From my ex father in law, Electronic engineer
Yes. But does it work. No? Bring it back when you've got it to workThis Idealism of "freedom" is basking in poor light. It cannot grapple with the problems of Climate change. If it cannot address existential problems then it doesn't work. Mr.Darwin accepts no excuses. "Yes, but." cuts no mustard with him.
I had better get back to my preps.
Quercus bicolor,
What is the real issue? I used to worry about it until I realized there wasn't anything I could do about it. As long as the enormous human population continues to use resources and leave behind pollutants as byproducts, we're eventually going to hit that cliff. It doesn't matter at what speed the collision takes place. So, why try to save the system if any effort is too little and too late? Why worry about it? Do you worry (excessively) about the eventuality of your own death? I don't. (I worry about living too long rather than dying too soon.)
I keep seeing the climate change alarmists tell us how bad everything (climatewise) is getting. That focuses on the "So what?" part of the questions. It's time to focus on the "Now what?" question. I'd really like to see some realistic plans to combat the problem. When I used to try to come up with solutions, every thought train led to a one world government that kept tabs on everyone. Frankly, that scared me much more than climate change ever did.
Qb, I don't mean to single you out here. Your post just reminded me of my past failings. I'd like to hear from anyone who has a real plan. In the end … if nothing can be done to stop it, then nothing should be done.
Grover
[quote=Adam Taggart]
I find myself puzzled by the libertarian stance displayed here regarding climate change. The denial of it seems based on beliefs ("nothing is worth compromising my personal liberty") than on the warnings of science ("hey, you might be free, but you might end up dead, too"). Along with the belief comes a bias against everything the greenies embrace, even if it just makes good sense -- like investing in renewable energy systems. A lot of folks here seem to be rooting for Telsa's failure. Really? Won't having the technology figured out to switch from hydrocarbons to electrons for transportation be a good option, no matter what we choose to do with the remaining fossil fuels? The automatic equation of being a better environmental steward with big government/freedom loss seems unfortunately short-sighted to me. It shouldn't be an either/or choice between freedom and sustainability IMO.
[/quote]
My take is we should get rid of all the subsidies for all fuels. Right now we have so many distortions starting from the money system to subsidies of all energy sources include fossil fuels to know what is really sustainable or the proper solution. When a government picks a solution (such as wind/solar) are they killing an even better idea? Would just removing the subsidies from the fossil fuels (military counts as one) reduce use due to price rises without having to resort to crap like carbon credits that will simply enrich some other political connected entity? I just can't put my faith in fixing the issue (real or not) with the same folks that caused the problems in the first place. Just look at what heavy government subsidies of roads/public works has done for promoting unsustainable cities in the deserts (Las Vegas!). Or how about those nice windmills being built with concrete that won't last.
Then I too figure as Grover does that it just doesn't matter. All the solutions put forth do not address the root cause of the problem at all, the fact that we are in massive population overshoot, so unless someone is going to decide how to get rid of maybe 6 billion people we are going to keep putting out more CO2 and other pollutants until we can't due to running out of fuels and then we will get the population reduction.
I would even go so far as to say Climate Change (real or not) doesn't matter because so many other issues are going to be critical before it is.
As far as real or not, when one side is so sure that they insist on shutting down debate, I begin to get real suspicious. Who cares if everyone believes it's real. If the majority do and are willing to do something about it then great, start. When all those who are so alarmed start actually reducing their use (ie. no more jetting around in private jets), then maybe I will start to give them a bit more credence.
As far as Tesla, I do not have not problem with what they are doing, except for the fact that they are suckling mightily from that government teat, which means they are stealing from everyone to support a megolomanic billionaire's idea of what the world should be. If what they are doing is so great, then they shouldn't need to use violence via proxy to pay for it!
Continuing to tow a ski boat to the lake with your Suburban and tow your kids back and forth on tubes or skis is not the answer. Refusing to drive energy efficient transportation because all your neighbors still have pickup trucks is not the answer.
It's a matter of doing the right and rational thing, personally. I can't change the world, but I can change my behavior.
It appears to me that global warming science has been handled poorly by some, not all. It appears to me that skeptics shoot holes in the science without bothering to look at there thermometers.
To me, it winds up being a side issue to poor energy consumption habits and not knowing when you have enough stuff.
Even if you can prove global warming to be a non-issue or minor issue, you can't wish peak oil/energy away. I drive highly fuel efficient transportation, because I have a better understanding of the true value of a gallon of gas than most of my neighbors. My carbon footprint is improved as a result. It's really that simple.
