SCOTUS blocks Obama climate change rules

[dullard]

tl;dr Eskimospy: "I don't know what the causality is, please research it and tell me the answer when you find out"

Whether or not you are correct glenn1 on this issue (I honestly didn't read it), that is exactly how Eskimospy operates. He'll almost never back anything up. He is most often correct, but when he is incorrect he'll never admit it and then he resorts to demands that you prove his side.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't really need to issue any citation. I get monthly bills. My link has the real numbers.

Mass lacks a major gas pipeline. I don't have natural gas, but our rates are higher than other states for gas as well. Not benefiting from fracking, like everyone else.

What does this have to do with Obama you ask? I'll tell you. While the cost of energy was beginning to plunge, the rates for electricity in many states began to astronomically rise in 2014. It is clear that this was directed from Washington, as a coordinated effort. People had no incentive to move to "green" energy. While a lot people say they buy into climate change, they don't want to put their money where their mouth is. So by artificially making conventionally sourced energy more expensive than a contrived lower green rate, people moved to alternative energy companies in mass. Of course the alternative energy companies are there to just collect money, and plow some back to Washington pols. The energy still comes from the local electric company, who get a kick back and rate increases in the delivery rate.

I wonder why Obama is only targeting Mass and not the entire country?

 

[dank69]

I wonder why Obama is only targeting Mass and not the entire country?

He found out that "Masshole" was an accurate term and not just a pejorative. You're all going to camp out in the passing lane? Enjoy your 100% hike in energy prices then.

 

[glenn1]

It's more like I see little point in pulling up research for someone as irrational as you are. If you can't even admit that you pulled your earlier point from a comically inept 'study' promoted by a climate change denial organization why should I have any expectation of your ability to look at other research?

Man up, say three simple words. "I was wrong".

The criticisms of the paper are based on what assumptions were used and methodologies. If you want to counter that paper with one using your preferred assumptions be my guest; there's no shortage of people who want to make suggestions on that account. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf

For sake of argument and to move the discussion along I'll just stipulate the paper was wrong. You still don't and can't answer how and why the net new jobs from green energy are coming or how they're paid for. I don't give a shit if you cite magic assumptions about "X million new jobs" because that's an irrelevant figure. If you're not adding net new jobs who gives a damn as you're just replacing some jobs with some unspecified amount of different jobs and hasn't it been a long-standing gripe from the left that we're replacing low-paying unskilled manufacturing jobs (like textiles, etc.) with different low-paying unskilled service jobs like fast food? If all you're doing is replacing oil roughneck jobs paying $100k with solar panel assembly jobs paying the same amount (or less) then it doesn't really matter.

 

[zinfamous]

The criticisms of the paper are based on what assumptions were used and methodologies. If you want to counter that paper with one using your preferred assumptions be my guest; there's no shortage of people who want to make suggestions on that account. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf

Look, I'm not getting into the substance of this thread, but do you not understand that this is exactly why papers are discredited? It is either fraud (false results, false testing, doctored data), or conclusions that are rejected by their own methods. The latter, in this case, is almost always a case of clear bias.

Improper methodologies are probably the number one reason that investigators or journals are forced to make retractions, if they ever come round to doing that. If they don't, they just aren't respected and never become a part of the literature.

Not sure what the deal is here, why you insist on defending a turd, but it strikes me that you have very limited experience with primary scientific research?

 

[dank69]

The criticisms of the paper are based on what assumptions were used and methodologies. If you want to counter that paper with one using your preferred assumptions be my guest; there's no shortage of people who want to make suggestions on that account. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf

For sake of argument and to move the discussion along I'll just stipulate the paper was wrong. You still don't and can't answer how and why the net new jobs from green energy are coming or how they're paid for. I don't give a shit if you cite magic assumptions about "X million new jobs" because that's an irrelevant figure. If you're not adding net new jobs who gives a damn as you're just replacing some jobs with some unspecified amount of different jobs and hasn't it been a long-standing gripe from the left that we're replacing low-paying unskilled manufacturing jobs (like textiles, etc.) with different low-paying unskilled service jobs like fast food? If all you're doing is replacing oil roughneck jobs paying $100k with solar panel assembly jobs paying the same amount (or less) then it doesn't really matter.

