The good doctor makes a number of interesting and salient points, particularly from the standpoint of geopolitics and economics. Even if we stipulate that the "science is settled," and we have "consensus," (which quite frankly doesn't seem to be the case) there are many reasons why the conversation should just be starting. It seems to me that if the AGW hysterics are correct, we're pretty much screwed. Two choices: Global eco-fascism (apparently the favorite of the Green/AGW crowd) and an agrarian, subsistence level existence for the masses, if we're lucky. This will no doubt entail much in the way of--shall we say--social dislocation and attendant unrest. Most would probably just prefer the vermin genus homo to be eradicated. The other option is to encourage markets to do what they do, and make viable and potentially viable alternatives like solar and most especially--eventually--fusion, profitable and available.
The likeliest scenario I think is a straight up carbon tax, across all forms of carbon-based energy. As much as I hate taxes, and as certain as I am Government(s) will piss it away, is still seems the best answer. Level the playing field and encourage development of other options by making them appear more equal economically to carbon based energy than they really are. Eventually, economies of scale and technological development will take over and make it that way in fact. Hell, it could even be done in a tax-neutral fashion, replacing Income Tax (US) and/or VAT (EU). Not that those Government vultures would ever take the high road.
Note the wording is occasionally odd, due to translation from the Japanese. How the science can be settled when we have Scientists of Dr. Akasofu's stature desputing it is beyond me. He is of course, in the tank for the oil companies. Just like the other side is in the tank for their grant money...
H/t to Anthony Watt and Watts Up With That?
No comments:
Post a Comment