<p>What I don’t like is the attitude of conservatives when they see a problem their first question is- will the solution enrich me and my buddies? If the answer is yes, then that problem is extremely urgent and has to be solved right away without further delay, and at all costs. The Iraq war is one example, where there was really no conclusive proof of any threat, just a bunch of bad intel. People have died but the defense and oil industries have made out like bandits anyway.</p>
<p>OTOH, if the solution is going to impoverish me and my buddies, then the problem is just a theory and needs further study to assess all the ramifications before an action is taken. The whole slow response to global warming is an example of this attitude.</p>
<p>“OTOH, if the solution is going to impoverish me and my buddies”</p>
<p>So, I take it that you are anxious to become impoverished based on studies that are inconclusive in terms of the severity of the impact? Are you also willing to become impoverished when the net impact on CO2 emissions will be nil or possibly be even greater because China will think nothing of spewing whatever it wants into the atmosphere? Speak for yourself.</p>
<p>Your notion that conservatives favor the Iraq war because it enriches them is both specious and silly.</p>
<p>FF: It is one thing for politicians to consider the economic impact of problems and their solutions on ALL the American people. But it is quite another to watch out only for those narrow constituencies that are aligned with you. I don’t want my leaders to determine national policy based on the impact on their own personal finances and the finances of their buddies and donors. </p>
<p>It is undisputable that war kills a lot of people but enriches certain constituencies and those constituencies are always the most hawkish when it comes to launching war. And investments in alternative energy, public transportation and other environmental regulation helps a lot of people but cuts into the profits of big oil companies and certain polluting industries.</p>
<p>If you think that increasing the costs on energy companies will not be passed on to all of us, I’ve got a bridge for sale that you might be interested in. It’s real cheap and once you own it, you can restrict its use to only hybrids if you like.</p>
<p>“Well, Hunt, he does call it “the greatest test we humans have faced.” No solution is going to be easy. I think the greater point is we need to start working on them now. We have a greater chance of getting through this by starting to implement the easier solutions (conserving, wind and solar wherever possible, real money going into new technologies), and working toward workable, more complex solutions, then by wringing our hands and saying, oh well.”</p>
<p>I don’t disagree with this in theory, but in practice we really do face the possibility of substantially damaging the US economy for little overall benefit, if the developing countries won’t play along. And I just don’t see it happening. Look at the reaction to $4 gasoline. We need something like $15 gasoline if we’re going to reduce consumption. That won’t just hurt the fat cats.</p>