The problem is that conservatives claim that it will kill jobs. Even if there are no net gains or losses, we still get a cleaner environment.

For the sake of the discussion, is it possible that green jobs might be more technical in nature, and therefore higher paying than existing fossil fuel jobs?

 

[glenn1]

The problem is that conservatives claim that it will kill jobs. Even if there are no net gains or losses, we still get a cleaner environment.

For the sake of the discussion, is it possible that green jobs might be more technical in nature, and therefore higher paying than existing fossil fuel jobs?

In this case you're the one who said it would create jobs and not a conservative saying it would kill jobs, see quote below which I and others responded to. The causal connection for the later is relatively simple, as Obama said his plan was to make energy prices "skyrocket" and higher energy costs are normally a drag on net jobs (sure it's a positive for the energy producer, but it's negative for basically everyone else).

You on the other hand have offered no supporting theory (much less evidence) for your claims. Even if we presume some of the new jobs (again mind the difference between new and net new) were more technical, why would that create more of them? Technology almost always serves to remove the need for labor overall, why would green energy be an exception? Auto replaced horses and reduced the need for labor (new jobs for mechanics and factory workers were offset by losses to farriers, blacksmiths, animal handlers, etc). Computers replaced typewriters and reduced the need for labor (workers did their own keying and the entire workforce of the typing pool went away). See the pattern here?

Conservatives can't grasp the idea that going green would probably create more jobs in the long run, because the fossil fuel industry has been spending billions of dollars drilling it into their heads that it's impossible and that it's actually the government that is paying scientists to tell you otherwise.

 

[ivwshane]

Okay, so let me break this down into smaller pieces for you as seemingly required. Your side claims that green energy will create net-new jobs. Somehow the costs of these jobs need to be paid; what is the causal mechanism for how is this being done? Obviously if you're saying it will boost employment there must be a reason, or if alternative energy was just creating surplus economic value on its own then why would you be attempting to further subsidize it while artificially inflating the cost of fossil fuel competitors?

Do Green jobs pay less than those they replace, thus allowing more of them given the same level of spend? If so, why are we trading quality for quantity?

Do Green jobs inherently cost less than non-green jobs (due to efficiency/productivity or some other means)? Is so, why are the savings going into more jobs rather than being passed along to the consumer?

Do these new Green Jobs simply reflect the higher costs of alternative energy with extra hires scaling in lockstep, thus are additional costs borne by the consumer?

Do these new Green jobs simply reflect the subsidies paid by the government, and if so why should taxpayers be funding this?

http://greeneconomypost.com/green-jobs-growing-fast-3214.htm

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...ive-definition-helps-green-jobs-outnumber-oi/

http://www.salary.com/how-much-cash-are-green-jobs-worth/

http://www.bloomberg.com/consumer-spending/2012-04-20/the-real-cost-of-going-green.html

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-...-to-put-their-money-where-their-heart-is.html

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/
(It's important to note that comparing subsidies is not an apples to apples comparison, fossil fuel gets subsidized in other ways other than a direct subsidy)
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/sies.cfm

 

[zinfamous]

In this case you're the one who said it would create jobs and not a conservative saying it would kill jobs, see quote below which I and others responded to. The causal connection for the later is relatively simple, as Obama said his plan was to make energy prices "skyrocket" and higher energy costs are normally a drag on net jobs (sure it's a positive for the energy producer, but it's negative for basically everyone else).

You on the other hand have offered no supporting theory (much less evidence) for your claims. Even if we presume some of the new jobs (again mind the difference between new and net new) were more technical, why would that create more of them? Technology almost always serves to remove the need for labor overall, why would green energy be an exception? Auto replaced horses and reduced the need for labor (new jobs for mechanics and factory workers were offset by losses to farriers, blacksmiths, animal handlers, etc). Computers replaced typewriters and reduced the need for labor (workers did their own keying and the entire workforce of the typing pool went away). See the pattern here?

Coal has been shedding jobs for decades. This is no fault of Obama though, thankfully, he is probably speeding that up, as well he should. Coal is killing coal, nothing more.

