But I do keep receiving messages!
This time when I finaly got connected I've got more than 100 of them. What
is wrong?
Boris
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 27 ÉÀÎÑ 2000 Ç. 22:47
Subject: [PEN-L:20749] Re: Re:
You have Yeltsin here? Cool.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
- Original Message -
From: "GBK" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 1:45 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:20935] Re: Re: Re: energy crises
But I do keep receiving messages!
I think that those messages came before the changes were made. I hope that we
are ok now.
GBK wrote:
But I do keep receiving messages!
This time when I finaly got connected I've got more than 100 of them. What
is wrong?
Boris
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL
Nordhaus knows more math than the freshman.
Eugene Coyle wrote:
What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ --
"the market will solve the problem"?
Gene Coyle
Michael Perelman wrote:
Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
Brad deLong wrote:
Ummm
Brad, you may end being known as the man who put the 'um' in
'dumb'. Do you suppose Simon's bet with Ehrlich is safe ground for you
to stand on? You too, simply have no idea what the issue is.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
Max Sawicky wrote:
I just don't believe it. When fossil fuels become
sufficiently expensive, massive efforts will go into
developing alternatives. There will be a lot of money
to be made, coordination problems aside. To me
that's more likely than green consciousness leading
to
At 11:42 AM 6/27/00 -0700, you wrote:
Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time.
yeah, he assumed that nuclear power was a good thing. This suggests that he
should have taken externalities into account.
Jim
Mark Jones wrote:
Jim Devine wrote:
what's wrong with the
Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the
alternatives to fossil?
Jim Devine wrote:
what's wrong with the
Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the
alternatives to fossil? (don't please
Jim Devine wrote:
what's wrong with the
Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are the
alternatives to fossil? (don't please
I haven't jumped into pen-le in a while, but this question spurs
me to point out that the problem with the Nordhaus theory is
that, right or wrong, it is irrelevant to the fundamental energy
problem facing us today, which is global warming, not
high fuel prices. And if there are no alternatives
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are
the
alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
because they are not alternatives)
Can we do a Julian Simon-style bet? What's your timeframe, and what
exactly are you expecting? Of course, if
What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ --
"the market will solve the problem"?
Gene Coyle
Michael Perelman wrote:
Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
technology. I think that he had nukes in mind at the time.
--
Michael
At 02:40 PM 6/27/00 -0700, you wrote:
What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ --
"the market will solve the problem"?
it fits with freshman NC, though I think Nordhaus was being Schumpeterian
-- and was open to the idea of the gov't helping the market. But then
Bill Burgess wrote:
Sent: 28 June 2000 00:58
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20785] Re: Re: energy crises
I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is
undeniable that
better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of
non-renewable resources
-L:20768] RE: RE: Re: energy crises
Jim Devine wrote:
what's wrong with the
Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking.
What
says
there is is simply deluded.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Devine
Sent: 27 June 2000 21:53
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20767] Re: RE: Re: energy crises
Jim
nd
general delirium.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ellen Frank
Sent: 27 June 2000 21:57
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20770] Re: RE: Re: energy crises
I haven't jumped i
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
Sent: 27 June 2000 22:05
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20771] RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises
It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are
the
alternatives
Max, I'm not sure it *would* take to shake your
sang-froid, the point I was
making was the opposite, ie, despite fatuous assertions to
the contrary,
You're doing a good job.
This is all a scenario for political disaster, I might note.
By the time the shit hits the fan, it's too late to do
Bill Burgess wrote:
Sent: 28 June 2000 00:58
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:20785] Re: Re: energy crises
I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is
undeniable that
better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of
non-renewable
21 matches
Mail list logo
