PeakTrader.com

[administrator]

PeakTrader:

You continue to miss the point. Losing $10 for $1 of net benefit is the real waste.

“…for thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution, there was essentially no sustained improvement in mankind’s general material standard of living, nor was there much variation from place to place around the world. The Industrial Revolution made all the difference.”–Robert Solow – Nobel Prize economist””

“The answer lay in the use of a new source of energy. Pre-industrial societies had access only to very limited energy supplies. As long as mechanical energy came principally from human or animal muscle and heat energy from wood, the maximum attainable level of productivity was bound to be low. The industrial revolution transformed the productive power of societies. It did so by vastly increasing the individual productivity, thus delivering whole populations from poverty – E. A. Wrigley, Cambridge Group for the History of Population – Sir Wrigley is a member and co-founder of the Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure and a former President of the British Academy.”

“…technology has rapidly advanced to enable the growth of larger populations without compromising nature’s security. Without the use of fossil fuels, global cropland would have to increase by 150 percent to meet current food demand. If that were the case, many habitats and ecosystems would be compromised…The use of fossil fuels to create technology and transport goods and services has been the primary reason why humans have had to depend on less of nature’s resources…fossil fuels have been critical in advancing the production of knowledge and ideas. Trade and communication have flourished since the industrial revolution…Some argue that the use of fossil fuels has a net negative effect on the environment. However, there are several factors to consider. First, the use of many renewable sources is often land-intensive and would require a massive conversion of land. Second, any damage from pollution to the air or water is likely reversible and can be curbed with future technological advances whereas land cultivation is irreversible – Indur M. Goklany is a science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior, where he holds the position of Assistant Director of Programs, Science and Technology Policy – Goklany holds undergraduate and graduate degrees in electrical engineering. His B.Tech degree is from the Indian Institutes of Technology and his M.S. and PhD are from Michigan State University – Goklany has spoken against the use of biofuels and ethanol as he believes it drives the price of food beyond the reach of the poor. He wrote, “Ironically, much of the hysteria over global warming is itself fueled by concerns that it may drive numerous species to extinction and increase hunger worldwide, especially in developing countries. Yet the biofuel solution would only make bad matters worse on both counts.””

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8461.html

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=22716

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indur_M._Goklany

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/economic-history/energy-and-english-industrial-revolution

http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/ACEE%20Moral%20Case%20for%20Fossil%20Fuels.pdf

****

Regulations have costs in time, effort, and money. They tend to slow economic growth. Federal regulations alone cost $2 trillion a year. The U.S. economy has been underproducing by $1 trillion a year.

So, your solution is to pile-on more regulations in a heavily regulated economy, in a deep, and long, depression, which will hurt low-income Americans the most. You want to force Americans to ride a bike, take a bus, or take a hike.

My solution is overhauling the federal regulatory regime to reduce the costs, temporarily, and spur economic growth.

Then, when an actual recovery is underway, tax revenue will rise sharply and spending on the unemployed and poor will fall sharply. So, we can afford to pay for environmental regulations and energy technology.

And, it should be noted, renewable energy has costs. It makes no sense losing $10 of income for saving $2 in the environmental costs of fossil fuels and adding $1 in the environmental costs of non-fossil fuels, for a $1 net benefit.

Unlike China, the U.S. environment is much cleaner. There was strong economic growth at the height of the U.S. Information Revolution from 1982-07. So, we could afford to improve the environment substantially, since the 1970s.

---