number disagree or think the impact will be small.

    Bottom line is that it seems like a relatively strong majority of scientists who responded to a survey publicized in both pro and anti global warming circles agree with global warming, but a majority also don't seem to hold incredibly strong convictions about it. I think that's enough for a well-reasoned response that's mildly inconvenient to economic growth, but not a panicked rush to stop GHG emissions from increasing like many environmentalists are advocating.

    I don't think there is any evidence that environmentalist is a communist plot. In fact, the last communists were very anti-environmentalist.

  • In reply to TNA
    awm55's picture

    ANT wrote:
    I support the Tea Party. People need to read their actual stated goals instead of listening to CNN.

    Everyone wants fiscal responsibility, but something like 82% (i may be off by a few percentage points) of tea baggers think Obama raised their taxes with just isn't true. With people like Michele Bachmann (who literally is insane, like really really insane) running the party, I can't really take them seriously.

  • In reply to coach.captain
    awm55's picture

    coach.captain wrote:
    Midas Mulligan Magoo wrote:
    IlliniProgrammer wrote:
    Midas,

    I hate to say it but you've gone off the deep end this time.

    Most academics I know accept global warming. And global temperatures this year are at their highest level ever, despite a very short-term average temperature measure being lower in the midst of rising average temperatures over the past 50 years.

    I think the real question is whether it is the government's role to stop negative externalities like global warming and air pollution. And if it isn't, where do we stop? If a large oil company spills millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, maybe they should leave it to homeowners to clean up the mess. Maybe when rich people commit fraud, they should be given a pass- because prosecuting them would constitute socialism. Maybe we should make society a place where he who has the most guns wins- to defend the weak and prevent injustice would constitute socialism.

    Of course, without the enforcement of contracts, property rights, and the elimination or recompense for negative externalities, we can't really have a capitalist society, either. Instead, what we really have without recompense for negative externalities is a plutocracy. That's just as inefficient, unfair, and anti-capitalist as communism.

    So here's the real question:

    -If an energy company dumps oil on my beach, should they be required to make me whole?
    -If a mine pollutes my groundwater, should they be allowed to walk away?
    -If somebody puts my property underwater, am I entitled to recompense from that person?

    If you answered those questions the way any capitalist would answer those question, then the answer must be that we need to do something to deal with global warming. Maybe it involves some combination of geoengineering and nuclear- both of which environmentalists will hate- but the fact is that we're dealing with a negative externality here and something has to be done to correct it.

    You should ask yourself why there has not been a single comment with regards to Mr. Klaus in this thread and then watch the videos again. I am sure you will find the answer poignant if you proceed unbiased.

    As for the

    Really? That's your comeback...make a decision by watching Glenn Beck videos I put up? You're in finance and well respected on this forum, so I know you can't be a moron.

    Hate to say it but the nutjobs on the right screaming "Global warming is a hoax" sound a lot like the psychos on the left saying "9/11 was an inside job".

    Please STOP!

    Are you serious? There are a ton of republicans who don't agree with the global warming consensus, last time I checked the dems were not taking to the floor of the house and claiming 9/11 was an inside job.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAaDVOd2sRQ

    If you want to see some of the nutjobs the repubs have in their party (and endorse for christ sake) look at this video of Michele Bachmann. People like this should not even be given the time of day.

  • In reply to awm55
    coach.captain's picture

    awm55 wrote:
    coach.captain wrote:
    Midas Mulligan Magoo wrote:
    IlliniProgrammer wrote:
    Midas,

    I hate to say it but you've gone off the deep end this time.

    Most academics I know accept global warming. And global temperatures this year are at their highest level ever, despite a very short-term average temperature measure being lower in the midst of rising average temperatures over the past 50 years.

    I think the real question is whether it is the government's role to stop negative externalities like global warming and air pollution. And if it isn't, where do we stop? If a large oil company spills millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, maybe they should leave it to homeowners to clean up the mess. Maybe when rich people commit fraud, they should be given a pass- because prosecuting them would constitute socialism. Maybe we should make society a place where he who has the most guns wins- to defend the weak and prevent injustice would constitute socialism.

    Of course, without the enforcement of contracts, property rights, and the elimination or recompense for negative externalities, we can't really have a capitalist society, either. Instead, what we really have without recompense for negative externalities is a plutocracy. That's just as inefficient, unfair, and anti-capitalist as communism.

    So here's the real question:

    -If an energy company dumps oil on my beach, should they be required to make me whole?
    -If a mine pollutes my groundwater, should they be allowed to walk away?
    -If somebody puts my property underwater, am I entitled to recompense from that person?

    If you answered those questions the way any capitalist would answer those question, then the answer must be that we need to do something to deal with global warming. Maybe it involves some combination of geoengineering and nuclear- both of which environmentalists will hate- but the fact is that we're dealing with a negative externality here and something has to be done to correct it.

    You should ask yourself why there has not been a single comment with regards to Mr. Klaus in this thread and then watch the videos again. I am sure you will find the answer poignant if you proceed unbiased.

    As for the

    Really? That's your comeback...make a decision by watching Glenn Beck videos I put up? You're in finance and well respected on this forum, so I know you can't be a moron.

    Hate to say it but the nutjobs on the right screaming "Global warming is a hoax" sound a lot like the psychos on the left saying "9/11 was an inside job".

    Please STOP!

    Are you serious? There are a ton of republicans who don't agree with the global warming consensus, last time I checked the dems were not taking to the floor of the house and claiming 9/11 was an inside job.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAaDVOd2sRQ

    If you want to see some of the nutjobs the repubs have in their party (and endorse for christ sake) look at this video of Michele Bachmann. People like this should not even be given the time of day.

    I agree.

  • heister's picture

    The arguement is not about polution and the likes, the arguement the guest is providing is that should countries give up their sovergenity to a group of "elites' that have dollar signs on their mind more so than really trying to clean up the problem. For example GE gave massive amounts to the obama admin and now they have a guy in the admin making economic ploicy. The problem I think that alot of people have with this is that no one stops to think about how much power is actually being concentrated by this. Take the democrats for example, the self procalaimed "champions of the poor" passed the cap and trade bill that taxes forms of energy that are generated in high polution ways. The estimated cost of the cap and trade bill was around 1400 dollars a year per household. The cost isnt the only problem the tax money generated was supposed to go to boost green and renewable energy, here lies the big problem. The major renewable projects are going on in places where there is lower proverty levels. This ensurse that the areas that are more well off are hurt less from the taxes than those who arent. So in a sense you are taking money from people who are much more harmed by this and giving it to people who arent.

    Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

    Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Pages