On top of that, fossil fuels in general are archaic tech and should well be phased out. It's a dying tech, a dying industry. I think most conservatives and certainly the elected Pubs understand this. It is true.
Further, propping it up simply for the sake of "Creating jobs" is anti-capitalist, government-enforced welfare.

So, when you are looking in one hand at an industry that has a near-future expiration date, and in the other an industry with near-limitless R&D potential and a dearth of highly skilled, highly educated workers--better salaries--you have to ask yourself about the job potential, no?

This isn't an argument for killing fossil fuel production full-stop. It's a statement of fact that one sector has a cutoff point (Wells are not bottomless) and the other does not. This realization doesn't require economic data. It really is the only option going forward. Does this mean that coal jobs will easily become green energy jobs? well, not really. Some at the administrative and engineering levels, maybe; but no one is ever arguing on their behalf, because no one needs to. You can't expect a miner to walk out of the ground, dust off his pants and lungs, then walk into a factory and start designing solar cells.

But I'm an all-hands-on-deck sort of person. My largest disappointment, though, is the profound lack of development and interest in nuclear energy. We know it's good, we know it's cheap (in the end) and profoundly safe and clean, but it is so absurdly polarizing.

So, green energy will either create less jobs (more automated systems require less labor), or will create the only jobs available in energy. Either way, it's going to happen. I guess it depends on how you want to accept it. The good news is that our workforce is becoming more and more educated, so it's not like we will see budding coal shovelers wondering what happened to their profession a few decades from now.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Good news for the coal industry.

Fuck the planet, we need cheap electricity!

 

[glenn1]

http://greeneconomypost.com/green-jobs-growing-fast-3214.htm Says "growing twice as fast", no causality demonstrated or proposed theory for such

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...ive-definition-helps-green-jobs-outnumber-oi/ Again, only cites green job numbers and no causality demonstrated or proposed theory for such

http://www.salary.com/how-much-cash-are-green-jobs-worth/ discussing pay for green jobs, no causality demonstrated or proposed theory for why they would be created net-new

http://www.bloomberg.com/consumer-spending/2012-04-20/the-real-cost-of-going-green.html nothing about net new green jobs and no causality demonstrated or proposed theory for why they would increase

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-...-to-put-their-money-where-their-heart-is.html I guess this is an argument that conumers would be willing to pay extra to create green jobs? So it's not that going green creates jobs, but rather charging people for the same amount of energy creates additional funds to hire more people in those green jobs

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/
(It's important to note that comparing subsidies is not an apples to apples comparison, fossil fuel gets subsidized in other ways other than a direct subsidy)
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/sies.cfm What do fossil fuel subsidies have to do with the proposition that going green serves to create net new jobs?

Again, causality not found.

 

[zinfamous]

The other question is why is there any logical reason to maintain "net-new jobs"? It is anti-capitalist, anti-competitive regressive welfare.

Improvements in tech-based economies always see this type of adjustment, and we move on. There are always winners and losers. Yay Capitalism! The primary focus should start at the primary school level, as we have been doing for several years now encouraging STEM.

Are you the guy defending the hapless stagecoach-tilter at the dawn of the automobile?

 

[dank69]

In this case you're the one who said it would create jobs and not a conservative saying it would kill jobs, see quote below which I and others responded to. The causal connection for the later is relatively simple, as Obama said his plan was to make energy prices "skyrocket" and higher energy costs are normally a drag on net jobs (sure it's a positive for the energy producer, but it's negative for basically everyone else).

You on the other hand have offered no supporting theory (much less evidence) for your claims. Even if we presume some of the new jobs (again mind the difference between new and net new) were more technical, why would that create more of them? Technology almost always serves to remove the need for labor overall, why would green energy be an exception? Auto replaced horses and reduced the need for labor (new jobs for mechanics and factory workers were offset by losses to farriers, blacksmiths, animal handlers, etc). Computers replaced typewriters and reduced the need for labor (workers did their own keying and the entire workforce of the typing pool went away). See the pattern here?

I did say that, as that is my opinion based on new technologies typically creating many more jobs than they eliminate. I mean, are you actually arguing that computers destroyed more jobs than they created with a straight face? Really?

 

[glenn1]

Coal has been shedding jobs for decades. This is no fault of Obama though, thankfully, he is probably speeding that up, as well he should. Coal is killing coal, nothing more.

