You might wonder why the greenhouse issue is becoming such a politically charged issue. That is simple you say: If there is any possibility of global warming then we should do what we can to avert it. Any doubt should be acted upon.
This might be a compelling argument if there was any evidence that the remedies would help. But there is no such evidence. Consider that:
1. Added cost: Carbon sequestration will require additional infrastructure and cost impositions on society, which will reduce real wealth creation and thus humanity's capacity to deal with any 'real' threat in future, environmental or otherwise.
2. Rhetoric rather than coherent policy: Ask yourself what is really being achieved. There is a tax being placed upon energy, but there is no real effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If you were going to reduce emissions you would have to increase the cost of energy considerably to offset people's desire for autonomy. You would have to end immigration which results in low (third world) emitters being sponsored to become high emitters. You would have to penalise the international seaborne trade in products. Maybe all this is coming, since it can be justified by this science.
The other possibility is that there is another reason this policy line is being pushed:
1. Liberal media companies are supportive of dire agendas because they sell more newspapers or are consistent with their political values. i.e. The paternal state.
2. Nuclear energy advocates want to justify nuclear energy, or at least overcome the sensitivity to it by conveying a generalised state of risk. i.e. that all use of energy carries risks. True enough. I am actually supportive of nuclear energy. I just don't this spirious arguments should be used to justify it.
3. Governments are keen to placate a liberal press who are able to incite the sensitivities of the liberal portion of the electorate.
4. Governments are keen to broaden their taxing powers. There is the argument that in the final hour the Emissions Trading Scheme will be used to justify broader energy taxing powers. Currently many countries have a petrol tax, but they don't tax coal, gas, or other forms of energy. Well the EMS will give them a basis for measuring CO2 emissions, and thus a capacity to tax those emissions. It can also tax CO2 credit trading transactions.
What is lost in this debate is respect for facts. There is no critical interpretation of arguments because there is no discourse where differing opinions are to be reconciled. This is what the world needs more than anything else. We shall deal with this issue through our range of books at our bookstore.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
This might be a compelling argument if there was any evidence that the remedies would help. But there is no such evidence. Consider that:
1. Added cost: Carbon sequestration will require additional infrastructure and cost impositions on society, which will reduce real wealth creation and thus humanity's capacity to deal with any 'real' threat in future, environmental or otherwise.
2. Rhetoric rather than coherent policy: Ask yourself what is really being achieved. There is a tax being placed upon energy, but there is no real effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If you were going to reduce emissions you would have to increase the cost of energy considerably to offset people's desire for autonomy. You would have to end immigration which results in low (third world) emitters being sponsored to become high emitters. You would have to penalise the international seaborne trade in products. Maybe all this is coming, since it can be justified by this science.
The other possibility is that there is another reason this policy line is being pushed:
1. Liberal media companies are supportive of dire agendas because they sell more newspapers or are consistent with their political values. i.e. The paternal state.
2. Nuclear energy advocates want to justify nuclear energy, or at least overcome the sensitivity to it by conveying a generalised state of risk. i.e. that all use of energy carries risks. True enough. I am actually supportive of nuclear energy. I just don't this spirious arguments should be used to justify it.
3. Governments are keen to placate a liberal press who are able to incite the sensitivities of the liberal portion of the electorate.
4. Governments are keen to broaden their taxing powers. There is the argument that in the final hour the Emissions Trading Scheme will be used to justify broader energy taxing powers. Currently many countries have a petrol tax, but they don't tax coal, gas, or other forms of energy. Well the EMS will give them a basis for measuring CO2 emissions, and thus a capacity to tax those emissions. It can also tax CO2 credit trading transactions.
What is lost in this debate is respect for facts. There is no critical interpretation of arguments because there is no discourse where differing opinions are to be reconciled. This is what the world needs more than anything else. We shall deal with this issue through our range of books at our bookstore.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com
No comments:
Post a Comment