13 replies to this topic

[maineman]

Here's today's hack:
Friedman

mm

[OEXCHAOS]

I can't read the entire article but I think I get the gist. Let me attempt to reduce it to it's essence. The lie of catastrophic man-made "global warming" is OK and tolerable if the policies that might flow from this lie lead to a more efficient and more energy independant "green economy". Is that the position of Thomas? Is that YOUR position? MY position is that if you want to alter the worlds or even this country's energy policy, you should base such up the facts of reality, not lies, and sound science--including sound economics, not politics and rent-seeking. What we have going on now is nothing but the latter two, plus a bunch of mindless emotional blather. Mark

[maineman]

Read the entire article. Takes 2 minutes. Then we'll talk. Basically he's saying what we traders say about putting on a trade and how we manage risk. mm

[colion]

Read the entire article. Takes 2 minutes. Then we'll talk. Basically he's saying what we traders say about putting on a trade and how we manage risk.

mm

Part of the issue of managing risk is its cost. What is it worth to prevent a 20 foot increase in sea level over a century especially if the probability of that happening is close to zero? What is worth to prevent a 7 degree increase in temperature over a century if the probability of that is close to zero? The Senate told Clinton that they would not ratify Kyoto because the cost was disproportionate to the risk.

You can argue with zero probability but that just underscores why we have to get the science right so that the correct priorities can be established for meaningful programs and policies. That can only be done by letting science function as it should without elected representatives and the media making that decision or calling those who placing those who disagree with their viewpoint on an equal footing with holocaust deniers. Unfortunately, at the present time no climate model has been verified. This is an essential part of the puzzle that must happen before one can begin to say that human activities affect climate and to what extent. No answer exists at this time as even the IPCC admits.

Having said all that it does not mean that even without anything going on beyond natural variation in the climate world that we should do nothing. Rumor has it that there is not an infinite supply of hydrocarbons within the earth (or easily obtained from elsewhere such as the methane seas on Saturn's moon). Reasonable estimates can be made as to when they will be very difficult and expensive to extract. Those estimates vary but nobody disagrees that at some point in time it will happen. As a result, we need to objectively (sans lobbys and other political input) establish an energy policy that addresses this reality. In my view, this would include legislation and regulations that move us toward multi-pass nuclear (France-Europe experience is well known and without multi-pass even nuclear fuel will run out before too long), R&D for "final" energy generation (e.g., fusion), increased energy efficiency (not a one shot increase in CAFE but a long term ramp (e.g., 0.5% increase in efficiency/year with an target goal, as suggested to Congress by the engineering societies after the oil panic in the 70s) that car producers can plan for), etc.