Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

[stuper1]

Hey Mountaineer,
I agree with you that the only standard that matters is God's word.  That's why I haven't voted in about 30 years.  It would take too much of my time to figure out whether the corrupt guy on the left or the corrupt guy on the right is the lesser of two evils.  Going back to Bush #2, my favorite whipping boy, and addressing the idea of presidential illegal action, was torturing prisoners consistent with either God's word or American ideals or legal principles?

My only point is that, at least to me, Obama is no worse than any of his predecessors.  And so, like the OP, I am curious why conservatives hate him so.  For every bad thing that he's done, we can find a similar one that a Republican president did.  So what's the big surprise?  They are all pretty much the same.

[moda0306]

clacy & Mountaineer,

A lot of Bush supporters, when faced with the "horrors of war" arguments, somewhat rightfully put things in a bit of perspective when they compared the 3,000 dead soldiers of Iraq compared to the hundreds-of-thousands of dead soldiers in WWII.  When people lambasted Bush for huge tax cuts for the rich, they correctly pointed out that taxes were cut also for the poor.  When people were amazed at the incompetence of the Katrina response, Bush supporters pointed out that historically these responses were the realm of state/local governments and personal responsibility of citizens.

There are only so many external evils we can worry about.  If a president were perfect, and told one small lie about an inconsequential event, should we lambaste him for it while other world-problems are far worse?  Or if he's dealing with a far more toxic congress?  Everything demands perspective.  I don't equate someone who spanked their child once to someone who beats their kid repeatedly every night.

Lying is "wrong," but it is not infinitely wrong, and demands some perspective.  The results of a fraud are important.  If I tell you my favorite color is the color blue, and it is really green, what wrong have I really done?  If I tell you my least favorite cloud is a mushroom cloud, and based on my "evidence" you agree to allow me to send thousands of men and trillions of dollars into war, now we have a problem.

Further, one might argue that if a GREATER evil is being done by telling the truth, then perhaps lying is appropriate.  I mean this very generically... I'm not alluding to anything any politician has ever said in particular.  In that case, lies might actually be preferable to the truth.



I'd suggest this to both liberals and conservatives who allow themselves to get worked up over elected officials, and wish to debate that:

If you have an argument as to why a policy that Obama advocates is directly or indirectly responsible for some economic/social/etc effect that wouldn't otherwise be the case, and that this effect is bad, and that some other policy would have resulted in something materially different, state your argument.  I say this politely... it's not a demand or anything.  We can just easily debate certain premises, and see where we disagree.

If we can agree that "not all lying is equal, and SOME lying may even be good," then this is even more important.

[moda0306]

If all that matters is God's Word, then we are left trying to interpret it.


Perhaps.... just perhaps.... God has far more angry Words towards a man who lies us into a war resulting in tens-of-thousands of deaths than one who lies about reducing federal deficits.


Perhaps there is a reason "you shall not kill" comes before "you shall not bear false witness."


If God does not have preferences of sin, then none of us are likely better than any others, as we all sin, and we should only be concerned about how many times a President prays for forgiveness rather than how much he lies.

[Benko]

Perhaps.... just perhaps.... God has far more angry Words towards a man who lies us into a war resulting in tens-of-thousands of deaths than one who lies about reducing federal deficits.

Where do deaths of children fall?  CHildren who die when you lure them here on expectation on Amnesty?

[Mountaineer]

If all that matters is God's Word, then we are left trying to interpret it.

moda,

If we depend on man to interpret Scripture, as many do, then we are in a heap of trouble.  There are something more than 2 billion Christians in the world and likely at least that many interpretations if we use the "man interprets Scripture" hermeneutic.  This is where the confessional Lutherans have made a significant contribution toward understanding God's Word:  "Scripture interprets Scripture" is the way we do it.  If there is no answer, we do not make one up to fit an agenda, we just say "I don't know, Scripture does not address that".  As an aside, isn't it cool that God chose to interact with humans to record His word and show us the way to eternal life?  Way more cool than a book dropping out of the clouds from on high or Doctor Doom saying you "evolved protoplasmic slime things" go figure it out. 


... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

If God does not have preferences of sin, then none of us are likely better than any others, as we all sin,(TRUE.  IN GOD'S EYES ALL SINS ARE THE SAME AND ABHORED BY GOD - THANK GOD WE HAVE A SAVIOR WHO ATONED FOR OUR SINS.)


and we should only be concerned about how many times a President prays for forgiveness
THAT IS GOD'S BUSINESS, NOT MAN'S.

rather than how much he lies.
THAT IS CIVIL REALM STUFF WHERE LYING HAS CONSEQUENCES AND THE LIAR SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE NOW BY THE RULES OF THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNING BODY.

