A Comment, Now Lost
A Comment arrives and then ‘disappeares’, again.
I now take the precaution of copying them to Word first, which is fine if they eventually turn up, but as they are separated from the post they apply too, I am sometimes ‘lost’ as where to place them for context:
“This is Chris, the author of the post. My whole point was not to psycho-analyze Adam Smith. I've actually never read "Wealth of Nations" and I'm not an economist; I'm an engineer.
My point was this: Instead of trying to come up with a universal treaty for cutting carbon emissions, let's let each country come up with it's own strategy in hopes that because it is benefiting the whole, it will benefit itself.
If America commits to clean energy, we will sell our technology to other countries; thus lowering worldwide carbon emissions and benefiting America.
By focusing on America first, we help the whole world succeed.”
Comment
Chris, you ignore ‘free-riding’ by which other countries do nothing and the enormous expense right now of doing what the ‘climate change’ lobby advises, which cost is felt by the people in the countries that do something and who pay for it.
The US electorate may not share your patience and vote out the ‘do-it-alone’ US government – back to square one! Selling (expensive) US energy-saving technologies requires a market for them – doing nothing is still cheaper.
Economics is not engineering.
The “climate change” lobby appears to have dropped its earlier name of “global warming”, perhaps to cover the Goldilocks possibility of “too warm” or “too cold”. I remain skeptical, though I am not a physicist.
But thanks for your post.
Gavin
I now take the precaution of copying them to Word first, which is fine if they eventually turn up, but as they are separated from the post they apply too, I am sometimes ‘lost’ as where to place them for context:
“This is Chris, the author of the post. My whole point was not to psycho-analyze Adam Smith. I've actually never read "Wealth of Nations" and I'm not an economist; I'm an engineer.
My point was this: Instead of trying to come up with a universal treaty for cutting carbon emissions, let's let each country come up with it's own strategy in hopes that because it is benefiting the whole, it will benefit itself.
If America commits to clean energy, we will sell our technology to other countries; thus lowering worldwide carbon emissions and benefiting America.
By focusing on America first, we help the whole world succeed.”
Comment
Chris, you ignore ‘free-riding’ by which other countries do nothing and the enormous expense right now of doing what the ‘climate change’ lobby advises, which cost is felt by the people in the countries that do something and who pay for it.
The US electorate may not share your patience and vote out the ‘do-it-alone’ US government – back to square one! Selling (expensive) US energy-saving technologies requires a market for them – doing nothing is still cheaper.
Economics is not engineering.
The “climate change” lobby appears to have dropped its earlier name of “global warming”, perhaps to cover the Goldilocks possibility of “too warm” or “too cold”. I remain skeptical, though I am not a physicist.
But thanks for your post.
Gavin
Labels: Climate Change
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home