On top of that, fossil fuels in general are archaic tech and should well be phased out. It's a dying tech, a dying industry. I think most conservatives and certainly the elected Pubs understand this. It is true.

Further, propping it up simply for the sake of "Creating jobs" is anti-capitalist, government-enforced welfare.

So, when you are looking in one hand at an industry that has a near-future expiration date, and in the other an industry with near-limitless R&D potential and a dearth of highly skilled, highly educated workers--better salaries--you have to ask yourself about the job potential, no?

This isn't an argument for killing fossil fuel production full-stop. It's a statement of fact that one sector has a cutoff point (Wells are not bottomless) and the other does not. This realization doesn't require economic data. It really is the only option going forward. Does this mean that coal jobs will easily become green energy jobs? well, not really. Some at the administrative and engineering levels, maybe; but no one is ever arguing on their behalf, because no one needs to. You can't expect a miner to walk out of the ground, dust off his pants and lungs, then walk into a factory and start designing solar cells.

But I'm an all-hands-on-deck sort of person. My largest disappointment, though, is the profound lack of development and interest in nuclear energy. We know it's good, we know it's cheap (in the end) and profoundly safe and clean, but it is so absurdly polarizing.

So, green energy will either create less jobs (more automated systems require less labor), or will create the only jobs available in energy. Either way, it's going to happen. I guess it depends on how you want to accept it. The good news is that our workforce is becoming more and more educated, so it's not like we will see budding coal shovelers wondering what happened to their profession a few decades from now.

So you're taking back your claim that green energy will create net new jobs, and replacing it with the logically sound reality they'll instead create less. Hey, we're making progress here. Coupled with your acknowledgement that we still need some way to produce base load power (such as nuclear) and I think we can make further progress still.

No real argument from me that fossil fuels are ripe for replacement. That being said, we can't transition from them until the proposed replacement:

(A) Meets our basic 'business requirements'; for example the itermittency issue with solar or wind power means it can't be the foundation of the grid at this point,

(B) Meets the requirements of specific use cases; for example electric cars are great but their range and other considerations make them a non-starter for many customers plus you're only shifting the problem.

(C) Makes engineering sense, e.g. we wouldn't put an internal combustion engine in a toilet or an electric motor in the space shuttle, likewise we shouldn't put "green energy" solutions into things just because we can, and finally:

(D) Makes reasonable economic sense; for every application where an alternative is already economic we should help complete the transition (e.g. solar water heaters, etc) but not force solutions that aren't ready for the prime time just because they sound cool. An example would be the buzz a few years ago around hydrogen cars - it ignores the fact that hydrogen is an energy storage medium and not a source itself since it needs to be extracted at a net loss in energy production given current technologies.

 

[ivwshane]

Again, causality not found.

Causality? So the subsidizing of a budding industry to create supply that is later fueled by demand for those products which then leads to higher growth (and at a pace that is higher than the general economy) doesn't have any relation to reach other?

Shit! When Eskimospy said this:

It's more like I see little point in pulling up research for someone as irrational as you are. If you can't even admit that you pulled your earlier point from a comically inept 'study' promoted by a climate change denial organization why should I have any expectation of your ability to look at other research?

I thought maybe he was just dodging you but clearly he knows exactly who he is talking to.
Thanks for wasting my time!

 

[zinfamous]

So you're taking back your claim that green energy will create net new jobs, and replacing it with the logically sound reality they'll instead create less. Hey, we're making progress here. Coupled with your acknowledgement that we still need some way to produce base load power (such as nuclear) and I think we can make further progress still.

No real argument from me that fossil fuels are ripe for replacement. That being said, we can't transition from them until the proposed replacement:

(A) Meets our basic 'business requirements'; for example the itermittency issue with solar or wind power means it can't be the foundation of the grid at this point,

(B) Meets the requirements of specific use cases; for example electric cars are great but their range and other considerations make them a non-starter for many customers plus you're only shifting the problem.

