…“No insurance policy is worthwhile if the cost of the premiums exceeds the protection purchased. For greenhouse insurance to be worthwhile, it must either reduce the risks of anthropogenic climate change or reduce the costs of emission reductions designed to achieve the same goal, without imposing off-setting risks, such as those which would result from policies that slow economic growth and technological advance.”
“Rather than adopt costly regulatory measures that serve to suppress energy use and economic growth, policy makers should seek to eliminate government interventions in the marketplace that obstruct emission reductions and discourage the adoption of lower emission technologies. Such an approach is a ‘no regrets’ strategy….”
“A true ‘no regrets’ approach to climate change is not greater government controls on economic activity, but fewer. Economic growth, market institutions, and technological advance are often the most effective forms of insurance that a civilization can have.”
“Public [socialistic] resources are really private, owned and exploited by a political elite, while private resources are really public, owned and managed by a multitude. Government-owned resources do not ‘belong to all of the people’ and allow ‘self determination;’ they belong to none or a very few.”
A recent communication from Hector Castro Vizcarra, Minister for Energy Affairs of the Embassy of Mexico, affirms that it is business-as-usual regarding the revised NAFTA agreement for the internal workings of Mexico’s policy for oil and gas (see the official summary below).
“Mexico´s inalienable and impresciptible property on hydrocarbons in Mexico´s subsoil” remains resolute. (Nationalized in 1938, Mexico’s oil and gas sector turned 80 this year.) And Mexico can otherwise regulate its oil and gas sector as it sees fit regarding foreign investment.…
“The Trump folks seem to believe that anything that has Obama’s fingerprints on it, no matter how sensible, they’re going to rescind, revoke and demolish, and it makes no sense at all.”
“[The climate conundrum] is scary and I’m not sure we’re gonna be able to turn it around.”
– John Holdren, December 2017.
This is Part II of a transcribed interview with John Holdren, leader of the energy/climate Malthusian school, by Climate One. Yesterday’s post critically assessed Holdren’s views on federal energy research and development, the Paris withdrawal, and China’s energy policy. Today’s post looks at his views on most other issues in the “energy sustainability” debate.
Holdren quotations are below in red, followed by my rebuttal comments indented in black (subtitles added).
Technology Boom in Renewable Energies
“… there have been huge improvement in battery technology.…