The free market fails the environment.

[Blind groper]

We are in a problem situation. The world needs more energy, but we urgently need to cut down on CO2 emissions. The world will continue and possibly accelerate its warming unless we do something. And the biggest of all contributors to carbon emissions is the generation of electricity.

The most reasonable solution to this problem is to build more nuclear power stations, to generate about 50% of the world's needs, and use renewable (solar, wind, tide, wave) energy for the other 50%. That will not be enough, of course, since renewables are so variable. So we also need a generation method that does not release too much CO2 but can be turned up and down at need to compensate for the variability of renewables. The ideal for this is hydroelectricity, which stores energy when output is turned down. But if no hydro is available, natural gas will do the job. Coal is not practical, since it takes too long to turn its output up and down, and it releases three times the CO2 per unit electricity generated.

The problem is that the free market will never evolve this balance. Capitalist electricity generators go for the cheapest and quickest system, which is always fossil fuels. Nuclear costs too much to set up and takes too long. Coal and gas are cheapest, and even though they are environmentally the least desirable, they continue to be by far the biggest. Woe unto planet Earth!

It is obvious to the meanest intellect that the free market must be manipulated, using taxpayer money, to get the ideal balance and the minimum CO2 release.

[Jason]

Wasn't the idea behind so-called 'carbon' taxes to shape the free market to make alternative sources of power cheaper than mainstream sources that are high emission? I guess that didn't work.

[JimC]

Wasn't the idea behind so-called 'carbon' taxes to shape the free market to make alternative sources of power cheaper than mainstream sources that are high emission? I guess that didn't work.

I'm not sure it has been properly trialled on a global basis - I think the jury is still out...

I agree with BG that some form of governmental manipulation, probably via tax, is required, but it is also true that we need free enterprise working with universities to provide innovative technological advances; a government department is not the best place to generate these...

[Blind groper]

Of course, carbon taxes are one of the ways to manipulate the free market. Whether it works well enough or not is, as Jim said, yet to be shown.

[Seth]

We are in a problem situation. The world needs more energy, but we urgently need to cut down on CO2 emissions.

Only by using more fossil fuel energy to drive the world economy to develop affordable low co2 energy technology can we eventually reduce the need for fossil fuels.

Drill baby, drill!

[MrJonno]

The Free Market doesnt do 'eventually', it has no interest in anything long term. Like anything important in life the environment is far too important to be left to markets

[piscator]

We are in a problem situation. The world needs more energy, but we urgently need to cut down on CO2 emissions.

Only by using more fossil fuel energy to drive the world economy to develop affordable low co2 energy technology can we eventually reduce the need for fossil fuels.

Drill baby, drill!

I wish they'd quit drilling here. I may have to scale down my practice, but it would be worth it to flush all the shit back to Texas, and there'll be some oil left for my grandkids to sell when it hits $3000/bbl.

[MrJonno]

wish they'd quit drilling here. I may have to scale down my practice, but it would be worth it to flush all the shit back to Texas, and there'll be some oil left for my grandkids to sell when it hits $3000/bbl.

Oil belongs to private citizens in the US?, wow

All oil and any other valuable mineral like gold belongs to the state in the UK , if its an archaeological treasure that get the right to buy it at a market rate, anything else including oil all the state needs to do is pay to access your land, however if its fracking and they don't need to actually go to the surface of your land they can drill down outside your land and then go sidewise to pick it up without giving you a penny.

Are you seriously saying if there is oil a mile under your house it belongs to you?

[Tero]

Evil Sarah was going to pipe natural gas. WHo would have thunk? If they have to pope something, gas is less polluting other than when leaks might appear.

Mr. Parnell noted that Alaska, which ranks second in domestic oil production, after Texas, is projected to fall to fourth within a decade. “We’ve got jobs leaving Alaska going to North Dakota,” he said.

The proposed natural gas pipeline is supposed to help the state shift from relying on oil to relying on a different, cleaner fuel, which the state has in abundance. That was at the center of Ms. Palin’s campaign when she ran for governor in 2006; her slogan was “New Energy for Alaska.” Two years later, in September 2008, when she spoke as a vice-presidential candidate at the Republican National Convention, she made the project sound as if it was under construction.

“We began a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence,” she said at the convention.

Yet the pipeline was only in the planning stages. The Legislature, prodded by Ms. Palin, had just agreed to provide $500 million to a Canadian company to secure gas suppliers and apply for federal permits. Now, two and a half years later, the state is scheduled to reimburse the company, TransCanada, $185 million in the current fiscal year and $160 million in the next.