So efficient markets and unregulated capitalism will solve the energy problem?
I wonder how much the earth has been affected by everyone flying, driving or otherwise trekking to Freedom Fest to discuss how mankind can continue to denude the planet of the community of life forms we currently have the privilege to experience.
“The idea that humans are yet intelligent enough to serve as stewards of the Earth is among the most hubristic ever.”
― James E. Lovelock, The Revenge of Gaia
[quote]I find myself puzzled by the libertarian stance displayed here regarding climate change. The denial of it seems based on beliefs ("nothing is worth compromising my personal liberty") than on the warnings of science ("hey, you might be free, but you might end up dead, too"). Along with the belief comes a bias against everything the greenies embrace, even if it just makes good sense – like investing in renewable energy systems. A lot of folks here seem to be rooting for Telsa's failure. Really? Won't having the technology figured out to switch from hydrocarbons to electrons for transportation be a good option, no matter what we choose to do with the remaining fossil fuels? The automatic equation of being a better environmental steward with big government/freedom loss seems unfortunately short-sighted to me. It shouldn't be an either/or choice between freedom and sustainability IMO.[/quote]
I think Adam's final paragraph summed it up beautifully. Denial of climate change is a non-starter still proposed only by fossil fuel interests and their proxies, many of whom are represented at libertarian gatherings. Time to move on.
As QB noted, there are a lot of environmental problems not primarily related to AGW. As others note, overpopulation is a huge problem (but not the only or driving problem). Besides, it's probably harder to solve than climate change and they are not mutually exclusive. As still others point out, we should be focusing on what to do. Make no mistake, AGW is a, if not the, critical issue of our time. It must be solved for the sake of the earth as we know it.
The science is pretty clear and a lot can be done about it while recognizing there are still differences at the margins. Wind, solar, other renewables, carbon taxes and conservation are obvious partial solutions that could be initiated and scaled up rapidly. Don't let issues like using cement in the foundations stop us, find some other foundation methods. Drilling into bedrock works. There were at least dozens of small hydroelectric dams in upstate NY before they were decommissioned and torn down in favor of large grid systems. Well, maybe its time to rethink some of those local solutions with compromises to protect populations of aquatic species. I'm still hesitant about nuclear as it has problems that seem insoluble, waste being the biggie. But, there are smart folks out there who might be able to resolve those problems.
In all of this there is plenty of opportunity for private enterprise, but trying to pursue the wet dream of a totally free market is a road to disaster. Balance and compromise are the keys.
Panel on the state of the US election process – panelists are Frank Atwood, Alicia Dern, Aaron Hamlin, John Fund, Hunter Scarborough
All the panelists are talking about what I consider to be the edges of the vote irregularity issues.
Current panelist is talking about vote fraud (i.e. dead people voting, and double voting) which is the 0.00065% issue while the insecure vote tabulators are the 99.9995% problem.
The vote fraud issue is really a non-issue, but there's a lot of focus on it here…I think because it's so easy to understand?
Nobody is talking about election rigging by electronic machines and tabulators. I cannot engage in the topic when the 8,000 pound elephant is on the stage and nobody is talking about it.
Panel on term limits, featuring Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for US President. Other panelists include Philip Blumel and Paul Jacob.
Shermer Ad Hominem attack. Attacks person not argument. There you go. Why I don't read his stuff anymore.
Better than some politician picking a winner based on the most benefit to themselves. I just don't understand how the same people who helped to create much of this mess are suddenly now the ones that are going to solve it? Why are politicians and bureaucrats going to suddenly make the right decisions? If you want something done you need the freedom to change your behavior and to convince those around you to do so as well.
Right now in many places you can't even grow a garden because it's illegal. You are forced to keep using a fiat ponzi money scheme that keeps much of this unsustainable mess going. You are forced to pay for those windmills that are designed to fail in less than 100 years because some politicians got together and decided for your own good you will give up the fruits of your labor to do so.
Do I think "efficient markets and unregulated capitalism" will solve the energy problems - no, because there is no solution, but I certainly think billions of people looking for solutions without massive distortions are far more likely to come up with better answers than a few politicians dictating what should be done. Here at PP there is always talk about how action should have been taken long ago, how many people would have already decided those Suburbans weren't such a great idea if oil wasn't heavily subsidized?
