Text 14847, 92 rader
Skriven 2007-05-22 21:51:41 av Josh Hill (1260.babylon5)
  Kommentar till text 14822 av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (1235.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: unions
==================
On Tue, 22 May 2007 08:40:06 -0700, Charlie Edmondson
<edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:

>Josh Hill wrote:
><snipping thread>
>> 
>> 
>> Actually, government has already supported much or most of the basic
>> research that /does/ allow us to solve the energy crisis, from the
>> development of fission plants to work on hydrogen fuel cells.
>> 
>> Here's what government will do if it has any sense:
>> 
>> - Finance basic research and demonstration plants in the most
>> promising technologies
>> - Establish a cap and trade system for carbon emissions using as a
>> basis the best scientific estimates of what we have to do and let free
>> enterprise do what it does best, compete to develop and implement
>> solutions
>> - Where economic incentives aren't sufficiently speedy, use regulation
>> 
>> That's the gist of it. The actual effort will in fact be much more
>> complex, but this is the core, and it's enough.
>> 
>Well, I could go into what we DIDN'T get, because we didn't build the 
>infrastructure for a disciplined exploitation of space, but from your 
>responce, you wouldn't have wanted all that wealth in the first place...
>
>As to what government should be doing, I agree with point one - support 
>basic research.  That is something that is always going to be of 
>benefit, even the negative results.
>
>But as to point two - cap and trade systems - there you lose me.  All I 
>see there is another regulate and waste system, with featherbedding and 
>fake 'reductions' of emissions as some get very rich in trading things 
>that don't exist, and others find a fine tool to eliminate their 
>competition.  To me, this is totally the wrong tack to take.
>
>I still contend that we will be glad to conserve, as soon as it is 
>economically in our best interest (without government intervention) to 
>do so.

Actually, I mentioned a cap and trade system because it's the one that
business favors as being most efficient, because I've read that it's
worked well in controlling other pollutants, and because it seems to
make the most sense from an economic and technological perspective.

You mention as an alternative our economic best interest. I hope
you'll forgive me if I introduce the term "ideal market" here -- that
is, the market that would exist if all buyers had access to all
options and complete information about their benefits and liabilities.
(At least, that's what I assume the term refers to -- Kurt is welcome
to intrude if I'm misusing it.)

The problem, in a nutshell, is that the market for energy-conserving
appliances and technologies is far from ideal. For one thing,
consumers don't have enough information about the actual costs they'll
have to pay if they waste energy. For another, the price that we pay
at the pump is much lower than the actual cost of using the energy,
since its subsidized and excludes extrinsic costs. For another, we as
individuals aren't always wise in our choices -- we tend to ignore
problems that occur far in the future in favor of immediate
gratifications.

Also, the player in a market isn't always the individual -- sometimes
it's society as a whole. For example, if Joe lives inland and Sam
lives on the beach, Sam will suffer more from global warming than Joe
will, because he'll lose his house. And that means that society has to
protect Sam from Joe.

Then there's the chicken and egg problem. A new product -- HDTV's say,
or LCD displays -- is typically expensive at first, and only gradually
becomes cheaper as more units are sold. Eventually, it's made in such
quantity that the price drops to a tiny fraction of what it was at
introduction. For this and similar reasons, a necessary change may be
economically practical only if the group plays its proper role in the
marketplace.

All of which means that the market as it exists is not nearly
efficient enough to do what it has to.

-- 
Josh

"The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet
that people have the right to live life as they please,
as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. . . .
The radical right has nearly ruined our party. Its members
do not care about the Constitution and they are the
ones making all the noise." - Barry Goldwater
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)