Brian:
   
  1) You miss the point of the posting. The posting was a response to the claim that there will be no negative economic impact to curbing the appetite for fossil fuels.
   
  2) I DID address conservation -  Please re-read my rant. I said  "You can only reduce fossil fuel consumption by either (i) reducing consumption of fossil fuels, or ..."  I did not say we can not conserve, what I said is there is a negative economic impact from reduced consumption. Of course there can be (note future tense) greater efficiencies in how fossil fuels are consumed, but let's not pretend that the world's corporations and businesses just love wasting money and being inefficient in their consumption of energy. In a free, open, and competitive market no business could long survive if it was wasteful. Wasteful companies only survive when there is government interference with the free market (such as trade limitations and subsidies, to name a couple). 
   
  3) Nuclear fission is NOT a near term solution. The environmentalists and the nimbyists (NIMBY - not in my backyard) in the US will not permit the construction of nuclear power plants. But let's just assume that the government decided today, to start licensing the construction and operation of new power plants. You still have at least two major problems to overcome. First, it is unlikely that any power utility (or anyone else) will want to make the investment. Why?, because the costs will be prohibitive. Why will the costs be prohibitive? That takes us to the second reason. Second, as soon as anyone announces plans to construct a nuclear power plants there will be protests and lawsuits that will delay construction for years. During that time the costs will mount astronomically. The NIMBYs, environmentalists and local politicians will be putting up one roadblock after another to halt construction of the plant.  Assuming it gets built at all it will be 10 - 15 years before
 the first electricity is generated. I do not consider that a current solution. Of course, if Burkina Faso wants to build nuclear power plants to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels, they can probably do so quite quickly and easily. But fossil fuel consumption by Burkina Faso is not the "problem", is it?
   
  4) I have forwarded your email to the Pope with my personal recommendation for your canonization, but I understand that the rules on canonization require that you be dead for at least five years before you can be considered for sainthood.  Maybe we can get a Papal dispensation in your case and have immediate consideration.
   
  Do I drive a "fuel efficient" car? Probably not, but then I don't know what that means. I do have a bicycle, but I found it kind of hard to haul 4X8  sheets of plywood, sacks of concrete, lumber and household furniture on my bike. So the GMC Yukon (a big SUV for those of you outside the US) serves me well and efficiently when I need to haul lots of stuff or lots of people.  Of course, I don't use the Yukon to haul plywood and lumber ALL the time, so when going to and from work I drive the 1991 Miata.  Fuel efficient? I guess, but when several of us go out for lunch we have to take several cars because the Miata only accomodates two people. Does that still qualify as fuel efficient?  Of course, when I want to have fun I drive the 1953 Chevy Pickup, that has no power steering, no power brakes, no air conditioning, no power nothing, so that is pretty fuel efficient. I don't recycle cars - I reuse them. 
   
  By the way, as long as we are talking about "fuel efficiency" (I still don't know what that means) how many miles per gallon does a city bus get? Can we get a definition of "fuel efficiency"? Is a municipal bus more efficient than my Miata? Is my Miata more efficient than a cement truck/lorry?  Since bigger is badder, should we get a fleet of Scions to deliver goods from factory to store? How many household refrigerators can one stick in the back of a Scion? Maybe we can strap it to the roof (but wouldn't that ruin the aerodynamics of the Scion and hurt fuel efficiency?). I certainly am not smart enough to figure out what it means so I will have to rely on the smarter people on this forum.
   
  5) New jobs - I though we put that one to rest. Will there be new jobs created? Sure, but at what cost? How many old jobs will be eliminated?  Will the new jobs pay as well as the old jobs? Will they add to the overall economy or is it just a shifting of work?  
   
  Economist Walter Williams addressed this issue quite nicely in a September 2005 article.
   
  See http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams090705.asp
  "Economic lunacy 
 
According to a couple of poorly trained economists, there's a bright side to Hurricane Katrina's destruction. J.P. Morgan senior economist Anthony Chan believes hurricanes tend to stimulate overall growth. As reported in "Gas Crisis Looms" (Aug. 31, 2005), written by CNN/Money staff writer Parija Bhatnagar, Mr. Chan said, "Preliminary estimates indicate 60 percent damage to downtown New Orleans. Plenty of cleanup work and rebuilding will follow in all the areas. That means over the next 12 months, there will be lots of job creation which is good for the economy." 
  
