Comments on: What Virtue In False Promises? http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/12/30/what-virtue-in-false-promises/ Politics and Culture from a Catholic perspective. Thu, 24 May 2012 20:33:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Richard Graves http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/12/30/what-virtue-in-false-promises/#comment-13532 Richard Graves Sun, 10 Jan 2010 23:17:35 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=16124#comment-13532 I can see the concerns about promises that aren't going to be kept, particularly as international law is so weak at holding anyone accountable to their commitment. However, I do want to say that your comment about activists reducing their emissions is a straw man argument. They are reducing their emissions 25% over the next year or two. They are asking the government to reduce emissions 80% by 2050, 40 years from now. McKinsey Consulting said that we can slash our emissions in half at net zero cost and in fact the first 40% of emissions reductions will make us money, more efficient, and more competitive internationally. I can see the concerns about promises that aren’t going to be kept, particularly as international law is so weak at holding anyone accountable to their commitment.

However, I do want to say that your comment about activists reducing their emissions is a straw man argument. They are reducing their emissions 25% over the next year or two. They are asking the government to reduce emissions 80% by 2050, 40 years from now.

McKinsey Consulting said that we can slash our emissions in half at net zero cost and in fact the first 40% of emissions reductions will make us money, more efficient, and more competitive internationally.

]]> By: Big Tex http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/12/30/what-virtue-in-false-promises/#comment-13531 Big Tex Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:49:42 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=16124#comment-13531 Nuclear moreso than wind. Wind is good for supplementing whereas nuke power would be a solid backbone. Two problems: wind requires much real estate and has the "not in my backyard" issue to contend with. Nuke is a PR nightmare that also brings its "not in my backyard" issue. Nuclear moreso than wind. Wind is good for supplementing whereas nuke power would be a solid backbone. Two problems: wind requires much real estate and has the “not in my backyard” issue to contend with. Nuke is a PR nightmare that also brings its “not in my backyard” issue.

]]> By: restrainedradical http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/12/30/what-virtue-in-false-promises/#comment-13530 restrainedradical Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:29:32 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=16124#comment-13530 Like you said, solar won't eliminate your dependence on the grid. The vast majority of us need to use electricity generated from coal. Transitioning to wind and nuclear over the next few decades is not unrealistic. 80% by 2020 may be too optimistic but 2050 is doable. Like you said, solar won’t eliminate your dependence on the grid. The vast majority of us need to use electricity generated from coal. Transitioning to wind and nuclear over the next few decades is not unrealistic. 80% by 2020 may be too optimistic but 2050 is doable.

]]> By: DarwinCatholic http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/12/30/what-virtue-in-false-promises/#comment-13529 DarwinCatholic Thu, 31 Dec 2009 23:14:26 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=16124#comment-13529 <i>Households can reduce consumption but have to, more or less, accept the type of energy they consume.</i> Actually, households are in the same position as power producers and governments: they can reduce consumption, or they can make massive capital outlays in order to use the same amount of energy from some other source. I could, if I wanted to spend 20-40k on it, cover my roof with solar panels and massively reduce my carbon footprint. I don't do so because I'm hesitant to turn a monthly bill of around $100 into an immediate outlay of 300x that amount, especially when that wouldn't even totally cut my dependence on carbon-based electricity as I'd still need to get electricity from the power company on cloudy days (like the whole last week). If individuals are hesitant to make this kind of massive capital outlay for questionable benefits (the idea of powering most of the US by wind and solar is massively unrealistic -- at best one could do so through lots more nuclear power), I don't know why they should be surprised if the government is unwilling to make the same sacrifices on a larger scale. Households can reduce consumption but have to, more or less, accept the type of energy they consume.

Actually, households are in the same position as power producers and governments: they can reduce consumption, or they can make massive capital outlays in order to use the same amount of energy from some other source. I could, if I wanted to spend 20-40k on it, cover my roof with solar panels and massively reduce my carbon footprint. I don’t do so because I’m hesitant to turn a monthly bill of around $100 into an immediate outlay of 300x that amount, especially when that wouldn’t even totally cut my dependence on carbon-based electricity as I’d still need to get electricity from the power company on cloudy days (like the whole last week).

If individuals are hesitant to make this kind of massive capital outlay for questionable benefits (the idea of powering most of the US by wind and solar is massively unrealistic — at best one could do so through lots more nuclear power), I don’t know why they should be surprised if the government is unwilling to make the same sacrifices on a larger scale.

]]> By: Jonathan Sadow http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/12/30/what-virtue-in-false-promises/#comment-13528 Jonathan Sadow Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:01:43 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=16124#comment-13528 The reason that none of these leaders are making firm commitments to reduce carbon emissions is because they don't want their peoples to live in poverty. It's well-established that the prosperity of a society is strongly correlated with its energy consumption. It so happens that presently the most effcient energy sources also produce a lot of carbon dioxide. Reducing carbon emissions therefore necessarily reduces one's energy use, which necessarily reduces one's propsperity. Their rhetoric otherwise, these leaders know this, which is why, for the time being, their talk about emissions cuts will remain a bunch of, uh, hot air. The reason that none of these leaders are making firm commitments to reduce carbon emissions is because they don’t want their peoples to live in poverty. It’s well-established that the prosperity of a society is strongly correlated with its energy consumption. It so happens that presently the most effcient energy sources also produce a lot of carbon dioxide. Reducing carbon emissions therefore necessarily reduces one’s energy use, which necessarily reduces one’s propsperity. Their rhetoric otherwise, these leaders know this, which is why, for the time being, their talk about emissions cuts will remain a bunch of, uh, hot air.

]]> By: restrainedradical http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/12/30/what-virtue-in-false-promises/#comment-13527 restrainedradical Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:14:32 +0000 http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=16124#comment-13527 <i>If committed environmentalists are only finding ways to decrease their household CO2 emissions by 25%, how in the world do they expect a whole country to drop its emissions by 80%?</i> Households can reduce consumption but have to, more or less, accept the type of energy they consume. Governments can turn coal-fired plants into wind farms. Those who claim that carbon pricing will ruin our economy, overestimate the costs. They have the tendency to think of carbon emissions reductions as cuts in consumption alone. If we had to reduce our consumption 80%, we'd be in trouble. But most of the reductions would come from switching to alternative energy and make more efficient use of it. It's possible to cut emissions by more than half without any change to our lifestyle. If committed environmentalists are only finding ways to decrease their household CO2 emissions by 25%, how in the world do they expect a whole country to drop its emissions by 80%?

Households can reduce consumption but have to, more or less, accept the type of energy they consume. Governments can turn coal-fired plants into wind farms.

Those who claim that carbon pricing will ruin our economy, overestimate the costs. They have the tendency to think of carbon emissions reductions as cuts in consumption alone. If we had to reduce our consumption 80%, we’d be in trouble. But most of the reductions would come from switching to alternative energy and make more efficient use of it. It’s possible to cut emissions by more than half without any change to our lifestyle.

]]>