I consider that the right attitude, but then you question my desire to have the same freedom to make my own choices? So you will do the right thing, but insist that everyone else must be forced to do so? That's just hubris and why I find so many of the "progressives" and "environmentalists" distasteful. Instead of supporting community by voluntary cooperation they insist on using the violence via government proxy to get their way.
Just look at how quick you are to decide that even questioning global warming is heretic. If your stance can't handle a criticism then maybe it's not such a strong case. If you think your right, convince others, and don't worry about the few that think your wrong.
Probably a lot less than those attending the various climate conferences on taxpayer money. Talk about hypocrisy. It's a lot easier to be wasteful when your spending other peoples money, something that those attending the freedom fest find wrong.
Love the new info and regular updates! Would enjoy an Off The Cuff with both you Chris and Adam upon your return to discuss your key take-always and perspectives. Very interesting and thanks for the almost real time sharing. Looking forward to more updates.
AK GrannyWGrit
Reading your coverage is almost as good as being there. Your real time documentation and editorial comments are very much appreciated.
Doug,
You stated: "Make no mistake, AGW is a, if not the, critical issue of our time. It must be solved for the sake of the earth as we know it." Great! So how do we do it?
Have you ever looked at the embedded energy (fossil fuels) in manufacturing windmills, solar systems, and other renewables? If you dedicated all the collected energy from a windmill to mining, refining, transporting, and maintaining replacements … how many could you get before the original was essentially worn out? What about hydroelectric dams? Doesn't the impounded reservoir eventually silt up? Is that really a long term solution? Isn't that just trading one environmental catastrophe for a bigger one in the future?
Then, there is the magical carbon tax. The only way it works is with a one world government to keep all the cheaters in line (theoretically.) How else are you going to keep China (or any other sovereign nation) from polluting more to provide for their own people? How would you keep a one world government in check?
Doug, you are a smart guy. Try to carry your thoughts a little further. Partial efforts and wishful thinking don't exactly form the foundation of a real plan. I don't expect a fully formed plan, but I expect more than mere picking at the margins. The margins will take care of themselves. Focus on the bulk of the problem.
If there isn't any solution, then it really is a predicament that only has outcomes. Wouldn't it be better to focus on personally minimizing the impact of the potential outcomes? As an example, I keep hearing that AGW will cause sea level to rise. (I don't disagree.) That can be partially mitigated by moving to higher ground before sea level rises. I'd rather focus on mitigation techniques than the speed that the oceans are rising. I can't keep the oceans at bay.
Grover
Stuck in an airport as usual, with 24 hours more to go… I really do wrestle with the cost/benefit of my traveling so much.
Little time so just a few thoughts.
Getting rid of subsidies for fossil fuels is a terrific idea, paying the full cost of their use is a better one.
Convoluting climate change and politics/ideology is akin to the Roman Catholic Church insisting that the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun. After 350 years they finally admitted they were wrong but stubbornness isn't really an argument. There is nothing wrong with questioning AGW per se, but simply repeating the same old long debunked arguments while refusing to look at the facts isn't debate, it is denial.
Why do people say AGW is 'the' biggest problem? It isn't one- ups-man-ship, it is the simple fact that it makes all of the other problems that we have much, much worse. The military refers to it as a threat multiplier. Ignoring it is really not an acceptable option but dealing with it effectively means dealing with our other problems (population, energy use, resource availability, biodiversity loss, ecosystem services, water scarcity, food availability, wealth distribution, etc).
Criticizing Les (Rhare) for his ardent support of AGW, now that's funny. Sorry Les. Les doesn't need the crutch of AGW to do more about it than most anyone I've heard of.
There is nothing wrong with the freedom to choose but we can't all be free to chose our own facts. The sad fact is that the more people we have on this Earth squabbling over less and less resources signifies that we will experience ever less freedom for all of us. If we wasted and procreated less then our kids would have better future options.
On the move again…
I agree with you 100% Grover. My point was there was no point in debating business as usual vs. renewable techno-fantasy. And yes, there's not much point in promoting aggressive efforts to stave of climate change due to the unwillingness of most folks to face the truth and take meaningful action on the one hand and the risks inherent in the government creating "incentives" on the other. However, as rhare points out, it would be good if government removed negative incentives in the form of subsidies for fossil fuels.
There's plenty of good reasons for those of us who see the enormous destruction to allow ourselves to feel – in the presence of others who also see it the enormity of it – the overwhelming grief it brings up. Industrial civilization of which we all are a part of is literally scraping off the Earth's living skin, spreading poison over the surface, into the air and waters, netting most of the fish out of the ocean and creating a change in climate so rapid that it will be tremendously destructive.