(C) Makes engineering sense, e.g. we wouldn't put an internal combustion engine in a toilet or an electric motor in the space shuttle, likewise we shouldn't put "green energy" solutions into things just because we can, and finally:

(D) Makes reasonable economic sense; for every application where an alternative is already economic we should help complete the transition (e.g. solar water heaters, etc) but not force solutions that aren't ready for the prime time just because they sound cool. An example would be the buzz a few years ago around hydrogen cars - it ignores the fact that hydrogen is an energy storage medium and not a source itself since it needs to be extracted at a net loss in energy production given current technologies.

Well, I'm not saying they will or won't create more jobs, but those jobs are the only option. They will create the only jobs, for sure.

It's certainly possible you might see more jobs in the future, but that really isn't the way innovation happens: innovation kills jobs. Everyone knows this. Creating more jobs with innovation is a fool's argument. No one stops innovation to save obsolete jobs, do they? Even the most regressive conservatives understand that this is death.

But they aren't going to replace jobs that don't exist, anyway (the stagecoach tilter in the world of the automobile), so you have to look at funny math, in a way. The loss of many coal and oil jobs isn't a negative...it becomes a 0. Hell, building that stupid pipeline would have been a negative (or a 0) if it happened. Something like a dozen people total working that thing, rather than the shippers and train operators working full time.

Fossil fuels will be a thing well beyond their use in direct energy production, so it's not like that is disappearing. I'm all for keeping it going as long as it's needed, but the sooner we can get off of it the better

 

[glenn1]

I did say that, as that is my opinion based on new technologies typically creating many more jobs than they eliminate. I mean, are you actually arguing that computers destroyed more jobs than they created with a straight face? Really?

For the most part they destroyed jobs, the typing pool as a good example. Computers were designed to improve productivity of work as their main purpose, not for arguing on internet forums or watching cat videos. You don't see rows and rows of engineers performing complex calculations with slide rules any more and instead see one Senior Engineer using MatLab or other tools. Human capital requirements tend to be met by a smaller group of more skilled persons using that technology tool.

That being said, technology has created some new jobs as well. You don't have the typing pool anymore, but you also gained some jobs that didn't exist before, like Enterprise Architects or MetaData Librarian. That's why I called out the difference between new jobs and NET new jobs. Those weren't jobs you could have predicted would have come out of the new "computer" technology and depending on your POV might not offset the jobs lost from computers. That's a policy question and not 100% germane to this discussion.

 

[ivwshane]

Well, I'm not saying they will or won't create more jobs, but those jobs are the only option. They will create the only jobs, for sure.

It's certainly possible you might see more jobs in the future, but that really isn't the way innovation happens: innovation kills jobs. Everyone knows this. Creating more jobs with innovation is a fool's argument. No one stops innovation to save obsolete jobs, do they? Even the most regressive conservatives understand that this is death.

But they aren't going to replace jobs that don't exist, anyway (the stagecoach tilter in the world of the automobile), so you have to look at funny math, in a way. The loss of many coal and oil jobs isn't a negative...it becomes a 0. Hell, building that stupid pipeline would have been a negative (or a 0) if it happened. Something like a dozen people total working that thing, rather than the shippers and train operators working full time.

Fossil fuels will be a thing well beyond their use in direct energy production, so it's not like that is disappearing. I'm all for keeping it going as long as it's needed, but the sooner we can get off of it the better

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion but just as a matter of history: The US has had a pretty steady growth of population and during that same time it has had a steady growth of innovation and the employment rate has been relatively steady as well so I'd argue that on the macro level innovation certainly does create jobs. On the micro level? Sure, when automobiles replaced horses, equine jobs fell dramatically, however they were replaced by manufacturing jobs, millions of them!

 

[dank69]

For the most part they destroyed jobs, the typing pool as a good example. Computers were designed to improve productivity of work as their main purpose, not for arguing on internet forums or watching cat videos. You don't see rows and rows of engineers performing complex calculations with slide rules any more and instead see one Senior Engineer using MatLab or other tools. Human capital requirements tend to be met by a smaller group of more skilled persons using that technology tool.

That being said, technology has created some new jobs as well. You don't have the typing pool anymore, but you also gained some jobs that didn't exist before, like Enterprise Architects or MetaData Librarian. That's why I called out the difference between new jobs and NET new jobs. Those weren't jobs you could have predicted would have come out of the new "computer" technology and depending on your POV might not offset the jobs lost from computers. That's a policy question and not 100% germane to this discussion.

