Great article, Steve. I have a slight disagreement about organic farming. While it's great for family gardens, it will not feed the world. From what I've seen in supermarkets, organic produce is marred by insect damage, fungus and spoilage. We do need to make sure crops are treated with safe chemicals. Chemicals have enhanced human health and longevity, so they are not necessarily harmful.
The earth is ours to use. I'm sure humans and the eco-system will mutually evolve to form a good working relationship.
Respectfully, I disagree. While these gases do occur naturally, that really isn’t the point - unregulated human release of such gases is. I liken It to going into an ecosystem and releasing an invasive species that throws the ecosystem out of whack - the additional human release is the invasive species which left unchecked can have grave consequences to the overall balance of the ecosystem.
There are really simple principles for determining this. Ask "whose ox is gored?" If the answer is "earth's" or some lofty principle supported by certain science, then we need to connect that strongly to individual and particular harm, and not to projections. I think the government has a strong duty to prove harm in order to restrict individual rights. This applies to guns, gas wells, and gored oxen.
Particular harm is the wrong way to go about this because it's more like death by a thousand cuts: no single actor or action may be harmful on its own, but together it adds up to being harmful. Projections do matter for this, and we know how methane and CO2 act in the atmosphere.
There's also the principle of preventing harm vs treating the result - and prevention is typically less costly than treatment.
I'm also against offloading the costs of private companies onto the public - however that may look (e.g. sea rise swamping lower areas where people currently live).
A question: how does the military's analysis of climate change (at least prior to the Trump admin) factor into your view? They've typically ignored the politicized aspects of the matter and focused on the science.
China is an interesting case, in that they've also massively invested in renewable energy. There's a reason why they are all-in on EVs, solar, and batteries - 'cause they're reusable, where oil/gas/coal are one-time use. And with the current admin's opposition to those technologies we're giving up the competition to China.
What are your thoughts on simply removing incentives for oil/gas/ethanol/etc... and moving those over to solar/batteries/etc... so as to incentivize the transition?
Great article, Steve. I have a slight disagreement about organic farming. While it's great for family gardens, it will not feed the world. From what I've seen in supermarkets, organic produce is marred by insect damage, fungus and spoilage. We do need to make sure crops are treated with safe chemicals. Chemicals have enhanced human health and longevity, so they are not necessarily harmful.
The earth is ours to use. I'm sure humans and the eco-system will mutually evolve to form a good working relationship.
Respectfully, I disagree. While these gases do occur naturally, that really isn’t the point - unregulated human release of such gases is. I liken It to going into an ecosystem and releasing an invasive species that throws the ecosystem out of whack - the additional human release is the invasive species which left unchecked can have grave consequences to the overall balance of the ecosystem.
My question is, who should regulate and how?
Well, that depends. For example, oil and natural gas wells - who regulates those, and who do you think should regulate those?
There are really simple principles for determining this. Ask "whose ox is gored?" If the answer is "earth's" or some lofty principle supported by certain science, then we need to connect that strongly to individual and particular harm, and not to projections. I think the government has a strong duty to prove harm in order to restrict individual rights. This applies to guns, gas wells, and gored oxen.
Particular harm is the wrong way to go about this because it's more like death by a thousand cuts: no single actor or action may be harmful on its own, but together it adds up to being harmful. Projections do matter for this, and we know how methane and CO2 act in the atmosphere.
There's also the principle of preventing harm vs treating the result - and prevention is typically less costly than treatment.
I'm also against offloading the costs of private companies onto the public - however that may look (e.g. sea rise swamping lower areas where people currently live).
A question: how does the military's analysis of climate change (at least prior to the Trump admin) factor into your view? They've typically ignored the politicized aspects of the matter and focused on the science.
China is an interesting case, in that they've also massively invested in renewable energy. There's a reason why they are all-in on EVs, solar, and batteries - 'cause they're reusable, where oil/gas/coal are one-time use. And with the current admin's opposition to those technologies we're giving up the competition to China.
What are your thoughts on simply removing incentives for oil/gas/ethanol/etc... and moving those over to solar/batteries/etc... so as to incentivize the transition?
It certainly is a religion...a false one at that
Great article, Steve. Thanks.