On 01/30/2013 04:47 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > What danger?!? There is not ONE action proposed to combat global > warming that would be dangerous. Most of the changes would be > beneficial in their own right, even if turns out global warming is not > happening. What objection can you have to electric cars or the > increased use of wind energy? Even adding a few hundred nuclear power > plants would cause no danger if it is done right. >
The danger is in the inefficiency. Electric cars and wind energy, is not present in the numbers you envision, because they are more expensive than proven internal combustion engines and fossil fuel. Forcing people to use these alternatives makes the cost of transportation and energy far more expensive than it would otherwise be. This hurts those at the bottom rung of the economic ladder the hardest. The market is the most efficient mechanism for supplying consumer needs. You would have to artificially limit the availability of fossil fuels to change the production of such goods and services today. This is why I always favor the moral solution to such problems, because it allows people to choose their own courses for their own lives, and enriches them more. The moral solution is free of violence and the threat of violence that governments impose when trying to change the structure of society for some external reason. Such a change may be necessary, but only if the Earth were definitely being threatened. Craig