Bro, do you have any idea how many computer-related jobs there are today? I'm not even talking about people who use computers, just IT jobs alone.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion but just as a matter of history: The US has had a pretty steady growth of population and during that same time it has had a steady growth of innovation and the employment rate has been relatively steady as well so I'd argue that on the macro level innovation certainly does create jobs. On the micro level? Sure, when automobiles replaced horses, equine jobs fell dramatically, however they were replaced by manufacturing jobs, millions of them!

Right, but we didn't have robots putting cars together in those days. The equine folks could be trained well enough to do that.

Yes, innovation creates jobs that did not exist, but you have to have the right people to work those new jobs. The good news is that after years of teeth-gnashing and political bickering, we have managed to create a relatively well-educated workforce compared to each prior decade.

I guess this is also why we are seeing a yuuuge increase in the service sector, no? I mean, where did all of those secretaries go when the PC killed the secretary pool? Some went back to school and into nursing and other professional sectors (and now we have different classes of professional medical degrees, which is a good thing), but many also went into service...I think.

 

[zinfamous]

For the most part they destroyed jobs, the typing pool as a good example. Computers were designed to improve productivity of work as their main purpose, not for arguing on internet forums or watching cat videos. You don't see rows and rows of engineers performing complex calculations with slide rules any more and instead see one Senior Engineer using MatLab or other tools. Human capital requirements tend to be met by a smaller group of more skilled persons using that technology tool.

That being said, technology has created some new jobs as well. You don't have the typing pool anymore, but you also gained some jobs that didn't exist before, like Enterprise Architects or MetaData Librarian. That's why I called out the difference between new jobs and NET new jobs. Those weren't jobs you could have predicted would have come out of the new "computer" technology and depending on your POV might not offset the jobs lost from computers. That's a policy question and not 100% germane to this discussion.

right, heh--I didn't see that you also mentioned the typing pool. As to the overall statement, you mention that many of these things occur (as they always do) because you really couldn't predict what kind of jobs would rise out of the new paradigm.

Since this always happens, why, then, should we be so concerned over this "unknown" factor with the death of fossil fuels and the rise of green energy? Should we not expect innovation to innovate all sorts of new jobs, as well? Why ask for proper data to prove that this will happen when you know that this has never been predicted, but still happens? Why are you so concerned that, for the first time ever, this is the death of job innovation?

 

[glenn1]

right, heh--I didn't see that you also mentioned the typing pool. As to the overall statement, you mention that many of these things occur (as they always do) because you really couldn't predict what kind of jobs would rise out of the new paradigm.

Since this always happens, why, then, should we be so concerned over this "unknown" factor with the death of fossil fuels and the rise of green energy? Should we not expect innovation to innovate all sorts of new jobs, as well? Why ask for proper data to prove that this will happen when you know that this has never been predicted, but still happens? Why are you so concerned that, for the first time ever, this is the death of job innovation?

I don't have concerns over green energy per se, but I likewise don't engage in magic thinking about it. Cars took over from horses when the technology was mature enough, and no amount of government forcing would have helped. Napoleonic France wouldn't have converted away from the horse no matter how much the Emperor decreed it so.

Sure, the government could help bring about a conducive environment for the technology to reach economic viability and mass adoption (such as building roads or passing laws to cover automobiles), but they didn't end the horse by imposing taxes on them to make them artificially cost more. And this was despite some of the clear 'externalities' involved like horse shit covering the streets.

That's kinda what I'm saying here. I know you guys are really excited about the possibilities of alternative energy, but don't screw things up by making unrealistic claims ("it will create millions of new jobs" - presuming you ignore the lost jobs it creates) or trying to force technologies that aren't ready. I know you guys mean well with things like this Obama Climate Change Rule, but it's really counter-productive in the end. If you ignore engineering and economic reality then all you do is create situations like the VW diesel cheating scandal since the standard wasn't realistically achievable. Things like this Obama rule and 50+ MPG fuel economy standards are likely to be a similar overreach.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't have concerns over green energy per se, but I likewise don't engage in magic thinking about it. Cars took over from horses when the technology was mature enough, and no amount of government forcing would have helped. Napoleonic France wouldn't have converted away from the horse no matter how much the Emperor decreed it so.