As I've said many times before, your above statements mix the two kingdoms.  See religion thread.  Or ask a question and I'll do my best to answer.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

http://www.yourememberthat.com/media/10 ... he_Clowns/

There is a difference between clowns in office and clowns on a TV.  You older folks can probably remember much of this.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Because he supports wasting money on "natural" phenomena instead of addressing "real" problems?

Scientists admit that there has been no global warming between 1998 and 2013, even though the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has continued to increase.  A new study claims to account for this so-called “pause”? in global warming.  It turns out, there are “natural fluctuations”? in the climate.  Who knew?  The scientists claim that a little cooling blip has cooled things off in the last decade or so, but that the global warming will soon resume.

But doesn’t this research miss the point?  Does invoking “natural fluctuation”? really give us a cause?  What causes the fluctuations, and if they are “natural,”? might they account for other temperature phenomena, including those blamed on human agency?  More fundamentally, if greenhouse gasses can increase without making the temperature of the earth go up, doesn’t that suggest that there may be problems with the assumptions behind the computer modeling that give us the dire global warming forecasts? 

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/artic ... e-1998.htm

... Mountaineer

[Jan Van]

Scientists admit that there has been no global warming between 1998 and 2013, even though the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has continued to increase.  A new study claims to account for this so-called “pause”? in global warming.  It turns out, there are “natural fluctuations”? in the climate.  Who knew?  The scientists claim that a little cooling blip has cooled things off in the last decade or so, but that the global warming will soon resume.

But doesn’t this research miss the point?  Does invoking “natural fluctuation”? really give us a cause?  What causes the fluctuations, and if they are “natural,”? might they account for other temperature phenomena, including those blamed on human agency?  More fundamentally, if greenhouse gasses can increase without making the temperature of the earth go up, doesn’t that suggest that there may be problems with the assumptions behind the computer modeling that give us the dire global warming forecasts? 

Accounting for the “pause”? in global warming ?

[Jan Van]

But:

Has Global Warming Paused?

Climate scientists know the answer is no, but have trouble communicating that

As scientists like Willis explain, though, most of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases does not warm the Earth's surface anyway.

Why do rising sea levels ignore the pause?
"Over 90 percent of the heat that we trap ... is warming the oceans," Willis said.

So as a measure of global warming, surface temperatures are not a good yardstick, because the atmosphere can only hold a small percentage of the heat that is trapped, he said.

[Benko]

1. Proof for the Ocean as heatsink?


2.  NASA and the usual suspects were recently caught fudging the serface temp data so the "pause" is longer then just 20 years.

" The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... -data.html

[Mountaineer]

Because he supports wasting money on "natural" phenomena instead of addressing "real" problems?

Conservatives hate Obama because the Federal government funds research in medicine, biology, chemistry, physics...?

I imagine they'll hate the next president as well.

I assume you did read the link and its subject matter, right?  And you are really kidding with the above post that has nothing to do with the subject of the link.  Right?  At least I hope so.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Conservatives hate Obama because the Federal government funds research in medicine, biology, chemistry, physics...?

I imagine they'll hate the next president as well.

I assume you did read the link and its subject matter, right?  And you are really kidding with the above post that has nothing to do with the subject of the link.  Right?  At least I hope so.

... Mountaineer

I read your post, which came from the link that Jan Van provided.  I read your link too.  I also skimmed the original paper*.  And, no, my post wasn't a joke.  Perhaps I misunderstood the first line of your post ["(conservatives hate Obama) because he supports wasting money on "natural" phenomena instead of addressing 'real' problems"]. I merely cited other "natural phenomena" which the Federal government "wastes" money on.

In any case, the statements from here:

Scientists admit that there has been no global warming between 1998 and 2013, even though the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has continued to increase.  A new study claims to account for this so-called “pause”? in global warming.  It turns out, there are “natural fluctuations”? in the climate.  Who knew?

... misrepresent the content of the paper.  The paper does not claim "natural fluctuations" as a cause of the "pause".  It simply puts forth a rather simple model for temperature fluctuations that includes only a CO2 forcing term; the residual from that simple model (i.e. the data once the forcing term has been subtracted out) is referred to as "natural fluctuations" and "natural variability".  The gist of the paper, if I understood it correctly, is that the residual data (a.k.a. the natural fluctuations) from 1998-2013 is not inconsistent with prior residual data.