One of those good reasons with that if we internalize the grief, we're pretty useless in terms of asking "Now what?", answering it wisely and acting on it in a good way. We'll just go on re-enacting some story of victimhood, revenge, hopelessness, addiction, or savior complex or even "F!?% it, it's hopeless! I might as well indulge myself in all of those consumer goods like everyone else!"
This is a panel of 5 plus a moderator.
Panelist Gene Epstein (economics editor of Barron's) - does not see a recession on the way. Sees a muddle through.
Chris Casey (Managing Director, WindRockWealth Management) thinks that the flattening of the yield curve and would not be surprised to see a recession in the near term.
Adrian Day (President, Adrian Day Asset Management)does not see a stock bubble, certainly not on the basis of valuations, and also because cocktail party chatter is not back to mania territory.
Keith Weiner (CEO monetary metals) does not trust the yield curve because the bond markets are so distorted by the CB's. All he can be sure of in the flat yield spread is that bank earnings are getting crushed. The other spread he sees is the one between junk debt and equity for the associated shares…some of those are widening and that spells trouble.
A.D. "we are building up for an enormous crisis in the bond amrkets…but maybe not for a couple of years."
G.E. We'll get an inverted yield curve when Yellen decides to put the short term interest rate back up over 1%-2% and that will certainly skewer the stock market. But that day is not imminent. Also sees no bubbles. Houses are high, but not that high. Stocks are high, but not that high. Maybe later we'll see bubbles there, possibly later, but not now, and not for a while.
Justin Mohr (moderator) "What do Austrians think of the velocity of money?"
Robert Murphy (Research Fellow, The Independent Institute) - Austrians do not even like thinking in these terms…rather speak in terms of demand to hold money, so velocity is not the right thing to measure or track.
C.C. velocity is an indication of value, possibly, but not of demand. The Fed is wrong to focus on and try to manage towards velocity.
G.E. Thinks also that velocity is a blind alley.
J.M. "What do negative interest rates mean and how is it even possible?"
K.W. If you run an enterprise that destroys capital you should be out of business and soon. Negative interest rates are merely an invitation to scale up and destroy capital as quickly as possible. A gold standard forces interest rates to remain positive and to reflect market values. In a paper system, however, we are disenfranchised. If you don't like your bank's interest rates, and you pull your money out and spend it on something else (like a rare corvette) nothing happens because that seller puts the money right back in the bank. So there's no impact on the bank. I think the Swiss Franc is done as a currency based on the Swiss interest rates structure. Negative rates out to 50 years means that capital destruction is happening all across the Swiss economy and therefore the currency is being destroyed.
G.E. It's not irrational to pay a government to store your money if your only other options are a mattress or safe deposit box. But negative rates are punishing and force people into risks.
J.M. "Adrian, what's your advice to people who may feel they have missed out on the run in gold and silver this year?"
A.D. I am extremely bullish in gold over the long term. The uncertainty in Europe is very good for gold. Another reason for being bullish on gold is that there's really very little money into gold so far. Retail and institutional money is mostly not yet interested in gold. An awful lot of money on the sidelines still. The spring pullback is missing and that's because people are eager to get in.
G.E. gold's main value is based on confidence, or lack thereof, in the ability of the monetary authorities to control things. Was very surprised that gold pulled back so violently from the $1900 mark given everything that's happening in the economy and elsewhere?
A.D. well, gold was in bubble territory and had moved up very dramatically towards the end. Once that started to fall the fall fed upon itself. And standard commodity lags led to too much gold being produced in 2013 through 2015. Gold predicted to be between $1400 and $1500 by year end.
K.W. Hold on there…The thing that makes gold different is that virtually all of the gold mined is still around as potential supply under the right conditions and the right price. The amount mined is tiny compared to that stock. So mine output is not especially useful. My method is to look a the spread between futures and spot to strip out the effect of speculators to derive a 'fundamental' demand outlook. Those current fundamentals have gold somewhere around $1100 an ounce an silver at $13.
C.C. negative interest rates are incredibly bullish for gold. The statistics on negative bonds are eye popping and very constructive for gold.
Q from audience - "What should I invest in today…should I avoid bonds?"
A.D. I especially like the business that lend to other businesses. Dividend paying BDC's And my favorite is Aeries Capital (Ticker ARCC) …currently yielding over 11%