Quote:
Originally Posted by
vinea 
No. Reduction of energy use and dependence on foreign oil has national benefits outside the environment. Redution of pollution reduces costs and improves health for US citizens and therefore has national benefits outside the environment.
As a consequence of a market supply/demand and capital flow to profitable enterprises all energy development has national benefits outside the environment. Selling/leasing drilling in ANWAR, off shore, etc is very beneficial in reducing dependence AND helping many State economies. Reduction of pollution can have benefits, depending on the cost of pollution reduction vs the value of the benefit.
There is no pat answer to externalities, other than economic. For example it is nonsensical to burn a trillion dollars of wealth to prevent a hundred billion in damages. The calculus for a totally pollution free world is so costly as to ensure human misery and death from a simple lack of other resourcess. The richer industrializing countries, even with some pollution, provides a better life than a desperately poor one, no matter how pure the air.
The answer to pollution is cost/benefit ... which is not a slogan but an objective calculation.
Quote:
The data as shown appear to disagree. Reduction in ice caps and glaciers is not subject to debate or require significant analysis. These are easily verified using commonly available imagery from Google and others. They certainly are lower than in the past 100 years and further based on oral/historical accounts.
Actually they are open to debate. While there seems to be a general agreement that we have exited the little ice age (since 1850) the degree of warming as well as the contributions from various sources is still open to dispute.
But I would agree that the earth has grown milder...a good thing!
Quote:
There is a wealth of data available. There is also some data reserved for the project scientists to write their papers first before other folks get to use the data. This seems to be pretty common....In any case, these are unsupported accusations of unarmed scientists. There are many scientists that release data, methods and calculations.
You misunderstand. The issue is that the so called scientists routinely refuse to identify they use, in totality. Without knowing the specific datasets, and the data elements drawn from those sets, it makes it hard to audit a study or its claims. Without knowing the stepwise procedures, or providing documentation, it also makes an audit very difficult.
See
www.climateaudit.org for a run-down. I think I also provided prior links in this thread (Ill check).
Quote:
"...and perhaps improving the quality of life while using many resources is also a good thing. These kind of eco-judgments are always based on subjective and collective 'engineering' of human well-being - this kind of 'input-output' formula for human happiness eludes me. "
This is nonsense. If we can continue to increase our standard of living while reducing the resources we need we are more competitive in the world marketplace able to export more and import less. This also implies technological improvements and more opportunities for the US to excel.
Again, you have some kind of social engineering - Soviet style mentality. As every economist knows the use of resources is based on supply and demand, and resultant market price. The usefulness of lowering the use of resources for a given unit of production depends on land (resources), capital, and labor. Cheap and plentiful resources may play small role in the cost of production (i.e. capital and labor may play a much greater role). It may/may not make sense to invest a lot of money to reducing the cost of resources, and it may make more sense to improve rates of productivity or higher more skilled workers, etc. It just depends on the product.
AND supply and demand also direct investment. If price rises, investment flows towards increasing supply and/or using it more efficiently (and thus lowering the price). So let the price rise.
Your simple view is that of a lay person. Even if you have never taken economics you should understand the key to lowering the unit cost of producing a Kebler cookie (for example) is not in telling the baker to use less flour and fewer chocolate chips. That is short-sighted.
Quote:
"As my background is economics, I rather think supply meeting demand is a good thing."
I suggest you need to revisit estimates of Chinese growth in resource use. Doesn't seem like you are all that much better informed in your own field of expertise that you have significant latitude to criticize climate scientists.
Your statement is incomprehensible. Chinese growth would be impossible if supply were not meeting demand, that is why it is a good thing. And the supplies are meeting demand because as price nudges upward, more supplies are found.
Yes supply meeting demand is not only a good thing, it is the core of an introduction to economics. As demand inceases, price increases, then supply increases. Get a textbook.
Quote:
Because you are being obtuse. There are environmentalists that would dismantle our military and commercial capabilities and are anti-technology in general. There are environmentalists that are pro-business and are pro-technology.
Sure there are, like Bjon Borg. However, most environmental activists are not pro INDUSTRY - they love the 'soft' products without material substance (e.g. Gore and Google). However, they don't like auto manufacturers ('the big three'), developers, steel makers, oil drillers, etc. - the people that feed, house, transport, and cloth us. NOPE, environmentalists are touchy-feely types who adore 'virtual reality' crapola.
Which is Gore? Gore is a new age type - he first made his own mark in politics, and has moved his family money (from politics, tobacco, and oil) to 'soft' techie products. Now that he is a celebrity, he gets appointed to boards and gets lots of stock options. I don't consider Gore one of the producer class - he is just a variation of the 2nd rate political elite looter. He could no more manage a factory than he could get through law school.
Quote:
Why pull our oil out of the ground at $64 a barrel when we know that in 20 years it will be worth far more?
Because it may make sense NOW when oil prices push us into economic slowdowns. Let the market decide.
Look Vinea, all you are doing is pushing cliques (I'm waiting for the addiction to oil mantra). If you have not even taken a single economics course, I am not sure any further discussion will help you. And I don't have time to teach the basics of supply, demand, marginal cost, free riders, risk & profit, etc.
Till then, if you want to read my take, go to climate audit. They make a number of good points (esp. today) that may give you a glimpse of what is behind my skeptical view on climate science.