The abstract states this pretty clearly:

An approach complementary to General Circulation Models (GCMs), using the anthropogenic CO2 radiative forcing as a linear surrogate for all anthropogenic forcings [Lovejoy, 2014], was recently developed for quantifying human impacts. Using preindustrial multiproxy series and scaling arguments, the probabilities of natural fluctuations at time lags up to 125?years were determined. The hypothesis that the industrial epoch warming was a giant natural fluctuation was rejected with 99.9% confidence. In this paper, this method is extended to the determination of event return times. Over the period 1880–2013, the largest 32?year event is expected to be 0.47?K, effectively explaining the postwar cooling (amplitude 0.42–0.47?K). Similarly, the “pause”? since 1998 (0.28–0.37?K) has a return period of 20–50?years (not so unusual). It is nearly cancelled by the pre-pause warming event (1992–1998, return period 30–40?years); the pause is no more than natural variability.

A section of the author's website provides key figures for understanding the paper, as well as a short, non-specialist summary.

------------------------------------------------------------
* Lovejoy, S., "Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI:10.1002/2014GL060478 (2014)
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/epri ... 14bbis.pdf

TennPaGa,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  What my "are you serious?" was referring to was that you responded talking about biology, physics, chemistry, medicine.  I was ONLY talking about wasting money on a controversial subject that does not have a consensus from scientists - i.e. man caused global warming, when there are so many more worthwhile endeavors, such as you pointed out, to spend your (and mine) tax dollars on.  Of course you are free to have your opinions, just as I am, on which side you line up with re man causing the demise of the earth (which we may do but I don't think it will be because of our influence on the climate from CO2 emissions - probably will be more likely from mega ash due to nuking each other when the presidential phones and pens fail to calm those who hate us).  But that is another topic

... Mountaineer

[doodle]

Listening to people talk about their opinions of politicians makes me want to pack up and leave the human race. I find these discussions to be so full of deep seated bias and petty criticism that it makes me want to gag. The problem with politics is that unlike hard science, people are able to just blatantly ignore facts....even if you smash them in the forehead with them.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas ... p_Emailed1

It’s one of the great assumptions underlying modern democracy that an informed citizenry is preferable to an uninformed one. “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government,”? Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789. This notion, carried down through the years, underlies everything from humble political pamphlets to presidential debates to the very notion of a free press. Mankind may be crooked timber, as Kant put it, uniquely susceptible to ignorance and misinformation, but it’s an article of faith that knowledge is the best remedy. If people are furnished with the facts, they will be clearer thinkers and better citizens. If they are ignorant, facts will enlighten them. If they are mistaken, facts will set them straight. In the end, truth will out. Won’t it?Maybe not. Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters — the people making decisions about how the country runs — aren’t blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.

I really respect people who grapple with this issue and realize their shortcomings and inherent biases as humans. It is tough to really challenge yourself and your beliefs.

[moda0306]

I assume you did read the link and its subject matter, right?  And you are really kidding with the above post that has nothing to do with the subject of the link.  Right?  At least I hope so.

... Mountaineer

I read your post, which came from the link that Jan Van provided.  I read your link too.  I also skimmed the original paper*.  And, no, my post wasn't a joke.  Perhaps I misunderstood the first line of your post ["(conservatives hate Obama) because he supports wasting money on "natural" phenomena instead of addressing 'real' problems"]. I merely cited other "natural phenomena" which the Federal government "wastes" money on.

In any case, the statements from here:

Scientists admit that there has been no global warming between 1998 and 2013, even though the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has continued to increase.  A new study claims to account for this so-called “pause”? in global warming.  It turns out, there are “natural fluctuations”? in the climate.  Who knew?

... misrepresent the content of the paper.  The paper does not claim "natural fluctuations" as a cause of the "pause".  It simply puts forth a rather simple model for temperature fluctuations that includes only a CO2 forcing term; the residual from that simple model (i.e. the data once the forcing term has been subtracted out) is referred to as "natural fluctuations" and "natural variability".  The gist of the paper, if I understood it correctly, is that the residual data (a.k.a. the natural fluctuations) from 1998-2013 is not inconsistent with prior residual data.

