Comments on: À Nous Deux, Marâtre Nature!

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:07:16 +0000

Absolutely, and all too frequently glossed over.

There a few markets less perfect than energy ones. Not only do we have the obvious cartelisation in the shape of OPEC and a pumping regime (and thus income) based upon ‘proven’ reserves, but we also have to face the fact that it would be very unwise for certain of the oil producers to admit to dwindling resources, lest they then ‘enjoy’ a visit from the US to secure those reserves.

The market may give us some indications, but I don’t believe that it will operate efficiently, as Shahar posits, and that we’ll only really find out that we’re well on our way down the curve after the fact.

By: Bob Kaercher

Bob Kaercher — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:41:20 +0000

BTW, Danny Shahar pretty much hit the nail on the head in explaining how markets can address a dwindling energy resource. But if only they were truly liberated so that the process he describes could go as smoothly.

By: Bob Kaercher

Bob Kaercher — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:33:11 +0000

One thing that I keep asking “climate change” theory proponets is what temperature is the Earth *supposed* to be? If they’re claiming the planet is “too warm” or “too cool”, then that implies that the climate or the average surface temperature or whatever is supposed to be X degrees, or X something, or at least some range. So what is it? What’s the bar that we have to reach in order to successfully avert the crisis?

There seems to be more than a little of the presumption of a synoptic vantage point here. It’s particularly dubious when you consider that AGW theory feedback initially came from university studies done with the incentive of receiving government grants.

By: Neil

Neil — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:27:58 +0000

I understand the agnosticism towards this sort of thing, but what of conjecture? I am not competent to evaluate the evidence either, but the various arguments strike me in a fashion that gives me an impression of what seems realistic. Agnostic or otherwise I am still inclined to believe a certain way about various aspects of the topic at hand. Having passing opinions about the particulars while remaining uncommitted to them doesn’t seem to qualify as taking a position. Yet I have a tendency to think a certain way about said particulars. It’s as if the only way to remain absolutely agnostic is to keep oneself in total abject ignorance of the topic itself.

By: MBH

MBH — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 01:17:59 +0000

This is a fair argument I have to say. Obviously demand needs to redirect, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that restricting certain supplies will do that.

By: Robert Paul

Robert Paul — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:33:28 +0000

Yes, but by massive restrictions I meant curbing industrial activity for the express purpose of reducing pollution. With your definition any activity “restricts” all of the other possible activities.

By: MBH

MBH — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:19:26 +0000

Works for me. But you’re still dealing with a “massive restriction.” Think of opportunity costs. If the object is to colonize the moon, then we’d be restricting a good bit of other activities.

By: Robert Paul

Robert Paul — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:16:56 +0000

Well, if the Earth is going to blow up and we didn’t cause it with our pollution, I’d suggest figuring out how to get off the planet, even if that temporarily means more pollution, instead of just polluting less and hoping everything works out fine.

By: MBH

MBH — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:11:26 +0000

It doesn’t seem likely. No. But just because it doesn’t seem likely that you’re going to get out of the well doesn’t mean that you allow yourself to be contented with the situation.

By: Robert Paul

Robert Paul — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:00:56 +0000

If the conclusion were that we should give up, then yeah. It definitely hurts the case for coercive mass restrictions. It doesn’t hurt the case for consensual mass restrictions (again, unless the strategy is to give up).

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying: If global warming isn’t man-made, but it’s going to cause a crisis, we should voluntarily restrict ourselves from polluting.

But if humans haven’t significantly contributed to global warming, it doesn’t seem likely that mass restrictions would make a real difference.