
The Climate-Industrial Complex - gibsonf1
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286145192740987.html
======
eli
A counter-point: _Björn Lomborg's claim that sea levels are not rising faster
than predicted are unfounded and used by those wanting to downplay climate
change_

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-
green/2009/mar/03/...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-
green/2009/mar/03/sea-levels-rising)

~~~
brc
FTA : _the German government's Advisory Council on Global Change has proposed
to limit long-term sea level rise to a maximum of one meter, as a policy goal
along-side the European Union's goal to limit warming to 2C._

And that's it in a nutshell. The politicians are so out of touch with reality,
they think they can hold back the sea and change the temperature of the world
by writing things on bits of paper.

------
biohacker42
While I'm sure windmill makers are lobbying as hard as they can, can you
honestly be concerned about them given their fossil fuel position like coal,
oil, natural gas, and car companies?

~~~
lukifer
I agree: this problem is small potatoes compared to the entrenched fossil fuel
interests, who've effectively dictated national policy for decades.

~~~
mnemonicsloth
Suppose it turns out that (for example) unpredictable variation in output of
wind-powered generating stations introduces too much uncertainty into the grid
to effectively balance supply against load, so control and distribution
requirements limit wind power's contribution to about 5% of demand [1].

Then, if we aren't careful, we'll wind up with an over-subsidized wind turbine
industry with nothing to do other than provide service to a niche market and
lobby congress for more money for "research and development," promising that
_someday, maybe_ the right solution will come along.

Rent-seeking by a big company does not justify rent-seeking by a small company
that hopes to become a big company, because success will make it _another_ big
rent-seeking company.

[1] This is a real problem that hasn't been solved yet. There are ideas about
what to do, but none of them is a slam dunk.

------
eli
And the author, Mr Lomborg, makes money by being skeptical of climate change.
_shrug_

~~~
greyboy
Unlike Al Gore and his fearmongering?

~~~
eli
Yes, that's pretty much what the author of the linked article said -- did you
read it?

Personally, I think Al Gore's a pretty smart guy and if he just wanted to get
rich, there are easier ways...

But sure, lets agree that both sides have something to gain and move on. This
silliness about the "Big Green" lobby is distracting from a meaningful
discussion about global warming and how seriously to take it.

~~~
brc
_lets agree that both sides have something to gain and move on. This silliness
about the "Big Green" lobby is distracting from a meaningful discussion about
global warming and how seriously to take it._

I disagree with this. The main thrust against any refutation of human caused
global warming is always that the author is in the paid service of an oil
company, lobby group. You cannot have it both ways. You can't allow people to
use that argument to brand people who refute or discount human-caused global
warming as paid skeptics, and then brush it aside when the argument is used in
reverse.

~~~
eli
I'm not having it both ways. I'm saying that you can make this argument about
both sides. The linked article implies Al Gore's in it for the case, so there
ya go.

This is a silly argument. My whole point was that we should move beyond
questioning motives.

------
nazgulnarsil
if you're against nuclear power go read up on the subject until you realize
that you're wrong.

~~~
te_platt
I've done a bit of work recently for some small scale alternative energy
projects. Various combinations of catalyzed electrolysis, wave energy, natural
heat differential, and more. I've learned two main lessons:

1\. The second law of thermodynamics is a beast.

2\. Nuclear energy is amazingly clean, safe, and reliable compared to the
alternatives and slightly more expensive than necessary because of political
pressures.

~~~
lutorm
_More_ expensive than necessary? It's my understanding that the nuclear
industry has been the recipient of some massive subsidies, not the least of
which is the liability cap for a major disaster after which the taxpayers will
foot the bill.

I'm not dogmatic either way about nuclear. Do I think it's better than burning
coal? Yes. Do I think that we should focus resources on developing truly
renewable energy sources? Yes.

Nuclear energy is not so clean at the uranium mining sites, either.

~~~
te_platt
Yes, there have been subsidies but there are also huge costs associated with
licensing and permitting (not to mention lawsuits of all sorts) to build a
nuclear power plant. On the whole the costs are more than the subsidies.

Uranium mining sites are not so clean compared to where I live but are clean
compared to a coal mine. The real question is whether they are cleaner than
the alternatives.

My main point isn't that nuclear energy is perfect, just that it is an
amazingly good choice to have.

------
lutorm
Predictable, given the author and the venue. No information content.

"... despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-
benefit test." Really? Which evidence is that?

~~~
anamax
> Really? Which evidence is that?

The UN's climate change committee's numbers. They found that action now was
economically justified now only if they used a negative discount rate.

Do you want to argue that they dramatically overstated the costs now? Or, do
you want argue that they understated the costs later? If you like both of
their numbers, then you get to argue, as they tried, that spending $1 now to
eliminate a problem that will cost <$1 to fix later is a good idea.

It's almost unheard of to use a negative discount rate because time is worth
money.

~~~
lutorm
Can you point me to where in the WG3 report it says that? I can't say I've
read it carefully, but my impression from the Summary was that there are
substantial mitigation measures that are both "market feasible" (comparable
ROI of investing the money otherwise) and "society feasible" (meaning it will
be a net profit, but if you wanted to maximize profit you'd invest it
elsewhere).

~~~
anamax
My mistake, I was referring specifically to the Stern Report - there's a good
discussion at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review> .

The IPCC (ipcc.ch) also plays games with discount rates.

------
pj
The climate issue is the most irrational topic in the world right now.

