AndyFrankGO’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Annual Electricity Costs

  Gar, nice post.  I agree that this goal is feasible if we have enough political will, and it is more than a little disappointing that many mainstream environmentalists are naysaying.

  I'm wondering what your 66 cents per kwh would translate to assuming the capital costs can be amortized into billing rates (as they currently are for fossil fuels).  

  If capital costs can be spread for 30 years, it seems like that would make the new clean energy pretty cheap, but want to make sure I'm not missing anything, thanks.On We can do more than he calls for, but I would settle for Gore's objective posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Not a Helpful Frame

  Mr. Glick,

  Your offhand analysis of "capitalism" (to be clear I include the authors you review in this stupidity) reeks of intellectual laziness and a fundamental misunderstanding of both history and economics.  We have never lived in a pure "capitalist" system just as we have never lived in a pure "communist" or "socialist" system.  There is always a role for government and a role for business, and no major problem has ever been confronted without the buy-in of both institutions.  The climate problem can only be solved by fundamentally changing both government and business.  It's not an either/or question.  

  Frameworks like the ones you cite and propose actually do harm because they distract from the very real (and hard) work of creating the institutional systems in place that will radically reduce our dependence on fossil fuel.  Spouting pseudo-scientific, paranoid theories about replacing the "corporate-dominated, two-party political system" and citing discredited axioms such as "a rejection of the necessity of constant economic growth" are an embarrassment to this otherwise thoughtful blog (and should be to you).  

  To paraphrase from the movie "Billy Madison": Mr. Glick what you wrote is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone reading this blog is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.On Ted Glick on two new books that address capitalism and the environment posted 1 year, 5 months ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Why not 2 & 3?

  Why do you need simplicity? How many bills (good or bad) are simple?  Seems like you most need political buy-in (or else nothing is possible) and efficiency if possible.  Another factor equally important to political buy-in (and I think implied) is Scale.  The policy must be able to have a large enough effect to actually slow or stop climate change.

  Simplicity is nice to have, but don't understand why it is a necessity...On You can't achieve the three goals of climate policy at once posted 1 year, 6 months ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  This thought was in The Atlantic

  http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime  Very good article...On Deep thought of the day posted 1 year, 8 months ago 15 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Revenue Neutral

  Lower payroll or sales taxes, with maybe a small chunk (~10%-20%) of revenue going to energy/carbon research.  Best chance for success in my mind...On Greens helped convince Lieberman that auctioning permits is the way to go posted 2 years, 1 month ago 6 Responses