The abstract states this pretty clearly:

An approach complementary to General Circulation Models (GCMs), using the anthropogenic CO2 radiative forcing as a linear surrogate for all anthropogenic forcings [Lovejoy, 2014], was recently developed for quantifying human impacts. Using preindustrial multiproxy series and scaling arguments, the probabilities of natural fluctuations at time lags up to 125?years were determined. The hypothesis that the industrial epoch warming was a giant natural fluctuation was rejected with 99.9% confidence. In this paper, this method is extended to the determination of event return times. Over the period 1880–2013, the largest 32?year event is expected to be 0.47?K, effectively explaining the postwar cooling (amplitude 0.42–0.47?K). Similarly, the “pause”? since 1998 (0.28–0.37?K) has a return period of 20–50?years (not so unusual). It is nearly cancelled by the pre-pause warming event (1992–1998, return period 30–40?years); the pause is no more than natural variability.

A section of the author's website provides key figures for understanding the paper, as well as a short, non-specialist summary.

------------------------------------------------------------
* Lovejoy, S., "Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI:10.1002/2014GL060478 (2014)
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/epri ... 14bbis.pdf

TennPaGa,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  What my "are you serious?" was referring to was that you responded talking about biology, physics, chemistry, medicine.  I was ONLY talking about wasting money on a controversial subject that does not have a consensus from scientists - i.e. man caused global warming, when there are so many more worthwhile endeavors, such as you pointed out, to spend your (and mine) tax dollars on.  Of course you are free to have your opinions, just as I am, on which side you line up with re man causing the demise of the earth (which we may do but I don't think it will be because of our influence on the climate from CO2 emissions - probably will be more likely from mega ash due to nuking each other when the presidential phones and pens fail to calm those who hate us).  But that is another topic

... Mountaineer

Wait, you're saying there's no consensus?  To you, what qualifies as a consensus?

[Mountaineer]

TennGaPa,

Likely, my bottom line issue is having someone tell me what is best for me and my money, and since I care much for my neighbors well being, their money (via tax) too.  I'd like to think most of us are responsible enough to make the decisions that impact us - good or bad - and then suffer the consequences - good and bad - that we created for ourselves; that is a way we learn.  That is, I am a proponent of individual responsibility. 

The Fortune 50 company that I worked for was and is heavily into science, and I was one of their engineers.  I still believe that science is important in this world and is a true gift from God.  My company had a central research department that could pretty much do whatever they liked within the constraints of their budget.  However, when it came time to market stuff, that is turn an idea into something practical, that stuff had to have customer appeal, it had to be good enough that people would want to buy it and perceive the stuff for something that improved their lives. 

Therefore, if "global warming" is so proven by the scientists, why are people not clamoring right and left for solar panels, windmills, nuclear energy, piezoelectric shoes that power the grid via microwaves, etc. ad absurdium?  Why are they taking down windmills by the dozens?  Why aren't nuclear plants proliferating?  Why did my electricity rates go up when my state government dictated a percentage of renewable
energy generated based power?  My answer, many of the so called solutions that our "community organizer" endorses (and extorts tax money from us to fund), are abject practical failures and nothing but political payoffs to some group or another.  If the ice cream he is selling actually tastes like shit, I really do not care to buy it regardless of how good he tells me it will be for me.  Father knows best may be a great philosophy for kids, but in my opinion is a miserable failure for a country that is run by adults (even if many do act like dependent children).

As for the word "hate", I do not hate dear follower; apathy toward him is perhaps a more descriptive term - I perceive that he adds no value to the human race, and if mcgw is really true, he contributes quite a lot to it by his incessant fund raising trips - everything from fuel consumption by his entourage to massive traffic tie-ups and business disruption where ever he goes (this is party independent - presidents should be presidential, not snake oil salesmen).  He to me is a pile of nothingness.  He may indeed be a child of God as I am, but that is between him and God.  I am to love my neighbor; I don't have to like them.

And, if you choose to believe the "man caused global warming - mcgw" is true, so be it.  I am not here to convince you otherwise.  I choose to operate in my circle of influence, not in my circle of concern.  Mcgw is definitely in my circle of concern, just like CNN, Fox News, and the incessant blathering of paid political experts that you can find on all sides of almost any issue.  Therefore, you can endorse your set of statistics and appeals to authority and I'll do the same - and we will get nowhere.  There is really only one real source of authority that holds real power anyway.  We shall find out later who, if anyone, really had the right answer and by then it will be too late either way to do anything about it.  Sorry I got you all worked up.

