10 thoughts on “Solutions In Search Of Problems”

1. When the time of reckoning comes, neither party is likely to enjoy the majorities that President Obama had in 2010. I hope the compromise arrived at will create a simple and limited mandate to provide basic healthcare for all, together with a block grant to the states. That is the only chance for those who want single payer healthcare to receive it. That is also the only chance for those who want a voucher system to receive it. Yes, that delegation to the states will create some failures, but eventually success is contagious, and the states will eventually coalesce around a solution. The federal government acting alone, particularly with the support of only one party, will never be adventurous enough to find a good solution.

   I am not a climate change denier, but let’s include all of the facts. A major contributor to the loss of the arctic ice sheet is particulates (soot) from coal fired power plants in Asia, particularly China. Reducing the particulate emissions from coal plants to Japanese or American levels would have a direct and immediate effect on the reduction of the ice sheet. Tackling climate change is a much more difficult and long term task.

   Amongst the ways to drive carbon emission reduction, a carbon tax is preferable to cap and trade or regulatory restrictions because the objective is to promote capital spending on long-horizon projects. While cap and trade will theoretically achieve the reductions at the minimum cost, it will not maximize investment in power plants or vehicles because the future cost of emisssions is so difficult to predict. That uncertainty will reduce investment in long horizon projects (and all the important changes are long horizon). A carbon tax makes the cost-benefit prediction much simpler, and much more certain.

2. Mitch, did you hear about the severe set-back psuedo-science has endured?

   Barry’s lead climate quack, Stephen Chu has wisely decided to take what is left of his reputation, credibility and Nobel Politics Prize down the road. His pissy little, tear stained letter of resignation to DOE employees is sure to become a classic:

   http://energy.gov/articles/letter-secretary-steven-chu-energy-department-employees-announcing-his-decision-not-serve

   Not a minute too soon, either…scientists are re-thinking the cost of whoring themselves and the “consensus” is crumbling faster than a photoshopped ice shelf:

   http://www.cfact.org/2010/04/26/700-papers-supporting-climate-realism/

3. “The relationship between [shorter work and lower emissions] is complex and not clearly understood.”

   This is the sort of clarity the liberal media uses to define the muddy waters they want us to navigate.

4. maybe a mandatory 35 hr week – we could become France!

5. Kel: This pains me to say this but, even France has shown more backbone than the current pack of jackals.

6. Emery- ” A major contributor to the loss of the Arctic ice sheet is soot from coal fired plants in Asia…” Proof? Detailed examination of ice sheets by satellite began all the way back in…1979. If you can prove that there wasn’t more or less melting during the other 4 billion years of earth’s existence, well, fine. But you can’t, so whatever happened in 33 years out of 4 billion means….nothing. And you heard that the Antarctic was gaining ice, didn’t you? “Amongst the ways to drive carbon emission reduction is the carbon tax…” Emery- It’s usually considered good manners to have proof of one’s “theory” before springing a new tax on the masses. The climate astrologers do not.

7. jimf:
   My God man, learn some science.

   NASA
   http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=5363

   Professor Mark Jacobson – director of Stanford’s Atmosphere and Energy Program and professor of civil and environmental engineering – says that soot is the primary cause of melting arctic ice
   http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/july/soot-emissions-ice-072810.html

8. Emery- Again, just stating so and so says soot is the primary cause of ……means nothing. Does he know what happened the other 4 billion years? No, he doesn’t. read this: http://www.aitse.org/global-warming-anthropogenic-or-not/ My God man, learn how to debate!

9. There is nothing to debate my good man.

10. That is true. So if and when the climate astrologers do get any data that agrees with their ‘theory”, then we can begin to debate the science of “Global warming”, uh, I mean “climate change”, whoops, I mean “severe weather events”…..to be continued when another “prediction” fails to materialize.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.