TTI Forums

Keith Lockitch, PhD in physics, is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on science and environmentalism wrote:
Will a green energy industry be an engine of economic growth? Many want us to think so, including our new President. Apparently a booming green economy with millions of new jobs is just around the corner. All we need is the right mix of government “incentives.”

These include a huge (de facto) tax on carbon emissions imposed through a cap-and-trade regulatory scheme, as well as huge government subsidies for “renewable,” carbon-free sources. The hope is that these government sticks and carrots will turn today’s pitiful “green energy” industry, which produces an insignificant fraction of American energy, into a source of abundant, affordable energy that can replace today’s fossil-fuel-dominated industry.

This view is a fantasy--one that could devastate America’s economy. The reality is that “green energy” is at best a sophisticated make-work program.

There is a reason why less than 2 percent of the world’s energy currently comes from “renewable” sources such as wind and solar--the very sources that are supposedly going to power the new green economy: despite billions of dollars in government subsidies, funding decades of research, they have not proven themselves to be practical sources of energy. Indeed, without government mandates forcing their adoption in most Western countries, their high cost would make them even less prevalent.

Consider that it takes about 1,000 wind turbines, occupying tens of thousands of acres, to produce as much electricity as just one medium-sized, coal-fired power plant. And that’s if the wind is blowing: the intermittency of wind wreaks havoc on electricity grids, which need a stable flow of power, thus requiring expensive, redundant backup capacity or an unbuilt, unproven “smart grid.”

Or consider the “promise” of solar. Two projects in development will cover 12.5 square miles of central California with solar cells in the hope of generating about 800 megawatts of power (as much as one large coal-fired plant). But that power output will only be achieved when the sun is shining brightly--around noon on sunny days; the actual output will be less than a third that amount. And the electricity will cost more than market price, even with the life-support of federal subsidies that keeps the solar industry going. The major factor driving the project is not the promise of abundant power but California’s state quota requiring 20 percent “renewable” electricity by 2010.

More than 81 percent of world energy comes from fossil fuels, and half of America’s electricity is generated by burning coal. Carbon sources are literally keeping us alive. There is no evidence that they have--or will soon have--a viable replacement in transportation fuel, and there is only one in electricity generation, nuclear, which “green energy” advocates also oppose.

We all saw the ripple effects last summer when gas prices shot above $4 per gallon, and higher transportation costs drove up prices of everything from plane fares to vegetables. If green policies cause a permanent, and likely far greater, hike in the cost of all forms of energy, what shockwaves would that send through our already badly damaged economy?

We don’t want to find out.

Regardless of one’s views on global warming--and there is ample scientific evidence to reject the claim that manmade carbon emissions are causing catastrophe--the fact is that kneecapping the fossil fuel industry while diverting tax dollars into expensive, impractical forms of energy will not be an economic boon, but an economic disaster.

We in developed countries take industrial-scale energy for granted and often fail to appreciate its crucial value to our lives--including its indispensable role in enabling us to deal with drought, storms, temperature extremes, and other climate challenges we are told to fear by global-warming alarmists.

If we want to restore economic growth and reduce our vulnerability to the elements, what we need is not “green energy” forced upon us by government coercion but real energy delivered on a free market.

Riprion wrote:The problem with government intervention is that they choose what they think is going to be best, like ethanol, instead of letting the market figure it out on its own.

Riprion wrote:The price of oil will steadily increase as supplies diminish and demand increases.

Athre wrote:I wont get too deep into the topic but lets say if "big brother" had not stopped their own research and had not killed/threatened those who made small breakthroughs, we'd already be in vehicles that only required oil to grease the ball barrings.

Riprion wrote:You can't simply dump sewage on my property and get away with it.

Riprion wrote: A carbon tax could also be levied on other countries without a carbon tax in the form of tariffs. (I can't believe I just wrote that. I just threw up a little in my mouth).

This seems like a trivial question, when considering a single barrel of oil. But it is a HUGE generational question. Our generation is depleting a resource, future generations will not have the resource. Has their demand for the resource been factored into the price of oil? And what about the generation after them?

This is “prior appropriation” aspect of non-durable property (IMO) does not seem to work? If there is one barrel of oil left in the whole wide world. AND you and I both want it. How can your right to the barrel be greater than mine, based solely on the fact that you consumed the previous barrel of oil?

Riprion wrote:I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Is this prior appropriation in the sense of, "I found the oil therefore I own the oil and I can do with it what I please?"

Riprion wrote:Who is going to determine that future demand? The futures market is already very speculative and risky, and that’s only 3 months out. How would future demand be factored into price if it can't be determined in the marketplace?

• Who the heck needs perpetually sustainable energy, burn the candle at both ends and the party is over when it is gone answer to the question.

Petyr Baelich wrote:There is absolutely nothing wrong with a global government, in fact a global government is the ideal; provided that government is just and moral..

Petyr Baelich wrote:To say that a coal-fired power plant is bad because it pollutes your property with CO2 is utter bullshit if you're also paying that power company to provide power. You're making a free choice here! You CONSENT to their pollution of your property in exchange for the ability to power your house with electricity. If you feel that's a bad trade, stop paying them.

• Can I call the power plant and tell them to stop giving me CO2? Nope.
  Can I claim the high moral ground and say stop using every bit of the fossil fuels, save some for future generations? No because that would be a market constraint.
  Can we avoid the calamity that awaits us in the “beyond peak-oil” world?

[*]There is absolutely nothing wrong with a global government, infact a global government is the ideal; provided that government is just and moral.

To say that a coal-fired power plant is bad because it pollutes your property with CO2 is utter bullshit if you're also paying that power company to provide power. You're making a free choice here! You CONSENT to their pollution of your property in exchange for the ability to power your house with electricity. If you feel that's a bad trade, stop paying them. Build windmills outside your home, install solar panels on the roof, dig a hole 500m deep in your backyard and use geothermal energy to heat your water.

The only reason we do not have 0-emission power plants today is the fact that our current form government has the power to regulate private industry. Therefore environmental groups are able to lobby the government to block nuclear power plants which are head-and-shoulders above fossil fuels in terms of efficiency and pollution.

There's a reason the Navy uses nuclear power almost exclusively in its warships

Anyone that comes along after you and acquires any of the remaining parcels of land is SOL in their rights to the water (even if they buy the land up stream from your property.)

Riprion wrote:

Petyr wrote:There is absolutely nothing wrong with a global government, in fact a global government is the ideal; provided that government is just and moral.

I disagree. I believe the ideal would be many just and moral governments. I don't see the benefit of granting a monopoly on governance. You eliminate the option of emigration if you don't like the governance of your current state. A global government, even if it was created as a moral ideal, would inexorably slide away from that ideal toward tyranny.

Riprion wrote:

Petyr wrote:The only reason we do not have 0-emission power plants today is the fact that our current form government has the power to regulate private industry.

Actually, I think the reason we don't have zero-emission power plants today is because coal is cheap as shit.

Riprion wrote:An entity that doesn't exist cannot have rights. They are an idea, not a person. This is why I don't think a prior appropriations argument applies in this context.

Riprion wrote:I don’t know if I like the idea of the government "granting" the right to property instead of "recognizing" the right of property.

Riprion wrote:But you would have to show actual quantifiable harm. But I'm not sure who the total extraction of a resource would harm under the "management for future generations argument".

• A cancer victim can decide to not get medical advice.
  
  A cancer patient can decide not follow the treatment advice of their doctors.
  
  A cancer patient can embrace medical treatment.