On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Chris de Morsella <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > >>I am certainly in favor of energy efficiency, only a fool would not be, > but it is not the solution to our energy problem because when a commodity > like energy becomes cheaper people simply use more of it. If somebody > invented a gadget that doubled the fuel efficiency of jetliners it would > not cut in half the amount of fuel that airlines use because people would > fly more often and airplanes would hold fewer people due to their larger > more comfortable seats. > > > That is a failure of the markets. > The free market is only good at supplying people with the things they want, it has no opinion about what people should want. If there is a failure at all it is a failure in human nature; the first concern of the people of 1914 was not our well being and they would not have impoverished themselves to help us; likewise I say let the people of 2114 fight their own battles. > Energy and all other non-renewable and critical resources should be taxed > and taxed heavily > So you think it likely that people will not voluntarily use less energy but will vote for politicians who force then to do so. I don't. > Take phosphate for example -- the world is running out > Yeah yeah yeah, people are always screaming that the world is running out of X, but they forget that as technology improves new and better ways to produce X are found and so are substitutes for X. In 1980 pessimistic economist Paul Ehrlich (author of "The Population Bomb" ) made a bet with optimistic economist Julian Simon. Ehrlich thought we were about to run out of chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten so the price would skyrocket. On paper on September 29 1980 they bought $200 worth of each metal. If the inflation-adjusted prices of the 5 metals rose in the next 10 years Simon would pay Ehrlich the combined difference. If the prices fell, Ehrlich would pay Simon. Ehrlich lost the bet, after 10 years every one of the 5 metals was cheaper after 10 years and on September 29 1990 Ehrlich gave Simon a check for $576.07. You should also read a book by William Stanley Jevons called "The Coal Question", here are some quotations from it: "Are we wise in allowing the commerce of this country to rise beyond the point at which we can long maintain it?" "I must point out the painful fact that such a rate of growth will before long render our consumption of coal comparable with the total supply. In the increasing depth and difficulty of coal mining we shall meet that vague, but inevitable boundary that will stop our progress. Our progress is to be checked within half a century, yet by that time our consumption will probably be three or four times what it is now" The interesting thing is that this book was written in 1865. >>By the way, have you noticed that politicians are always urging us to >> conserve energy but they don't seem to find it necessary to command us to >> conserve angular momentum? >> > > > Is there any real point here; or is this a political rant freebie? > It's a serious physics question and it has an answer. Both are equally valid laws of nature so why do you think politicians beg us to conserve energy but not angular momentum? John K Clark -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
