[sailaway21]

Osmund dissembles...

We're not dumping carbon into the oceans. The oceans are doing their job of absorption and off-gassing as they've always done. Localized rises in temperature cause localized rises in CO2, not the inverse. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that much of what we have seen over the past decade is nothing more than the normal cyclical variations between El Nino and La Nina effects. Change you can believe in is what the earth does normally.

All the evidenc shows that the earth is a vastly resilient eco-system. It has to be given nature's propensity to incite uncontrollable wildfires, typhoons, and tsunami. There is probably no better example of this than the volcanic explosion of Krakatoa, in the Sunda Strait, in 1883. Heard over a thousand miles away it deposited volcanic ash as far away as the United States. It reportedly blew five cubic miles of volcanic ash into the atmosphere and caused a rise in global temperatures of over one degree Celsius. (I'm omitting reference to the other effects it had.) Yet within five years atmospheric temperatures had returned to normal. And nature does these things all the time; she funny like that.

The point being that nature is very resilient, not the least at absorbing her own manufactured catastrophes. And there is little, if any evidence, that man can compete with her in the altering of our world. Our thinking that we are having that large an impact globally is just hubris. We're not that important.

Your understanding of the American auto industry appears limited at best. The entire world automotive industry strives to produce just the types of vehicles that the American auto industry produces. They have this odd idea that they'd like sell vehicles at a profit within North America. Since no one either drives as much, or needs to, than Americans this makes some sense. And a cursory examination of the mix of vehicles sold will reveal that the profit made by the imports, and the transplants, is in just those vehicles our European betters decry. M-B bought Chrysler for an entre into the truck and SUV market. Toyota has yet to earn a dime on the Prius and wouldn't have been able to develop it if they hadn't been making pick up trucks and SUV's at high profit margins. Of course you can fund a socialist state with high gas taxes, if your citizenry does not have to drive very much. What makes sense for Europe does not necessarily make sense for the US. What has hurt the US auto industry is not gas-guzzling product as much as it is a poor business model. In Europe the State takes care of the retirees, in the US the auto industry is burdened with huge legacy costs due to past labor agreements regarding pensions that no longer fit the world we live in. "Self-delusional umbrella"? Show me the Euro car that can compete with the Chevy Corvette that does not cost twice what the Chevy does. Show me a minivan made in Europe that can compete with the Chrysler Town & Country. Oops, that's not fair, you guys don't need minivans; you don't have kids.

No, we don't need a lecture about triple pane windows, nor mercury-laden light bulbs. Of course, you're aware that actaul energy consumption increases when those household improvements are made, are you not? Yeah, all the studies show that when people buy a car that get's better gas mileage, they drive more. When they install more efficient light bulbs, they worry less about turning them out. It's human nature.

Human nature. You knew we'd get around to the market and the animal impulses of human nature, didn't you? I drive a fuel efficient car, while my pick up sits in the driveway awaiting use that only it can provide. I've got some of those toxic bulbs in places where I don't need to see real well, and I sure try not to break them. (Of course, when the EPA decides that the mercury from them is a threat to our landfills and we've got to spend a trillion dollars or so removing the mercury from landfills; I'll deny ever owning one!) And I've got a ton of insulation in my attic too! I did all that base upon market incentives. I've got this quaint notion that if I spend less on energy I can afford a boat.

The part that seems to appeal to you is the State imposition of standards and practices, all of which the market can do better. Little wonder that you'd be willing to go charging off half-cocked on a solution to a problem that most of the world is now coming to realize doesn't exist. Because, in the end, while nothing may be achieved in improving the environment, the power of the State will be enhanced immeasurably. And that's good, right?

Speaking of spurious. Your entire argument regarding relative world costs is itself spurious. One of the signal accomplishments of the market is to continuously compare relative costs. There will always be a difference; the socialist dream of making everything uniformly equal is a pipe dream never to be realized. All the ships used to be built in the US and Europe, then Japan, then Korea, and now it's shifting again to India; all over the last forty years.

For everyone in this world there is a cost-benefit analysis to be done for every action, with the exception of the State. That's fine when you're putting together something like the US Navy. It's not such a bright idea when you're considering severely retarding the US economy, perhaps devastating it, in pursuit of a chimera.

Just for the record, how's that Kyoto thing working out for ya? I see that Norway's emissions have increased by 12%, the US emissions by 16%, and Canada's by 22%; the former and the latter being signatories. I won't even get into the scam that is EU participation; including a heavily polluting eastern Europe in the baseline 1990 standard made the EU look far better than it actually is just by modernization of factories in eastern Europe. Oh, and transport associated emissions grew by 32% from 1990 to 2004 in the EU...seems those fuel efficient cars must be getting drive more, eh? Odd thing that.