- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,395
- Reaction score
- 14,430
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
When discussing the possible solutions to AGW, there are many potential paths that can be taken.
The discussion could be expressed as a problem with limits.
On one far edge is the Laissez-faire approach, the market will select the most viable
replacement for fossil fuels.
On the other edge are the cries for definitive Government action to do something.
The something for the most part is some form of carbon tax.
The thinking is that taxing carbon will increase the cost of fossil fuels and make the
alternatives price competitive quicker.
The problem I see with the taxation approach is the very real danger of giving the government
another revenue stream, much akin to providing a junky with a new source of narcotics.
There is also a bias problem, related to the government picking winners, the people making the decisions could because of biases choose a solution which may not be the best one.
In reality, the solution lies somewhere in the middle. There is room for improvement
In the existing regulations, to allow say, home power to be a good deal for all the parties.
This unfortunately means an end to all net metering programs, home generators can be paid
for their surplus power, just not at the retail rate, or higher.
For the Laissez-faire approach, the natural raise in oil which will occur as the supply tapers off,
Will make the alternatives viable, just on a market price basis.
People will buy whatever solves their problem for the least amount of money!
The discussion could be expressed as a problem with limits.
On one far edge is the Laissez-faire approach, the market will select the most viable
replacement for fossil fuels.
On the other edge are the cries for definitive Government action to do something.
The something for the most part is some form of carbon tax.
The thinking is that taxing carbon will increase the cost of fossil fuels and make the
alternatives price competitive quicker.
The problem I see with the taxation approach is the very real danger of giving the government
another revenue stream, much akin to providing a junky with a new source of narcotics.
There is also a bias problem, related to the government picking winners, the people making the decisions could because of biases choose a solution which may not be the best one.
In reality, the solution lies somewhere in the middle. There is room for improvement
In the existing regulations, to allow say, home power to be a good deal for all the parties.
This unfortunately means an end to all net metering programs, home generators can be paid
for their surplus power, just not at the retail rate, or higher.
For the Laissez-faire approach, the natural raise in oil which will occur as the supply tapers off,
Will make the alternatives viable, just on a market price basis.
People will buy whatever solves their problem for the least amount of money!