Peace.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

TennGaPa,


Therefore, if "global warming" is so proven by the scientists, why are people not clamoring right and left for solar panels, windmills, nuclear energy, piezoelectric shoes that power the grid via microwaves, etc. ad absurdium?  Why are they taking down windmills by the dozens?  Why aren't nuclear plants proliferating?  Why did my electricity rates go up when my state government dictated a percentage of renewable
energy generated based power?  My answer, many of the so called solutions that our "community organizer" endorses (and extorts tax money from us to fund), are abject practical failures and nothing but political payoffs to some group or another.  If the ice cream he is selling actually tastes like shit, I really do not care to buy it regardless of how good he tells me it will be for me.  Father knows best may be a great philosophy for kids, but in my opinion is a miserable failure for a country that is run by adults (even if many do act like dependent children).

What do you mean, why aren't "people" clamoring right and left for alternative energy?  You mean the general public?

Popularity does not signify truth. 

[Pointedstick]

Most people aren't clamoring for alternative energy sources because:

1) people generally don't care about the production details of the product they buy (electricity in this case)
2) inasmuch as the production details of products are interesting, they are mostly interesting in how they manifest themselves in the quality and cost of the final product. Renewably-sourced electricity is functionally identical to electricity generated from dead dinosaurs, but costs more to produce and thus costs more to purchase.

As a result, the only people who are clamoring for grid-tied renewable energy are environmentalists--a group that has had little political success advancing their cause in most circumstances.

However, there are enormous benefits to adopting renewable energy sources for those who are off the grid. Therefore, I would recommend to liberals that they attempt to use the government to incentivize off-grid houses, which would give people extremely strong reasons to outfit their homes with solar panels and wind turbines.

[Mountaineer]

Popularity does not signify truth.

Exactly!  We agree.  Your truth is apparently man-caused global warming, mine is Christianity.  I will get on board your truth (yes, dear follower is a bag of hot air caused by himself) and you can get on board with mine (yes, Christ's resurrection really did happen). 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Most people aren't clamoring for alternative energy sources because:

1) people generally don't care about the production details of the product they buy (electricity in this case)
2) inasmuch as the production details of products are interesting, they are mostly interesting in how they manifest themselves in the quality and cost of the final product. Renewably-sourced electricity is functionally identical to electricity generated from dead dinosaurs, but costs more to produce and thus costs more to purchase.

As a result, the only people who are clamoring for grid-tied renewable energy are environmentalists--a group that has had little political success advancing their cause in most circumstances.

However, there are enormous benefits to adopting renewable energy sources for those who are off the grid. Therefore, I would recommend to liberals that they attempt to use the government to incentivize off-grid houses, which would give people extremely strong reasons to outfit their homes with solar panels and wind turbines.

Unfortunately, your analysis, even though spot on, is based on something way too logical; not nearly enough emotion or potential for political capital (off-grid house occupants have too few votes available to buy or care about).  Thus ..... doomed to failure.  Much easier for dear follower to have people stop exhaling toxic CO2 (sarcasm) or block practical energy sources (reality).

... Mountaineer

[Benko]

I just can't shake the feeling that a large majority of people who claim that "the science isn't settled" instead disagree with the remedies, but, for some reason, don't want to own up to this.  I could be wrong, of course.

1.  Have you thought about the opposite possibility? The remedies just happen to be the ones progressives want to impose on us anyway (what a cooincidence).  So no matter what any data shows, there is huge motivation for progressives to want to make it so e.g. fudging data and supressing dissenting data (which they've been caught doing).

2.  There was concensus that e.g. the sun and all the planets revolved around the earth, etc. 

3. There is no settled science on anything, ever.  That is how science works.  One can always discover something tomorrow which invalides all you think you know about something.  read/re-read Black Swan.

[moda0306]

Benko,

Liberals (and many conservatives, if you ask them) believe that regulating externality costs is a very proper role of the government.  Part of the micro-environmental policies liberals would like addressed are pollution from coal plants, pollution from driving, and resource over-usage.

Is it any wonder that a MACRO-environmental issue ALSO is correlated with us spewing billions upon billions of tons of exhaust from various forms of combustion into the atmosphere?  And that this is a type of pollution that simply sees the span of pollution broadening beyond our cities and streams to those of other countries, and vice-versa?

