I guess it can be seen as 'stimulus' in that many of so-called 'green jobs' are actually in manufacturing/labour etc (so it's comparable to a modern day New Deal). But agreed that governments aren't who should be guiding market innovation per se. There are perhaps some more obvious areas where prizes/R&D-aid make a certain sense - such as cleaning up & improving existing tech (coal & nuke - although both of these are contentious, within the CC sphere)
Yeah, crucial difference there, to be sure. And a lot of these prizes don't specify
how certain tasks have to be done, which leaves the innovators free to innovate and all that. But it sounds like we agree on the main point. It all sounds very nice and everything, but the whole slew of policies is based around the assumption that we know what the energy sources of the future are, and that sheer political will is the only thing necessary to push us into the future. I think the whole concept is horribly misguided. As scary as it might be to simply pull back and get out of the way and see what the market bears, it's the clear choice.
But in climates like this, people find it difficult to trust to such nebulous, abstract plans, because they look too much like inaction, and politicians of every party always need to be in motion. So here we are.
Bleh, to say the least.
I hope that was a facetious argument young man. Nobody's banning breathing (or people, for that matter
) - nor talking about respiration as a source of anthro climate change. Taken on its own, that's no stronger than saying 'marijuana is only a natural herb' etc. We need to look at the context no? Factual cause & effect. Stuff like that
It's somewhat facetious. I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone wants to ban breath, but I am suggesting that declaring carbon as a pollutant feels a little...perverse. A little muddled and confused. That, if the debate has reached the point where this can happen, a lot of people involved have lost sight of things. I realize what I'm saying is extremely fuzzy, but I think there's something to it.
It's rather like the whole "paying farmers not to grow a certain crop" business. There are convoluted reasons that may sound semi-reasonable for doing such things from time to time (not that I agree), but at its core the idea is plainly ridiculous to even the least informed person. It's the kind of mistake that
not thinking would never produce -- only someone who has thought a tremendous amount about the issue, and consequently lost perspective, could advocate such a thing.
Maybe this is of a similar vein (I'm guessing you feel otherwise), and maybe not, but it does have a tinge of the "is this what it's come to?" feel to it.
I'm taking it that you're opting for the 'this must be a natural cycle' line of thought on this then?
I'm not sure, but probably. The argument keeps mutating, and somehow humanity is always at fault: global cooling (I know you've downplayed this, but it had a significant popularity spike for a bit), overpopulation, global warming, and now climate change, for which both high and low temperatures can serve as evidence. And every time, the next few years are "crucial."
Technically speaking, changing the blame around every few years and big swaths of the environmental movement overstating the danger doesn't invalidate what might be some valid truths underneath...but there's certainly a Boy Who Cried Wolf aspect to this that is worth thinking about. When large groups of people are adamant about a problem, only to see it evolve, delayed, or mutated in some way, it naturally leads us to doubt the latest claim. It's not entirely fair to considerate souls like yourself, Gol, but I'm sure you realize you keep some very kooky company on this side of the issue. Whether or not their presence says something about the base idea, or is merely an unfortunate coincidence, I don't know.
Obviously larger philosophies trickle down and influence one's overall feeling about things, too. I tend to regard the Earth as durable, and humanity as having an inflated sense of importance about the problems of its present, whenever that may be, so I bring an inherent skepticism to anything which claims we're capable of basically destroying the ecosystem. Perhaps that colors my views a bit.
More than any specific skepticism, though, it's about burden of proof.
Trillions of dollars hang in the balance. Jobs, lives, technological progression...they're all going to swing any which way depending on whether or not we willingly curb certain economic advancements and policies. Indirectly, it's even a matter of life and death. Things will be invented in the future that will save lives, and they can happen sooner or later, depending on the business climate. Sounds silly, but it's true, be it because of medication, more portable defibrillators, etc.
The burden of proof for such a shift should be outrageously high, in other words. Not just the burden of proof that such things are happening, but that we can fix them. AND, given that, that we know how to. Given all that, does anyone here really think we've genuinely met these burdens, given the mind-blowing costs?