What's your reference for the $43 trillion figure? A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (done a month ago, so I don't have the figures still; sorry) says that we could mothball every coal plant in the USA, India, and China (which is most of them in the world) and replace them with clean nuclear for ~2 trillion with the current price of fission plants from GE. The long-term cost will be lower than that, because the problem with nuclear is the up-front cost; fission plants cost less than coal to operate over time. This also ignores economies of scale from building that much nuclear (ask the French about that), the fact that it would be far more cost-efficient to gradually switch over as existing equipment fails, and the fact that in many areas wind/solar thermal/tidal power is a cheaper alternative.
Many environmental measures are actually a net benefit to the economy; driving smaller and more efficient cars, for instance, reduces our expenditure on oil. If this were done across the board there'd be no safety concerns; as we will observe a week from now in my freshman physics class, at the end of the problem all of the masses cancel.
Also note that ending fossil power generation is far more ambitious than the plans being put forth by many environmentalists for addressing climate change.
Even if the figure were in fact $43 trillion (which I doubt it is), that's still money spent for someone's benefit -- namely, all of us, especially those of us who live on the coast (and in Arizona, for that matter). Is the city of New York worth $43 trillion? Some might argue that New York, and Amsterdam, and Lagos, and so many coastal cities around the world are worth that price tag. Some might argue that, no, that's too expensive -- we ought to just pack them up and move inland. There is room for intelligent people to discuss how to spend our nation's resources to best benefit the USA and the world: should we improve infrastructure, educate the young, do scientific research, address social problems like poverty and disease, or simply lower taxes and let the individual decide how best to use those resources. But the Iraq war benefits nobody other than those in power, their cronies/business partners, and their political allies. The Iraq war has provided no benefit to the average American citizen. (It certainly has made us no safer; there are far more people who hate Americans and are willing to die to kill them around than there were before the war.)
A married couple might debate whether to spend their money on a new car or an improvement to their house or to save for their child's education, with both parties having valid points. But no sane person would suggest lighting their money on fire... yet we've done exactly that in Iraq.
Regarding responsibility for the war in Iraq: Yes, the Bush administration is quite clearly responsible for the expenditure of money. They are also responsible for the loss of American life: a country invaded by another has the right to defend herself, and this includes planting bombs to kill the invading army. If I go to the desert and start poking rattlesnakes with sticks, it's my own damn fault when they bite me. If I go to the desert and start invading countries, it's my own damn fault when they fight back.
The Sunni-Shi'ite violence is indirectly our responsibility as well. Iraq under Saddam was a shitpile, but Iraq currently is far worse. A New England Journal of Medicine study (Brownstein and Brownstein, 2008) reports 151,000 deaths by violence directly since the US invasion; the indirect death rate from the decline in the standard of living since 2003 is estimated on the order of one million, but I don't have a reliable citation for that at the moment.
Whether you believe we are morally responsible for this isn't as clear-cut; I submit that $2-3 trillion, 4000 American dead, 25000 Americans seriously wounded, and our international reputation shattered is sufficiently weighty a cost.
Hey, please don't bite my head off about the $43 trillion figure. I just heard it on the news the other day. It was some sort of report sent to Congress either by Al Gore or someone who works for him. However, one thing I forgot to mention was the fact that this was, I believe, a world-wide bottom-line dollar amount for their plan to "save the environment." Unfortunately, as the media usually goes, they didn't really go into the specifics of it.
That's a world wide bottom line... Not how much we would be shelling out.
But at least its for someone's benefit. Making power and cars and what not more eco-friendly is a winning situation for all, unlike the war in Iraq which is only friendly to Bush's cock.
Bringing environmentalism into the American mainstream would not only make for a healthier and more self-sustaining society, but it would also provide new jobs. Even if it costs more than the war in Iraq, how is this a bad thing in the end? Iraq hasn't given us -anything- of use like the Bush administration said it would.
-no cheap gas. -no stable democratic ally in the Middle East -no end or stemming the tide of terrorism
At least taking care of the environment gets us somewhere both on the local and global scale. If we had spent all our time and energy on hybrid cars and nuclear power, as a country we'd be in a much better place in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Many environmental measures are actually a net benefit to the economy; driving smaller and more efficient cars, for instance, reduces our expenditure on oil. If this were done across the board there'd be no safety concerns; as we will observe a week from now in my freshman physics class, at the end of the problem all of the masses cancel.
Also note that ending fossil power generation is far more ambitious than the plans being put forth by many environmentalists for addressing climate change.
Even if the figure were in fact $43 trillion (which I doubt it is), that's still money spent for someone's benefit -- namely, all of us, especially those of us who live on the coast (and in Arizona, for that matter). Is the city of New York worth $43 trillion? Some might argue that New York, and Amsterdam, and Lagos, and so many coastal cities around the world are worth that price tag. Some might argue that, no, that's too expensive -- we ought to just pack them up and move inland. There is room for intelligent people to discuss how to spend our nation's resources to best benefit the USA and the world: should we improve infrastructure, educate the young, do scientific research, address social problems like poverty and disease, or simply lower taxes and let the individual decide how best to use those resources. But the Iraq war benefits nobody other than those in power, their cronies/business partners, and their political allies. The Iraq war has provided no benefit to the average American citizen. (It certainly has made us no safer; there are far more people who hate Americans and are willing to die to kill them around than there were before the war.)
A married couple might debate whether to spend their money on a new car or an improvement to their house or to save for their child's education, with both parties having valid points. But no sane person would suggest lighting their money on fire... yet we've done exactly that in Iraq.
Regarding responsibility for the war in Iraq: Yes, the Bush administration is quite clearly responsible for the expenditure of money. They are also responsible for the loss of American life: a country invaded by another has the right to defend herself, and this includes planting bombs to kill the invading army. If I go to the desert and start poking rattlesnakes with sticks, it's my own damn fault when they bite me. If I go to the desert and start invading countries, it's my own damn fault when they fight back.
The Sunni-Shi'ite violence is indirectly our responsibility as well. Iraq under Saddam was a shitpile, but Iraq currently is far worse. A New England Journal of Medicine study (Brownstein and Brownstein, 2008) reports 151,000 deaths by violence directly since the US invasion; the indirect death rate from the decline in the standard of living since 2003 is estimated on the order of one million, but I don't have a reliable citation for that at the moment.
Whether you believe we are morally responsible for this isn't as clear-cut; I submit that $2-3 trillion, 4000 American dead, 25000 Americans seriously wounded, and our international reputation shattered is sufficiently weighty a cost.
Reply
Reply
But at least its for someone's benefit. Making power and cars and what not more eco-friendly is a winning situation for all, unlike the war in Iraq which is only friendly to Bush's cock.
Bringing environmentalism into the American mainstream would not only make for a healthier and more self-sustaining society, but it would also provide new jobs. Even if it costs more than the war in Iraq, how is this a bad thing in the end? Iraq hasn't given us -anything- of use like the Bush administration said it would.
-no cheap gas.
-no stable democratic ally in the Middle East
-no end or stemming the tide of terrorism
At least taking care of the environment gets us somewhere both on the local and global scale. If we had spent all our time and energy on hybrid cars and nuclear power, as a country we'd be in a much better place in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Reply
Leave a comment