Catching up

Concerning my post on cap and trade, I read in the "Economist" what the plans were for divvying up carbon credits: they were originally to be auctioned off. That at least makes sense and is fair to all parties. It still doesn't answer the problem of how to cope with industry growth, because I think everyone agrees that we will be expanding as we get more people. But the existing bill does not adopt this expedient: as I feared, the government will allocate most of the certificates for free, with only a small portion (around 15%, I believe) to be auctioned. Therefore, all the problems that I mentioned are likely to be real.

Even an auction system, however, fails because it attempts to set a fixed amount of allowable emissions. Since the technology of clean emissions is not infinitely flexible -- even if we wanted to produce only clean energy and were willing to pay for it, it is doubtful if we could meet our current demands with it -- any hard cap is arbitrary. As the Economist says, and I agree, a tax is by far the most logical solution.

I correctly predicted that gas prices would drop steeply after they topped $4/gallon, and I predicted again that they would rise above $2/gallon back when they were around $1.60. I don't put much value in my predictions, but it is nice to out-guess T. Boone Pickens, who said last year that oil would never again drop below $100 per barrel. I wonder if those opposed to our depence on oil shouldn't favour more drilling in America (Alaska and coastal waters especially)? If we didn't have so many reserves, there would be no argument about moving to other energy sources. They probably fear -- correctly -- that it would take longer to reach this point than they want to admit. I've also read about promising technology to farm protozoa that absorb carbon dioxide and fall to the bottom of the oceans, thereby returning carbon back to the earth and out of the atmosphere. I will be interested to see whether, if this method turns out to be effective, ecologically-minded groups will support it and stop complaining about our burning fossil fuels. Well, it's not so much that I'm curious, as I feel certain that most of them will remain opposed to oil. There is something atavistic in their opposition to industrial civilization ("love your mother" and the like -- worth another post) that makes it likely they will come up with some other reason to hate internal combustion engines. I'm more looking forward to that time, so I can point out that they're being disingenuous in shifting the reasons behind their opposition.

Driving by the "Lighthouse Worship Center" again this weekend, I noticed that the sign outside contained a quote from the Bible, and also a reference to the Holy Spirit. I presume, therefore, that it is a Christian church, though why it avoids saying as much in its name is beyond me.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l
Read more

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren'
Read more

What Are Pronouns For?

 Here's what I don't get about people defining their own pronouns (and I use "their" advisedly):  If I am talking to you, your pronoun is "you."  No one disputes that.  If I am talking about you to another person, the pronoun I use to reference you is none of your business.  I am in a conversation with someone else; you are not a party to it, and you are not entitled to impose rules on it.  Ideally, you will never know what we say -- but if you do find out, it doesn't matter because the pronouns I used were for my convenience, not for your feelings.  Heck, I may not even have met you, may not have any idea what you identify as or even what sex you really are (as sometimes happens when people have names like "Leslie" or "Ashley" that get used for both sexes, or foreign names that I am unfamiliar with).  So mind your business and there will be nothing to get offended about.
Read more