Professor Doug Woodward, of the business school at the University of South Carolina, has the same vision. Professor Woodward said, "On a personal level, the loss of life is tragic. But looking at the economic impact, our research shows that hurricanes tend to become god-given work projects." Within six months, Professor Woodward "expects to see a construction boom and job creation offset the short-term negatives such as loss of business activity, loss of wealth in the form of housing, infrastructure, agriculture and tourism revenue in the Gulf Coast states." 
  
Let's ask a few smell-test questions about these claims of beneficial aspects of hurricane destruction. Would there have been even greater economic growth and job creation for our nation had Hurricane Katrina not only destroyed New Orleans, Mobile and Gulfport, but other major metropolitan areas along its path, like Cincinnati and Pittsburgh, as well? Would we consider it a godsend, in terms of jobs and economic growth, if a few more category 4 hurricanes hit our shores? Only a lunatic would answer these questions in the affirmative. 
  
Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850), a great French economist, said in his pamphlet "What is Seen and What is Not Seen": "There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen." What economists Chan and Woodward can see are the jobs and construction boom created by repairing hurricane destruction. What they can't see, and thus ignore, is what those resources would have been used for had there not been hurricane destruction. 
  
Bastiat wrote a parable about this which has become known as the "Broken Window Fallacy." A shopkeeper's window is broken by a vandal. A crowd formed sympathizing with the man. After a while, someone in the crowd suggested that the boy wasn't guilty of vandalism; instead, he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town. After all, fixing the broken window creates employment for the glazier, who will then buy bread and benefit the baker, who will then buy shoes and benefit the cobbler, and so forth. 
  
Those are the seen effects of repairing the broken window. What's unseen is what the shopkeeper would have done with the money had the vandal not broken his window. He might have employed the tailor by purchasing a suit. The vandal's breaking his window produced at least two unseen effects. First, it shifted unemployment from the glazier who now has a job to the tailor who doesn't. Second, it reduced the shopkeeper's wealth. Had it not been for the vandalism, the shopkeeper would have had a window and a suit; now he has just a window."
   
  Perhaps the Stern folks ought to read Bastiat and take a course in basic economics or in simple logic.
  
Regards
   
  Chuck Dolci
   
  
Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
  Chuck

You present a black and white picture by ignoring conservation and 
nuclear fuels. And why should everyone except the USA cut their defence 
spending. If all the money that had been poured into (and still is) the 
futile Iraq conflict by all the nations, for no real purpose other than 
to foment more hatred, had, instead, been poured into energy 
development, then the problem would already be three-quarters solved.

And, yes, we have a solution today, not tomorrow, nuclear fission. This 
is expandable, safe and cost-effective, with modern technology. And we 
have low-emission cars today, not tomorrow. Do YOU have one? If not, why 
not? What do you run? (Before you ask, I have a Honda Civic Hybrid). Is 
your house equipped with energy-saving light bulbs throughout and Class 
A appliances? (Before you ask, mine has the CFL bulbs everywhere, except 
for 1 single 40 W tungsten bulb for mechanical reasons, and we are 
slowly replacing end-of-life appliances to Class A). If everyone did 
these simple things, there would be neither energy nor fuel crisis.

The Stern report clearly shows that there need by no economical crisis, 
quite the opposite, as jobs would be created implementing the new 
technologies.