It's not a "coincidence" that controlling combustion is the proposed solution.  It's entirely logical that macro-environmental issues are going to be caused by the same activity that causes hazy skies over cities all over the world.  And these externalities, if they exist, simply must be tracked on a higher level, because our pollution is affecting sea-levels in India, and vice-versa.


Both sides have big economics at play... have you seen the ridiculous fossil fuel consumption of Americans?  From what I've seen of my long-commute, 3,000 sf home, Tahoe-driving cohorts, they won't give up their lifestyle without a fight.  Sorry, but I'd rather see them downgrade to a Trailblazer if it will take the edge of the problem that global warming could become.

[Pointedstick]

Benko,

Liberals (and many conservatives, if you ask them) believe that regulating externality costs is a very proper role of the government.

The problem I see is that all of life is basically an externality. If you embrace this as a concept, there's really no ending. It is the intellectual legitimization of total government control over everything.

I think the saner solution is to simply work to drive down the price of renewable energy. It could even be a government R&D cash injection, as TennPaGa suggests. Because as soon as it costs your average joe $100 a month to heat his house with a gas furnace and $90 to do it with an electric heat pump, that's going to be a really obvious choice really fast. Great strides have been made in these departments recently, right under most people's noses, including the very environmentalists who are the most excited about alternative energy sources.

For example: the installed cost of residential solar PV is dropping below $2 a watt. And electric heat pumps with a coefficient of performance of about 3 already generate an equal amount of heat as a 95% efficient gas furnace for the same amount of money. Today's air conditioners can deliver the same amount of cooling as those of 10 years ago for less than half the electricity. And so on and so forth. No taxing carbon emissions or putting a government price on pollution necessary.

[Benko]

Moda,

I donate to the nature conservancy and am all for doing what is possible to reduce pollution within reasonable constraints BUTwithout fucking up other areas.  If  you increase regulation and "help the environment" while hurting the economy, putting more people out of work, you are doing net harm, unless the environment is more important then people (which is true of many environmentalists, but not I think you). 

Unintended harm AKA "unexpected consequences" is the elephant in the room in many progressive "remedies", and for some the harm is intended since it helps transform society in ways they find desireable. 

have you seen the ridiculous fossil fuel consumption of Americans? ... but I'd rather see them downgrade to a Trailblazer if it will take the edge of the problem that global warming could become.

If someone invents a way to get cheap unlimited pollutionless power, which does not effect the earth's temperature, would you be happy?  No one would have to downgrade.  Not for you, but as I said, I think for many causing the downgrade is the real goal, and anything else the means to accomplist that goal.    I started to say i agree with you about american's  ridiculous fossil fuel consumption, but then I realized that who cares.  If you're going to wish people were different I can think of a lot of other changes e.g. being more caring to other people, I would wish over using less energy.  WHy does it bother you that people use lots of energy?

[moda0306]

Benko,

Liberals (and many conservatives, if you ask them) believe that regulating externality costs is a very proper role of the government.

The problem I see is that all of life is basically an externality. If you embrace this as a concept, there's really no ending. It is the intellectual legitimization of total government control over everything.

I think the saner solution is to simply work to drive down the price of renewable energy. It could even be a government R&D cash injection, as TennPaGa suggests. Because as soon as it costs your average joe $100 a month to heat his house with a gas furnace and $90 to do it with an electric heat pump, that's going to be a really obvious choice really fast. Great strides have been made in these de

The installed residential cost of solar PV is dropping below $2 a watt. Electric heat pumps with a coefficient of performance of about 3 already generate an equal amount of heat as a 95% efficient gas furnace for the same amount of money. And so on and so forth. No taxing carbon emissions or putting a government price on pollution necessary.

PS,

All that tech is awesome IMO.  Imagine how much more common it would be, and therefore advanced it would be, if we had more motivation to use it.  It's all about incentives.  Properly incentivizing alternative energy can either be done with a carrot (subsidized loans to A/E companies), or a stick (taxes on fossil fuels).  I don't really see another way.

I tend to think taxes are more efficient if the market can be convinced they will be there far into the future.  Absent that, loan guarantees or other subsidies are probably the next best step.


But I agree with you that external costs are everywhere.  It's part of the reason I don't really buy this "NAP" nonsense when applied to the real world.  I just think that if we are going to have a modern, sustainable economy, that we have to have the government capturing the worst external costs that exist.  The only other way is the Ron Paul solution... just let everyone "own" everything and sue each other.  I don't really feel like going into why I think this would work horribly.