Environmental regulation has evolved into a means for government to evade the takings clause of the U.S. constitution. In its current form regulation makes private property idea moot. Government can take any property without compensation if even hypothetical environmental cost can be claimed.
One argument against fossil fuel energy is that those resources are limited whereas green energy isnt. However they always seem to forget that the actual resources needed to make those instruments are themselves using scarce resources that are finite.
well the main argument against fossil fuels is that they emit CO2 and cause climate change - as well as air pollution that kills millions each year. Renewable energy doesnt do that. Yes they require rare earths and metals, which will become the bottle neck of the green transition, but that is a problem for the future. Fossil fuels is the problem of now - and the past 40 years.
Yes it is. The fuel is free but the minerals required and energy to process them into windmills solar panels etc. Is considerable. Oh yeah. They aren't renewable. They are replaceable because they wear out after 20 years and will be sent to a landfill somewhere near you
The thing is that opposed to fossil fuels, the rare metals can actually be recycled into new batteries, renewable energy etc - technologies which is already being developed. So yeah they are renewable, but of course they come at a cost. And it is obvious that that cost is smaller than the continuation of fossil fuel use.
What I think is the single biggest problem with the "cost to society" approach, and more generally with the equivocation of "society" with the State (a class of individuals within a political organization), is that it presumes "society" has a singular will, and with that a singular set of economic preferences, such that the effects of a particular course of action can be termed a "cost" or a "benefit" to "society". Of course, such a view is self-contradictory, even with its own most basic premises, since the whole desire for governance stems from conflicts over scarce resources. To then claim that the service of governance, much less the State specifically, somehow melds those individuals, with mutually exclusive preferences, into one coherent whole is preposterous. More pointedly, any formulation of this "cost to society" view necessarily ignores the fact that the actual costs have been imposed on individuals, not some nebulous "society". Proponents actually evidence this when asked why this "cost to society" should not be permitted. They will inevitably bring up courses of action which individuals undertake, because "society", as an aggregate concept, cannot do anything, much less want or prefer anything. Thus, they admit that the harm is done to individuals, but refuse to compensate those individuals, and only them, by holding the perpetrators accountable, and only them. This is the same persistent ideological flaw which underpins the perceived legitimacy of the State. By viewing "society" as a coherent individual, "society's preferences" enter the picture. Of course, "society's preferences" are taken as paramount over individual preferences since to contradict "society's preferences" would harm more individuals (oh the irony). This is, purportedly, why the State has the right to tax - "society" wants (or "needs") the money more than you do. (Even permitting that "society" is an individual, there will also be a good deal of interpersonal comparison of ends here.) The State has the right to unilaterally legislate and compel because "society" prefers you act in such and such a way, and avoid doing this or that. That doesn't even cover the identification of the State as the sole representative for the preferences of "society". Which people should be part of the State, and why? Because "society" says so, perhaps via democratic election? That election was only performed under the assumption that the State could accurately represent the preferences of "society", which obviously begs the question. The even more pointed question is: who is a part of this "society"? Is it composed of five people? Five hundred? Five hundred thousand? How were those people selected? By geographic locale, as is the usual? Why should the border stop expanding? This makes the exclusion, and the inclusion, arbitrary. To what degree are the preferences of each individual reflected in the preferences of "society", if indeed that is the purported goal of the State? If it is uneven an in an ideal oligarchy, why? This is arbitrary. Why seek evenness, as in an ideal democracy? This, too, is arbitrary. The direction of the State can only be provided by consulting the will of "society", but the will of "society" can only be consulted by first consulting the State. The reasoning is circular, and the claim to power is arbitrary. Arbitrary claims can be offhandedly dismissed.
Environmental regulation has evolved into a means for government to evade the takings clause of the U.S. constitution. In its current form regulation makes private property idea moot. Government can take any property without compensation if even hypothetical environmental cost can be claimed.
inflation and the fossil fuel industry are the same.
