Jed, you see the problem. None of that is profitable to oil barons. Did the US invade Afghanistan and Iraq for oil or sand?
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I guess you could use this argument in other ways... >> >> I'm not going to eat healthily because I could have a piano fall on me. >> The science of what is and is not healthy isn't entirely settled. >> Eating healthily seems draconian to me. >> Maybe eating healthier will cause an increased probability of a piano >> falling on me? >> > > I agree this is a good example of the logical fallacies in this argument. > > The point that I stress, which has been brought out in this discussion, is > that the steps proposed to combat global warming are *not* draconian at > all. Every one of them would be beneficial in its own right. Most of them > would be profitable. A few might be fantastically profitable in the long > term, unless cold fusion materializes. For example, developing gigantic CSP > solar arrays in the U.S. southwest would probably soon cross the line to > profitability, and they would continue to get cheaper after that until they > are fantastically profitable. The technology cannot be used in other parts > of the country, but for that matter, oil well drilling technology cannot be > used in other parts of the country either. CSP technology could be exported > at a profit to North Africa for the African and southern European market. > > - Jed > >