Some lawmakers are frustrated. TransCanada missed a self-imposed deadline for securing agreements with companies to ship gas from the North Slope. In December, the United States Energy Information Administration projected that the pipeline would still not be in service by as late as 2035.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/us/po ... .html?_r=0

[Blind groper]

The biggest problem is coal, not oil. Drilling for more oil (and gas) will actually help, if it displaces coal. That is because, for every erg of energy released from the burning, there is less CO2 from oil and gas than there is from coal. Of course, if the oil and gas is burned in addition to burning coal, instead of replacing it, things will get worse. Sadly, the free market is too short sighted to do anything else.

[Seth]

The Free Market doesnt do 'eventually', it has no interest in anything long term. Like anything important in life the environment is far too important to be left to markets

The free market reacts to supply and demand. No demand, no supply. There is no demand for CO2 control at the moment.

There is a strong demand for fossil fuels, so that is what's being supplied. That will continue until fossil fuels are exhausted or the markets find a substitute at the correct price and availability. Governments cannot manipulate the free market into creating demand for something consumers don't want or need. Doesn't work. Ever.

[Seth]

wish they'd quit drilling here. I may have to scale down my practice, but it would be worth it to flush all the shit back to Texas, and there'll be some oil left for my grandkids to sell when it hits $3000/bbl.

Oil belongs to private citizens in the US?, wow

If you own the fee title to the land you own, including the mineral estate, yes.

All oil and any other valuable mineral like gold belongs to the state in the UK ,

That's because they are a bunch of socialist fucks descended from monarchs who claim title to everything and the people of the UK are cowardly serfs and slaves who own nothing without the let of the monarch. Fuck them. That's one of the things we kicked their asses for in the Revolutionary War.

if its an archaeological treasure that get the right to buy it at a market rate,

Ibid.

anything else including oil all the state needs to do is pay to access your land, however if its fracking and they don't need to actually go to the surface of your land they can drill down outside your land and then go sidewise to pick it up without giving you a penny.

Ibid.

Are you seriously saying if there is oil a mile under your house it belongs to you?

Absofuckinglutely, if you were fortunate or wise enough to purchase the mineral rights when you bought the surface rights. In the west, however, Congress created the "split estate" (in violation of the Equal Footing Doctrine I must add) by selling or patenting the surface estate while reserving the mineral estate to the federal government, so many landowners west of the Mississippi do NOT own the minerals under their lands, either oil, gas or hard minerals, and the government frequently leases the right to extract these minerals to private companies who drill wells right next door to private homes, often without so much as a by-your-leave. They arrive one day with bulldozers and clear a drill pad wherever the fuck they want to do so and proceed to drill, even if it's within 50 feet of the landowner's home. There are some controls these days, but the lessee has the right to drill and extract and the surface owner cannot prevent them from doing so.

Which is why I owned the mineral rights under my ranch, so nobody could come in and extract them without my permission. If you didn't get the mineral rights when you bought the property, you're fucked, but it's your own damned fault for not doing your due diligence.

Moreover, the local government (such as a local county commission like Boulder County, which is trying to do so now) cannot create oil and gas drilling regulations themselves that deny or interfere with the right of the mineral owners or lessees to extract that mineral wealth, which is "private property" identical to the surface estate in every legal aspect. To do so violates the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, which says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

The county could end up owing more than a billion dollars to the mineral rights owners if they enact such a regulation and wish to keep it in force after it's declared flatly unconstitutional on its face.

[piscator]

Evil Sarah was going to pipe natural gas. WHo would have thunk? If they have to pope something, gas is less polluting other than when leaks might appear.

Mr. Parnell noted that Alaska, which ranks second in domestic oil production, after Texas, is projected to fall to fourth within a decade. “We’ve got jobs leaving Alaska going to North Dakota,” he said.

The proposed natural gas pipeline is supposed to help the state shift from relying on oil to relying on a different, cleaner fuel, which the state has in abundance. That was at the center of Ms. Palin’s campaign when she ran for governor in 2006; her slogan was “New Energy for Alaska.” Two years later, in September 2008, when she spoke as a vice-presidential candidate at the Republican National Convention, she made the project sound as if it was under construction.

“We began a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence,” she said at the convention.

Yet the pipeline was only in the planning stages. The Legislature, prodded by Ms. Palin, had just agreed to provide $500 million to a Canadian company to secure gas suppliers and apply for federal permits. Now, two and a half years later, the state is scheduled to reimburse the company, TransCanada, $185 million in the current fiscal year and $160 million in the next.

Some lawmakers are frustrated. TransCanada missed a self-imposed deadline for securing agreements with companies to ship gas from the North Slope. In December, the United States Energy Information Administration projected that the pipeline would still not be in service by as late as 2035.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/us/po ... .html?_r=0

See how Sarah is? She spent 1/2 billion on...'Oh look at my red scarf!'


This in a state with a population the size of Little Rock, Arkansas.




Is Seth talking about Property Law again?

[Tero]

Here's the free market eating a duckling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yirHPVxS ... MR&index=3