On 11/17/2013 4:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 8:41 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 11/16/2013 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
But I certainly take your point that there is a reason the government is
trusted.  However, it is not the government that is warning us about
warming.  It is in the scientific research literature.  You didn't find
about drones or drugs or the Patriout act in Physical Review or even in
No, but then they come up with this plan

What plan?  Where is it?  As far as I know there is no plan whatsoever.
Here with "they" I mean the people with the most political clout,
access to the media an so on who campaign for the reduction of CO2
emissions. Their demand seems to be for the signing of a global
treaty. This is a demand for empowering governments to further
regulate economic activity, now at a global scale, and one of the main
suggestions is some global tax based on carbon emissions. Is this not

That's the market based approach to reducing CO2 emissions by charging for the externalities. But there is no treaty even on the table to require any particular solution or even to enforce any degree of reduction.

that the way to solve the
problem is to give more power to the above-mentioned government.

So even the proposals don't give any new power to governments - they always had the power to tax.

You're protesting against a plan that you imagine.

proposed solution that does not involve further government intrusion
in our lives is rejected.

What solution is that?
More nuclear power and geo-engineering. Both these proposals exists
and there is interest on the part of investors. They are always met
with a lot of resistance from environmentalists. I'm not saying that
all of this resistance is unjustified, caution is a good thing in
these matters, but I definitely see a lot of resistance that comes
from some moral framework that sees these ideas as fundamentally
immoral, even more so if someone can profit from them.

Sure, there's a lot of luddite resistance fed by scares like Fukushima. The important role I see for government is driving the R&D to LFTRs. It's too big and too politically risky to expect private investment to take it on. It needs government funded and government protected development - just like the internet, spaceflight, uranium reactors, vaccination, intercontinental railroads, and just about any other really big technological development.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to