Is there such a thing as a stupid question? Normally, I would say “no.” However, I think politicians have managed to whittle us into a few questions where any good choices have been removed. With pollster-like (warning: language) precision, even the questions themselves have been shaped to lead to a certain answer:
Should the government subsidize nuclear power or ban it?
Obviously with the high gas prices, politicians and pundits are scrambling to do something to “fix” the problem. As if one commodity price is responsible for indicating the solvency of a massive and complex economy.
Nuclear power is one of the more controversial solutions and the politicians have secured a false choice in the matter. Many on the left have argued that the government needs to continue and even increase regulations that effectively ban nuclear energy. But the right has proposed government intervention as well. While they might deregulate nuclear power, they also want politicians to guarantee loans and minimize the risk by government fiat.
Both these solutions are stupid. The left would rather bury their heads in the sand and pretend that the verdict has already been reached on nuclear power. But nuclear power can operate on the marketplace and live or die by how well it competes with other energy. Well, unless the right succeeds in minimizing the legitimate environmental and safety risks. In the same way that subsidizing flood insurance in New Orleans is disastrous, so is subsidizing nuclear power.
The question should include the option of letting the market decide. If property owners want to risk a nuclear plant, then let them - it’s their property. If it isn’t safe, then people won’t buy it, live near it and one problem will cost an irresponsible company billions in legitimate lawsuits, damage and infrastructure.
Should we fix global warming with more regulations or “market-based” cap and trade schemes?
I will come right out and say that this is a stupid question because it presumes that global warming is man-made and is also “a problem.” There is plenty of debate about both of these issues - but that, of course, doesn’t stop governments on all levels from using it as an excuse to enrich themselves and expand their power.
Many right-wingers have embraced the “cap and trade” scheme to “marketize” pollution. That is - they have set up new taxes and tariffs on pollution and called it a “market.” Sounds like Mitt Romney’s “market-based” government healthcare. Cap and trade is about as market-based as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
But the left, naturally concerned mostly with polls, is jumping on the fear bandwagon - making witch hunts out of virtually any industry that has anything to do with carbon. They demonize everything from SUVs to plastic bags. They call sceptics “deniers” - the similar connotation to holocaust deniers is probably deliberate.
Increasing government involvement in environmental regulations going to do two things:
- stall or prevent the market from developing cleaner, more efficient energy technologies which are far more effective at curbing pollution
- creating tragedy of the commons scenarios, where resources over-used all the more and the environment becomes even more polluted than it otherwise would be
The real question should ask a) is global warming actually a man-made phenomenon that has anything to do with emissions and b) is global warming actually going to cause terrible catastrophic effects. Until we know the nature of the problem, we have no right to start running around “solving” it.
Next time: Stupid Foreign Policy Questions
“The real question we should ask a) is global warming actually a man-made phenomenon that has anything to do with emissions and b) is global warming actually going to cause terrible catastrophic effects. Until we know the nature of the problem, we have no right to start running around “solving” it.”
Preach it, brother!
“I will come right out and say that this is a stupid question because it presumes that global warming is man-made and is also “a problem.” There is plenty of debate about both of these issues - but that, of course, doesn’t stop governments on all levels from using it as an excuse to enrich themselves and expand their power.”
Just so everyone is aware, one of the main ways governments are using so-called “global warming” is to bring about carbon taxes. Al Gore has already suggested such a tax to the Congress to address climate change, per an obviously rehearsed question by Hillary Clinton. Eventually, this will probably be a global tax - if elites get their way.
The British are about to institute it in the UK, under the guise of what are called “carbon credits”. Essentially you start out with a certain number of carbon credits at the beginning of the year, and they are progressively deducted as the year goes on. If you use more than your government allotted carbon credits (because they own you), you are required to pay fines for the amount you exceed your limit. They are saying it isn’t a tax, but tomato/tomahto.
San Francisco has also expressed an interest in placing a carbon tax on businesses.
My fantasy football team this year is called the Carbon Credit Commandos.
Yeah, this whole global warming hysteria is going to end up being the biggest power grab of the last 100 years.
No FFB for me this year
Well, at least you may be able to give us a first hand account of the carbon credit policy.
You may not be aware of it, but nuclear power is heavily subsidized already. The federal government provides (loans) the fuel and takes it back when spent. Billions of public dollars have gone into research for nuclear power. The cost of the NRC is huge. Insurance for nuclear power plants is provided by the federal government. Without this taxpayer insurance backing no nuclear power plant would have ever opened. Commercial carriers cover a token amount but the taxpayers on on the hook for the rest. Look into the Price Anderson Act of 1957. Interesting reading.
If you ever get a chance, read a book called “We Almost Lost Detroit”. It’s dated and heavily biased against nuclear but a really good read none the less. The title is correct by the way, we really did almost lose Detroit along with a big part of southern Michigan and western New York. By coincidence the decommissioning crew had a small fire at this very same plant, the Fermi 1, last month (yes they are still decommissioning it 38 years later).
The question should be modified to “Do we subsidize nuclear more heavily or ban it”.
Thanks Bob. I was unaware of that. It sounds like Nuclear may not be viable on the market then.