argue for or against the following plan: The public controversy about greenhouse gases?

Question

argue for or against the following plan:

The public controversy about greenhouse gases is too crisis-oriented and off to one side of more important issues, namely a.) the long-term economic potential of renewable energy generation, b.) the dangers of social instability from rich-poor polarization in developing countries, and c.) dangers of corruption of governments of developing countries by a handful of more and more powerful global corporations.

Since no force available can stop or slow down the most rapid possible industrial development in countries like China, Mexico and India, those fearful of long-term harm to the environment should not waste their energies in controversies based in uncertain science. Rather, all should settle on the single goal of quickly developing cost-effective solar, wind, tidal and geothermal power and getting decentralized generation of such power into place everywhere. ‘Politics’ should be put aside in order to accomplish this.

A World Energy Authority similar in some respects to the United Nations should be formed with the express mission of providing detailed planning for rapid transition to decentralized generation of renewable power in every country. This Authority would also provide scientific research and industrial planning. So great is the latent support for such an Authority, provided it remain ‘non-political’ and single-mission focused, that it would only have to open an office and begin to publicize concrete plans for each country for massive support to flow to it. The Authority’s work would capture the imaginations of tens of thousands of young people in the industrialized countries who could do much of the labor associated with establishing thousands of small generation projects. Use of fossil fuel would continue until it became too expensive.

Publicly subsidized, decentralized generation of cheap power world-wide might ‘kill three birds with one stone.’ No plan could be more effective against poverty created by industrial development in very poor countries. This plan would also co-opt more far-sighted corporations who would be hired in the projects, rather than polarizing many in opposition to more stringent controls on emissions, as is presently the case.

Renewable energy generation is potentially cheaper than generation with fossil fuels. There's no bill for sunshine! Despite imposing capital requirements, pioneering companies could reasonably expect to reap huge profits as sale of super-efficient batteries and photo-voltaic cells, for example, became as common as sale of gasoline is now. What is lacking is a developed, fully-rationalized and well-publicized plan for every country to put decentralized generation in place. As to greenhouse gases, we should aggressively study the climate until we really understand this very complex system.

Answer 1

In general, I find myself in agreement with both Liberal and Mike. Here is a better plan: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/4/prweb8264870.htm

Generally, "renewable energy generation" is a political code word for nuclear breeder reactors like reactor number 3 at Fukushima. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/17/mox-the-fukushima-word-of-the-day-and-why-its-bad-news/

If you want to say wind, wave, tidal, solar, and hydro, you need to say so, otherwise the nuclear industry will end up with all but a token of the funding you are creating. Do you really think that Fukushima is economical?



As for setting aside politics for an unelected "World Energy Authority similar in some respects to the United Nations", we have already tried that, and the results were not pretty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Historically, no such "Authority" (NAFTA, the European Economic Community, NATO, the UN) has ever remained "‘non-political’ and single-mission focused", and voters have always rejected such Authorities unless coerced. http://www.freedom-central.net/euandbritain.html

You idea of using government subsidies to get people to use cheaper energy is misguided. Market forces naturally find the least expensive way to do things. Government subsidies prevent this from happening. http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj17n2-6.html

I do agree with you that "No plan could be more effective against poverty created by industrial development in very poor countries." Industrial development has certainly been the most effective way to end poverty, but even communist countries like China had to abandon their attempts to industrialize using a Dirigisme approach. Generally, these countries could not even feed their populations until they allowed local cost based decisions to override central political decisions. http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/c/Collective_farming.htm

As for greenhouse gases, they can be studied to death, but the result of the studies so far is that additional CO2 will not have much affect on Earth's climate. http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

Answer 2

Argument against:

The "plan" contains a remarkable and odd collection of false assumptions, impractical ideas, and anti-democratic ideas. Namely.



False assumptions in the plan:



The controversy about climate change is "crisis oriented." False. The crisis exists mostly in the rhetoric of the contrarians who keep shouting that the scientists of the world are creating a false crisis. In fact scientists are trying to present us with information so that we can take steps to avoid a real crisis in the future.



The science is of climate change is "uncertain." False. The only uncertainties about climate change are in matters of degree and details. There is ample evidence of warming and man's responsibility for it. For summaries see these sites from NOAA and NASA:

from NOAA and NASA

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

http://climate.nasa.gov/

Virtually every organization of scientists on the planet and every scientific publication agrees. There are only a handful of contrarians. You may wish to consider the opinion of the British Royal Society



http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/



And the opinion of the editors of Science Magazine

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1646.full



Impractical Ideas in the "plan"



Renewable energy generation is "potentially cheaper" than generation with fossil fuels.

This is impractical except maybe in the very long run. There is no evidence that renewable energy is going to become cheap within our lifetimes.



Put aside politics to accomplish the plan. Impractical. Politics is the process by which governments function. There is no alternative method available. We can't just join hands and sing. Elected representatives of citizens need to meet exchange ideas and goals, and reach compromise solutions. There have always been arguments among competing factions. We have mechanisms to deal with the arguments and resolve them (see U.S. Constitution and Federalist Papers #10 - James Madison).



Anti-democratic ideas in the "plan."

Creation of a "World Energy Authority" is probably the worst part of this "plan." The people of the world have never shown any wish to give up their control of their own countries to a world government or anything approaching a world government. A modern democratic republic with a government of elected officials and legislators is imperfect, but in a contest for "best form of government" it is far ahead of whatever is in second place.



I suggest that the "plan" is really just a conservative stalking horse that provides an excuse to do nothing. The author of the plan knows that it would never be adopted, and should not be adopted, but it provides a good talking point -- "Those liberals want to enslave you to a world government."

No. We don't want a world government any more than the conservatives do.

Answer 3

Sounds a bit like you want the beginnings of a one world government or a 'new world order'.

Answer 4

That is a dream world . In a another World people have been brainwashed to

believe that CO2 is bad and changes the climate.