If you did not see part 1, by all means, check that first in the post below, or you’ll be lost here.
That’s the major part of the story.
I post part 2 of my interview with Eli Lehrer here primarily for completeness.
Skip to content
I missed something. Just where was the crock?
sometimes I just do things that are mildly informative.
more crocks coming. playlist of crock videos here
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=029130BFDC78FA33
Another mildly informative wonkish presentation on shaving our energy waste:
Description: Inventor, engineer and MacArthur Genius Grant-winner Dr. Saul Griffith thought he was an eco-prude, until he audited his total power consumption and learned he burns three times as much energy as the average European, and eight times as much as the average Carribeaner. Watch as he unveils Wattzon.com, a free online tool anyone can use to gain a deep understanding of their total energy footprint – and how to reduce their role in climate change.
See also the Slide Show:
http://www.slideshare.net/energyliteracy/longnow-16-jan-09
Video of the full R Street debate is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj5De61aa5w&feature=player_embedded
Warning: this is not a pleasant experience.
Inglis’s best parts are at about 24:00 and 39:00. I agree that he does ‘win’ the debate, but then he isn’t really arguing against deep thinkers here. The Heartland guy at one point says we’d be ‘going back in time’ by adopting solar. The Heritage guy (an economics teacher for decades) says pricing externalities gives government too much power, so it shouldn’t be considered.
This is all deeply maddening stuff. The Heartland position is that it’s best to keep the status quo (but cut regulations and the EPA), and the Inglis side is to radically reform all levels of taxation and regulation to make the carbon tax palatable to free market principles. The main thrust of that is to reduce FICA and corporate taxes to make a carbon tax revenue-neutral and to reduce or eliminate all forms of subsidies and regulations on all forms of energy. It’s dreaming the impossible dream – DC would never approve it as it exists today, and there would be enormous negative repercussions from doing those things, anyway.
This is the ‘reasonability’ of the GOP position. Keep things the same, or posit solutions that have zero chance of being approved.