Sure, the government could help bring about a conducive environment for the technology to reach economic viability and mass adoption (such as building roads or passing laws to cover automobiles), but they didn't end the horse by imposing taxes on them to make them artificially cost more. And this was despite some of the clear 'externalities' involved like horse shit covering the streets.

That's kinda what I'm saying here. I know you guys are really excited about the possibilities of alternative energy, but don't screw things up by making unrealistic claims ("it will create millions of new jobs" - presuming you ignore the lost jobs it creates) or trying to force technologies that aren't ready. I know you guys mean well with things like this Obama Climate Change Rule, but it's really counter-productive in the end. If you ignore engineering and economic reality then all you do is create situations like the VW diesel cheating scandal since the standard wasn't realistically achievable. Things like this Obama rule and 50+ MPG fuel economy standards are likely to be a similar overreach.

The way I see it, there is no option not to focus R&D on green energy and other related tech.

And you know, government does these things pretty well and generally comes out on top:

catalytic converter, seat belts (two necessary and roundly-accepted technologies that were, at the time--"the doom" of the industry if the car manufacturers had their way, complaining about how the imposed costs would bankrupt them).

Not focusing on something "until it is mature" is a good way to hope that it never matures. I don't like that.

I like NASA. I like space exploration, going to the moon. I like colliding Hadrons. This is what advanced economies should be doing. This is what makes humans awesome. And, quite frankly, we really do not have a choice. I wouldn't worry about anyone lighting a match to the existing fossil fuels and forcing our hand to turn green energy into the next NASA project--that's somewhat of a populist detraction, imo.

Hell, all we have to do is convince Congress that, as always, green energy innovation is the best path to shiny weapons and blowing shit up, and they'll just toss bags of money at it. Presto! Innovation. It's why we have NASA, why we have/had Fermi labs and almost had that massive accelerator in NM (blame the Russians for going non-commie for the loss of our accelerator. )

The Obama 50 mpg is hardly an overreach, and certainly will not fail. This marks the third (4th?) time that the gov't has mandated better efficiency in cars. Every time the makers bitch and moan about cost. Every time they convince some segment of the population that this will, indeed, doom the auto industry.
It never happens. Cars become more efficient. The makers make more money. Everyone is happy. It's one thing to make such a prediction, it's quite another to consider the long history of that very same prediction and continue to make the wrong prediction.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't have concerns over green energy per se, but I likewise don't engage in magic thinking about it. Cars took over from horses when the technology was mature enough, and no amount of government forcing would have helped. Napoleonic France wouldn't have converted away from the horse no matter how much the Emperor decreed it so.

Sure, the government could help bring about a conducive environment for the technology to reach economic viability and mass adoption (such as building roads or passing laws to cover automobiles), but they didn't end the horse by imposing taxes on them to make them artificially cost more. And this was despite some of the clear 'externalities' involved like horse shit covering the streets.

That's kinda what I'm saying here. I know you guys are really excited about the possibilities of alternative energy, but don't screw things up by making unrealistic claims ("it will create millions of new jobs" - presuming you ignore the lost jobs it creates) or trying to force technologies that aren't ready. I know you guys mean well with things like this Obama Climate Change Rule, but it's really counter-productive in the end. If you ignore engineering and economic reality then all you do is create situations like the VW diesel cheating scandal since the standard wasn't realistically achievable. Things like this Obama rule and 50+ MPG fuel economy standards are likely to be a similar overreach.

Prove it.

Btw, vw isn't the only one making deisel fueled cars, how were those car manufacturers able to reach these unrealistic unachievable goals? Hmm...I smell bullshit and I don't see bobberfet posting in this thread so it's not him

 

[Sonikku]

I propose a deal between liberals and conservatives.

We agree that any "green energy solution" that is twice as costly as the next option is no solution at all. BUT you guys have to acknowledge that environmental laws and regulations still are necessary on some level, even if it means business can't maximize margins by simply dumping their hazardous waste in the local drinking supply, in the interests of stopping our lands from becoming the polluted cesspool China is rapidly becoming.