Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
AeroStealth read Jevon's 1865, 'The Coal Question', and what the Chicago School of economics creatures do with it, mischaracterizes what he actually said ( convenient for present fossil-fuel lobbyists, climate deniers, and Americans who don't read.
Nobody ought to use it in conversation without its context.
|
Do you care to enlighten us?
Quote:
Inverted-Rate scales for 'energy' have been adopted in some locals.
Once one consumes some 'reasonable' ( statistical average mean for a family unit ) amount of energy ( let's say electricity ), the 'next' block of kilowatts rises to 'twice' the price.
At each 'doubling' of consumption, the price 'doubles', in a geometric trend, to protect the innocent from the stupidity of the well healed.
|
I've considered that strategy for other things as well, like water or natural gas. The way you encourage conservation and make necessary resources affordable to the poor is to have a rate schedule that starts off very small for the first units of consumption and increases from there.
Not sure this is a good idea, but my other thought when hearing about CA brownouts/rolling blackouts was to have a law that requires homes with greater than 200A service be connected with a smart meter that the utility controls. Rather than shutting off power to tens of thousands of homes, just cut it to the top hundred or so that are heating pools and cooling 15,000 sq/ft interiors, and who already have backup power installed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
* You're mistaking the 'Chicago School of Economics brand of wealth' for 'wealth'.
The fatal mistake which is going to cause our extinction.
* I agree about Red CO2 and Blue CO2 completely.
* There never existed 'free markets.' It's a myth.
* POTUS is going to guarantee we destroy any remnants we might have had.
* 'Rules' appear to be as fickle as political winds.
* Ditto for enforcement.
* I don't normally associate sociopaths with 'trust'.
* Facts seem to support the notion that economies spend fossil-fuels to achieve their standard of killing.
* What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his planet?
|
Free markets were the first that existed. Every time 2 parties agree on a trade, they have engaged in a free market.
Trust requires a culture that places honesty very high in the value structure and has laws enforcing major violations of trust (theft, price fixing, bribery, etc).
Even if we all agree about climate catastrophism, it's not a politically solvable problem because it is global in nature and not inherent to any particular political structure.
Those nations who choose to limit their wealth by limiting fossil fuel consumption will lose their military might to defend against countries who do not limit their wealth. That culture disappears, and is replaced by the Chinese Communist Party.
What good is it to conserve oil and lose a culture (while that oil gets consumed by the adversary)?
When rational people are given the choice between assured catastrophe now, vs possible catastrophe very far into the future, they choose the latter.