<p>" It stems from the assumption that to reduce emissions that there would be no downsides"</p>
<p>Three are always downsides. That’s a ridiculous argument. If we don’t do anything, there are downsides too.</p>
<p>Most of us think there are more and bigger downsides if the USA doesn’t change its energy policies and doesn’t do anything to make alternative energy more competitive.</p>
<p>These free market arguments make no sense. First off, we don’t have free markets. That’s some capitalistic ideal that isn’t reality. Second, sometimes the public good is more important than private goods. Third, sometimes the public good is harmed by private goods. Fourth sometimes the private good maker doesn’t pay all the costs. The public bears many of the costs. When that happens, the free market needs some intervention. Pollution costs are not covered by the private sector. The costs of access to oil in the middle east, that run the automobiles, is borne by the public sector. </p>
<p>The free markets in this country haven’t developed alternative energy sources. The USA is still dependent on foreign countries for its energy needs. The US is spending over $1 trillion in Iraq.</p>
<p>The citizens of the US, and the shareholders and management of international auto and international oil companies have needs and wants that are not always in sync.</p>
<p>It’s time to develop other energy sources and if the public needs government to help, then it should help. (After all, the government is us). </p>
<p>Since when is the oil market a free market anyway?</p>
<p>“That’s a ridiculous argument. If we don’t do anything, there are downsides too.”</p>
<p>There are many very well known scientists from around the world that would dispute that. And there are others that say that the money/costs to pursue global warming from the perspective of trying to stop it by curbing CO2 emmisions is pure folly - that the money would be far better used to either cope with the warming or to address other forms of human suffering that are much more severe than what GW will ever result in.</p>
<p>“That’s a ridiculous argument. If we don’t do anything, there are downsides too.”</p>
<p>There are many very well known scientists from around the world that would dispute that."</p>
<p>Maybe the scientists that work for the oil companies or other companies that benefit from the status quo.</p>
<p>Otherwise, who doesn’t see the downsides of doing nothing? People may look at the downsides of doing nothing and prefer those to the downsides of doing something, but everybody I know sees the downsides of doing nothing.</p>
<p>Pollution does exist. We are in Iraq. Those are facts.
That China pollution is blowing into the US. Every breath you take is made up of tiny particles from everybody who ever lived.</p>
<p>“Maybe the scientists that work for the oil companies or other companies that benefit from the status quo.”</p>
<p>Typical canard. The realty is that if you want to take a position for which you will make money, it is the “Global Warming is going to kill us all” position. If you take a contrarian view, the chances of getting your research funded is remote. I would think that anyone really interested in science would be alarmed at the effort being used by the global warming crowd to stifle any discussion of different views. Just recently in Bali, the press conference that was to voice the concerns of the other side was closed down by the UN.</p>
<p>“We should have alternative energy whether global warming exists or not.”
That is a different subject than just global warming since many of the advocates of fighting global warming want to put a tax on CO2 emissions. This only indirectly leads to alternative energies but is more likely to drive more jobs to China where not only will the CO2 emissions be greater than in the US but all of the other pollutants as well. The net effect of this is a lose-lose-win scenario (with the only winner being China).</p>
<p>I don’t see your analogy which assumes that the underlying problem really is running out of gas (i.e., analogous to the underlying problem being man-made global warming). What the scientists are saying is that global warming is a natural phenomenon and to put money into fighting it is like trying to boil the ocean - you just can’t fight with mother nature. It is far better to put the money into adapting to the warming for as long as it lasts and/or improving the overall welfare of the impoverished people of the world - those who are most likely to be adversely impacted by natural global warming.</p>
<p>Why do you think companies outsource jobs to China? Answer: because it is cheaper. If you increase the cost of companies with additional CO2 taxes they will move more and more of their production offshore. It’s really not that complicated unless one does the analysis of a typical Democrat by only looking at first-order impacts and not considering secondary impacts.</p>
<h1>97 so you don’t realy have any information to show you are correct just your own thinking on the issue…or that’s how your post reads…am i wrong?</h1>
<p>I don’t want to get into an argument about global warming because global warming is only one reason to pursue alternative energy and it isn’t a necessary condition to develop alternative energy sources.</p>
<p>We should develop alternative energy sources because it is in the USA interests. We can get control of our own energy needs.</p>
<p>Why should we rely on the kindness of other countries for our energy sources?</p>
<p>We should also develop other energy sources, because in the long run, we may need those energy sources, it might give us cleaner energy and even cheaper energy.</p>
<p>Alternative energy sources would be good for most Americans…republicans and democrats…conservatives and liberals.</p>
<p>Japan is going to do it. If we don’t…</p>
<p>As far as nuclear fusion is concerned, it ends scarcity of energy forever and will change society. It has the capacity to change atoms rendering scarcity of all resources a thing of the past. </p>
<p>If I was running things, I would spend $1 trillion on the development of nuclear fusion.</p>
<p>We wouldn’t need to be in the middle east.</p>
<p>It would be good for business and scientists too.</p>