|
|
 Originally Posted by CoccoBill
^You got me, what's more important?
I think you may have misread me. I said that to environmentalists who think AGW is the most important issue, markets are the most effective tool to fix that issue.
There's a lot of middle ground between fully green in 20y and not doing anything. Cutting emissions by a third in 20y instead of increasing them by the same amount, which is the current rate, might be a nice start.
Markets are how it would happen. No amount of trying to ignore costs will keep fossil fuels in the ground. If some fossil fuels will remain in the ground that would be otherwise cost-effective to extract, it would come only by such incredible innovative production and distribution that a different energy source beats out fossil. So far it's a pipedream to see a world like this in even 50 years. The technology and innovation really is that hard.
Besides, the truth is that we will need geoengineering to fully solve the problem. It's probably a good idea to get started now, to grow as quickly as we can so that when if there ever is a doomsday, we'll actually have the ability to beat it. Half-assed (even full-assed) regulatory attempts to stymie fossil fuel use will just make it harder to fix the problem by decreasing growth in technology, all the while the globe would just get warmer and warmer.
|
Reply With Quote