The Global Warming apocalypse is a fantasy and the left wing equivalent of the Rapture — and just as nonsensical. Sadly, the Left will impoverish the rest of us while they tilt at the climate change windmills. The eco-left tend to be rich, though, so they don’t care if their policies crush the middle class.

A solution is to shift the focus from regulation of production to regulation of consumption. If each item consumed had a known carbon price that had to be paid to consume that item, then the source of the item (China, USA, etc.) would no longer be important. I recommend that the US do its part in the global effort to save the world by awarding carbon consumption permits to its people. To purchase an item, a person would have to pay (have deducted from his/her carbon allowance) for its carbon contribution. There would be no tariff involved and goods from all sources could be treated equally. Carbon consumption permits could be traded between people.

We would need to change our payment infrastructure to implement my plan. The Japanese use their cell phones as credit cards. Point-of-sale payments are made via the phone, just like we now pay for most items by credit card. A system to debit a person’s carbon consumption permit account concurrent with debiting their bank account is entirely feasible.

While I am not convinced that there is a real man-made global warming crisis, if we are to take steps to limit carbon emissions, they should be sensible steps. Limiting consumption is the most direct approach we can take. And it would have the great advantage of allowing the people to understand the constraints being placed on them by carbon emission limitations.

It all comes down to increasing political power in the hands of the State. Paul Krugman and his ilk would be in favor of almost any program, tax, or whatever that increased their political power over people’s lives.

Trying to attack a position by questioning people’s motives without proof is the sign of a piss-poor argument. For this example, I could turn around and say that all conservative opposition to global warming compensation is rooted in a short-term, “I’ve got mine and screw everyone else!” mentality, but I’d be just as wrong as you are right now.

People on the Left see the benefits of imposing control over energy not in terms of trying to reduce global temperatures by 2/10 of a degree, but in the benefit of power. No cost is too large for the benefit of control.

Don’t presume to know my motives. For that matter, most people on the “Left” have proposed mechanisms that use market incentives, like a carbon tax, to reduce emissions.

Just ask yourself this on any man-made global warming proposal that comes out, does it increase or decrease the citizen’s freedom?

What do you define as “freedom”? Do you judge a proposal for more police funding and officers in terms of how much “freedom” it will give you to abuse the law and/or your fellow citizens?

In public policy discussions, R&D spending tends to be treated as a kind of panacea. Invoke the magic letters and all heads nod sagely, “More R&D, yes more R&D. That’s the ticket.” This response does not recognize that (1) you can’t predict what new insights will arise from Research and (2) you can only Develop a new insight if it arises from that research. Net yields from R&D spending, especially in the direction of a particular desired result, are often negative.

That’s why I’m distinctly at unease with Henessey’s position on the issue. It basically amounts to hoping that the White Knight of Technology will save us from any serious costs on the climate issue by throwing some amount of money at the problem, as if technological effectiveness responds in some type of direct linear relationship to the amount of R & D spending.

I mean, take a look at what happened in the US auto sector in terms of oil consumption after the passage of CAFE laws in the 1970s. The overall efficiency of cars rose drastically, yet oil consumption still shot up, simply because people “ate the gains”, so to speak.

In any case, don’t under-estimate even 1-2 degrees of warming in the overall global temperature. For one thing, that can translate into radically different temperature changes on the local level (since the poles are warming faster than most other areas, for example), and we just don’t know enough about the climate and environmental impact that 1-2 degrees will bring (for example, the total difference in mean temperature between London now and London in the last Ice Age, when it was as cold as northern Alaska, amounts to about 5-6 degree Celsius change).

It is interesting how those who would normally favour market-driven technology development instead favour government sponsorship for low-carbon technology (at least, I think that this is what you are proposing).

It all comes down to increasing political power in the hands of the State. Paul Krugman and his ilk would be in favor of almost any program, tax, or whatever that increased their political power over people’s lives.

You all look at the man-made global warming question on its own merits and try and decide on the costs and benefits based on magnitude of temperature changes. People on the Left see the benefits of imposing control over energy not in terms of trying to reduce global temperatures by 2/10 of a degree, but in the benefit of power. No cost is too large for the benefit of control.

Just ask yourself this on any man-made global warming proposal that comes out, does it increase or decrease the citizen’s freedom?

Is the phrase “in comparison to if nothing is done,” (to appear after the first comma)implied?

I instead recommend they focus on pushing carbon-reducing technology R&D

In public policy discussions, R&D spending tends to be treated as a kind of panacea. Invoke the magic letters and all heads nod sagely, “More R&D, yes more R&D. That’s the ticket.” This response does not recognize that (1) you can’t predict what new insights will arise from Research and (2) you can only Develop a new insight if it arises from that research. Net yields from R&D spending, especially in the direction of a particular desired result, are often negative.

So proposals to spend on R&D should be subjected to the same skepicism applied to political proposals. We ask why we believe that the Chinese government will do this or that in response to this tariff or that diplomatic initiative. We should also ask why we expect a significant positive net yield from R&D spending.

Because greenhouse gas suppression is a relatively new field (in contrast to “alternative energy”) R&D spending may indeed be well rewarded. But Nature’s answer to results-oriented research is often that you can’t get there from here. We should be careful to treat favorable R&D outcomes as unexpected exogenous inputs, not as miracles the arrival of which appear in our program schedule – not that KBH did.

I am a mechanical engineer (BSME, MSME) with a background in R&D.
Ken

The sarcastic voice in my head said that we will go out back and take the money for that from the money tree. We (the US) are broke, even BO agrees. The idea that Congress is going to tax Americans to send money to China is laughable.