@@jsamc lol
“Consume less”
The solution we won’t talk about.
One argument against fossil fuel energy is that those resources are limited whereas green energy isnt. However they always seem to forget that the actual resources needed to make those instruments are themselves using scarce resources that are finite.
well the main argument against fossil fuels is that they emit CO2 and cause climate change - as well as air pollution that kills millions each year. Renewable energy doesnt do that. Yes they require rare earths and metals, which will become the bottle neck of the green transition, but that is a problem for the future. Fossil fuels is the problem of now - and the past 40 years.
Yes it is. The fuel is free but the minerals required and energy to process them into windmills solar panels etc. Is considerable. Oh yeah. They aren't renewable. They are replaceable because they wear out after 20 years and will be sent to a landfill somewhere near you
The thing is that opposed to fossil fuels, the rare metals can actually be recycled into new batteries, renewable energy etc - technologies which is already being developed. So yeah they are renewable, but of course they come at a cost. And it is obvious that that cost is smaller than the continuation of fossil fuel use.
What I think is the single biggest problem with the "cost to society" approach, and more generally with the equivocation of "society" with the State (a class of individuals within a political
organization), is that it presumes "society" has a singular will, and with that a singular set of economic preferences, such that the effects of a particular course of action can be termed a "cost" or a
"benefit" to "society". Of course, such a view is self-contradictory, even with its own most basic premises, since the whole desire for governance stems from conflicts over scarce resources. To
then claim that the service of governance, much less the State specifically, somehow melds those individuals, with mutually exclusive preferences, into one coherent whole is preposterous.
More pointedly, any formulation of this "cost to society" view necessarily ignores the fact that the actual costs have been imposed on individuals, not some nebulous "society". Proponents actually
evidence this when asked why this "cost to society" should not be permitted. They will inevitably bring up courses of action which individuals undertake, because "society", as an aggregate
concept, cannot do anything, much less want or prefer anything. Thus, they admit that the harm is done to individuals, but refuse to compensate those individuals, and only them, by holding the
perpetrators accountable, and only them.
This is the same persistent ideological flaw which underpins the perceived legitimacy of the State. By viewing "society" as a coherent individual, "society's preferences" enter the picture. Of course,
"society's preferences" are taken as paramount over individual preferences since to contradict "society's preferences" would harm more individuals (oh the irony). This is, purportedly, why the State
has the right to tax - "society" wants (or "needs") the money more than you do. (Even permitting that "society" is an individual, there will also be a good deal of interpersonal comparison of ends
here.) The State has the right to unilaterally legislate and compel because "society" prefers you act in such and such a way, and avoid doing this or that.
That doesn't even cover the identification of the State as the sole representative for the preferences of "society". Which people should be part of the State, and why? Because "society" says so,
perhaps via democratic election? That election was only performed under the assumption that the State could accurately represent the preferences of "society", which obviously begs the question.
The even more pointed question is: who is a part of this "society"? Is it composed of five people? Five hundred? Five hundred thousand? How were those people selected? By geographic locale, as
is the usual? Why should the border stop expanding? This makes the exclusion, and the inclusion, arbitrary. To what degree are the preferences of each individual reflected in the preferences of
"society", if indeed that is the purported goal of the State? If it is uneven an in an ideal oligarchy, why? This is arbitrary. Why seek evenness, as in an ideal democracy? This, too, is arbitrary.
The direction of the State can only be provided by consulting the will of "society", but the will of "society" can only be consulted by first consulting the State. The reasoning is circular, and the claim
to power is arbitrary.
Arbitrary claims can be offhandedly dismissed.
Any high school kid from the 50's knows that this 'new stuff' is a supplement to existing stuff.
Hi, I want to study energy economics for my postgraduate, how best can you help?
Still in touch with David Doughty, Bobby Feemster, etc.?
The unarguably best energy is big chungus energy.
bitcoin in a nutshell with regards with free market energy economics