Brian

Charles Dolci wrote:
> Todd:
> I will try to answer your question but you will also have to explain something to me.
> 
> First, it can not be denied that twentieth and twentyfirst century industrial economies run on energy and the current source of most energy is fossil fuels. You can only reduce fossil fuel consumption by either (i) reducing consumption of fossil fuels, or (ii) reducing consumption of fossil fuels and substituting another source of energy. 
> 
> Todd, do you REALLY think there will be no adverse economic impact from the first option? How productive do you think your company (and the companies of all the other members of this forum) will be when employees are forced to work in the dark, or in unheated or non-airconditioned buildings? How productive will the company be when the server farms are shut down because of lack of electricity? No more aluminum smelters. No more steel mills, no more concrete production. How productive will farms be when farmers have to rely solely on horse power once again? Just how productive will your company be when it is forced to reduce energy consumption to the 1995 level?
> 
> Of course there is option two, that is reduce fossil fuel consumption and substitute another energy source. But does such a substitute exist today? NOT ten years from today, but today. If anyone is aware of such an existing substitute please let us know. I am not aware of any such thing. 
> 
> But let's say we begin working on such a solution. Fine, but where do we get the wealth/resources to do that? Just because we want to do something "nice" does not mean that new wealth to fund such "nice" things will magically appear. If we are going to do these things then resources will have to be diverted from other endeavors to fund the development of substitutes for fossil fuels.
> 
> Maybe we just raise everybody's taxes to fund it; and that's OK, but that diverts resource away from the marketplace, and that means that many of the goods and services all of your companies make and sell will no longer be sold because consumers no longer have as much discretionary income. That's hardly good for the economy.
> 
> Maybe we just tax the corporations; that's OK too, but then that means less money for new factories, new equipment and new employees. That's hardly good for the economy.
> 
> If developing substitute fuels is going to be so darned good from an economic standpoint, why don't we let the poor, non-industrialized countries fund it. Their economies will then boom, they will all become rich and everyone will be happy. 
> 
> Maybe we divert resources away from defense expenditures. Let's get the E.U. member nations, the Russian Federation and North Korea to defund their militaries and finance research into alternate fuels. Maybe Canada and Japan can also get rid of their militaries and throw some money into the pot. What's that you say? They don't have militaries. Well, maybe then they can get rid of their social security programs to pay for new energy research.
> 
> Also, you seem to be assuming that any substitute for fossil fuels will be economically more efficient and cost effective than fossil fuels. What are your facts to support such an assumption? What alternate energy source that is technically feasible TODAY is cheaper than fossil fuels? If it exists then why haven't consumers both corporate and individual not jumped at the chance to save money by using these cheaper energy sources. Are we ALL that stupid that we just love to waste moeny? Why don't you ask your corporate executives why they are wasting money on fossil fuel derived energy when cheaper and equally effective alternatives exist today. I am curious to hear what their responses will be. 
> 
> Wind power, at current technologies is not cheaper - if it was then governments would not have to subsidize it so heavily (in the US in the form of tax credits). Are solar cells a cheap AND effective substitute? If they were then why aren't companies around the world switching to solar cells? 
> 
> Ethanol? Well that has to be heavily subsudized by the government so I doubt that can be good for any economy. Not only that, but susidizing ethanol merely hides and shifts the true costs. As corn production shifts to producing ethanol the costs for the other uses of corn go up. Since most livestock is fed corn the cost of beef and pork are going up, milk prices have seen sharp increases. The costs for products that use corn syrup have gone up The prices of Soy products are going up as farmers move away from soy production to corn, because the government is paying a subsidy of 51 cents per gallon of ethanol. 
> 
> If substitute fuels and energy sources cost more than fossil fuels that will mean a weaker economy because the money that had gone to other goods and services now has to defray the higher costs of energy. Apple will end up selling fewer iPods and Bose sells fewer sound systems.
> 
> Todd, you need to explain something to me. You state "a society that directly and indirectly subsidizes much of its fossil-fuel infrastructure - exploration, production, pipelines, etc." is not free.
> 
> Can you please explain that one? How is "society" "subsidizing" the fossil fuels infrastructure? If the costs of infrastructure (e.g. exploration, production, pipelines, etc.) are reflected in the price of the goods that I freely choose to purchase (i.e. the fuel) then how is that a "subsidy"? That does not fit within any standard definition of the term "subsidy". The only coercive forces being applied here are the energy taxes imposed by the various levels of government. I willingly and freely pay the price of energy I consume, because I am getting a fair value in return for my payment. I can't say the same thing about the taxes that I am forced to pay. 
> 
> But I am still curious about the "subsidy" that "society" is forced to pay. You need to explain that one to me. And how's this for a free society - you are free to buy the kind and amount of fuel you want to consume and I am free to buy the kind and amount of fuel I want to consume. It doesn't get any freer than that.
> 
> Chuck D. 
> 
> "MacFadden, Todd" wrote:
> Gordon wrote: 
> 
> "To deprecate or ignore the benefits of economic
> growth and technological progress seems pretty pessimistic to me." 
> 
> 
> Where are your facts to back up the assumption that taking steps to curb
> human contributions of greenhouse gases is going to impede long-term
> economic progress and preclude technological advances? Please convince
> me how NOT taking steps to curb our dependency on fossil fuels -
> maintaining the status quo - represents progress or technological
> innovation? I would argue that a society that directly and indirectly
> subsidizes much of its fossil-fuel infrastructure - exploration,
> production, pipelines, etc. - hardly represents the "free society" that
> you and Klaus blithely aspire to.
> 
> 
> Gordon wrote: 
> 
> "Where, outside of mathematics and the physical sciences, is there ever
> one hundred percent certainty?"
> 
> 
> I agree 100%. Hence the need for "scientific consensus." Thank you for
> helping make my point. 
> 
> Have a great day. 
> Todd MacFadden
>