DonFanucci

You don't see a problem with saying "The more we use, the more net benefit we get"? Horses can pull heavy stuff, and are a huge net benefit over life without horses. So, the more horses we have the more net benefit. It's really that simple. In the winter, having a wood stove is a huge net benefit over having no heating at all. Therefore, we should burn down our houses to maximize our heating. It's really that simple. Eating food has a huge net benefit over not eating food. Therefore, we should eat and eat and eat, and never stop eating. It's really that simple. Using explosions to clear away rock has a huge benefit compared to pickaxes. Therefore, we should use 100 megaton nukes to clear away rocks. It's really that simple. Energy is a fundamental resource, and the more we have, the more we can improve our environment. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing if terrorists have access to unlimited energy. It doesn't mean it's a good thing if our energy source is so abundant that there's nowhere else for humans to stand on planet earth. I think we should be as clear as possible about what our reasoning is, but the problem with your post is that you've not made any explicit argument. What you've done is shown that it's illogical to treat a single idea or statement out of context, like an absolute floating in space that must be true for all imaginable situations. Each one of your examples is about a situation where the value in question has reached a point where its now a disvalue. What is your evidence that fossil fuels have reached the point that they are a net disvalue to humans? This gets back to making a clear, honest appraisal of the benefits and downsides of fossil fuels. But you haven't said anything about fossil fuels, you've only made the point that it's theoretically possible to have too many. Well, I agree. I could think up some scenario like that which doesn't reflect reality. The world is starving to death and I say, food is a massive net benefit. The more we use the more net benefit we get. It's really that simple. Then Richard comes along to make the point that this is illogical because you can overeat. :o Well you've got me there.

Only an incompetent management team can't provide color as to how a national crisis is affecting sales.

I can't think of any, but is that your justification for disliking fossil fuels in general? The guy sounds like a real jerk, but if someone kicks me with a shoe I don't generalize that shoes are bad. If someone dumps a can of Coke on my head I don't decry the evils of Coke. This isn't just a historical question, I'm saying that fossil fuels are a massive net benefit right now and for the foreseeable future. There's often this claim put forth that we have "the solution", which I take to mean that we have other sources of energy which provide the same benefits of fossil fuels without the negatives. If that's really true, and you know the solution, then you are going to be a very wealthy man because you have the better mouse trap. The reality is that such solutions are not practicable, hence the campaign for government involvement. Why does one need to force a supposedly superior product on people? The folks who say we have the solutions should stop flapping their gums and build it. Because the solutions are multiple, a cocktail of initiatives with their own pros and cons and a large part involve changing our habit derived from having too much fossil fuels. And because guys like you like energy sources that cause climate change, atmospheric pollution, that contribute to the Middle East eternal problems, that cost a lot in healthcare, that generate car dependency and all the problems that come with it, that destroy locally the environnement where they are extracted. Maybe we are stuck with fossil fuels for a long time, but I don't get why we wouldn't want to at least try to replace most of it the faster we can. I don't think you get the overwhelming cost of the inaction associated with the non-linearity of climate change... Your framework for thinking about the issue is backwards, imo. Why is there a maniacal focus on just the negatives of fossil fuels? It's so odd. What does it mean to say that fossil fuels generate "car dependency"? Fossil fuels allow people an unparalleled freedom of movement that they can't get elsewhere and this is a bad thing? You can see that there is an irrational push towards misrepresenting the overall context (positives and negatives) of fossil fuels. This is not the same framework you'd apply (I assume) to the evaluation of vaccines. Vaccines might cause fever, shivering, headache, joint pain etc. Would you advocate for stopping the use of vaccines? Do vaccines generate "doctor dependency"? If someone was in favor of vaccines, would you call them a vaccine side effect denier? The benefits of energy are simply enormous. Energy is a fundamental value. It's the ability to do work, and the more work we can do with machines the more we can improve our life and environment. This is why industrialized countries with high amounts of fossil fuels use have the best human environments in the history of the world. Fossil fuels are a massive net benefit. The more we use the more net benefit we get, it's really that simple. If someone invents a new energy source with less downside (nuclear in some contexts), the more power to them (hah)! If someone invents a new vaccine without the downsides, that's great! But does it really make sense to organize a movement around moving away from vaccines as if they are bad for us?

I can't think of any, but is that your justification for disliking fossil fuels in general? The guy sounds like a real jerk, but if someone kicks me with a shoe I don't generalize that shoes are bad. If someone dumps a can of Coke on my head I don't decry the evils of Coke. This isn't just a historical question, I'm saying that fossil fuels are a massive net benefit right now and for the foreseeable future. There's often this claim put forth that we have "the solution", which I take to mean that we have other sources of energy which provide the same benefits of fossil fuels without the negatives. If that's really true, and you know the solution, then you are going to be a very wealthy man because you have the better mouse trap. The reality is that such solutions are not practicable, hence the campaign for government involvement. Why does one need to force a supposedly superior product on people? The folks who say we have the solutions should stop flapping their gums and build it. But actually it's worse than just flapping gums because there is a real campaign to destroy the industry that actually is providing us with the energy that alternatives cannot.

It's pretty simple - there's a lot of oil and coal money that supports the GOP that is at risk if we make a dramatic shift to renewables. While it's pretty easy to dismiss people that disagree with you by smearing their motives, there is actually a reasoned, thoughtful argument against the prevailing leftist view of climate change. It has absolutely nothing to do with left or right! Just some reading Don Fanucci: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ What surprises me is the kind of opposition to clean energy from certain quarters. I can understand oil or coal companies cause it's their living. But what about the rest? Even leaving aside whether climate change is real or not. (I believe in science so I think it's real) Does anyone actually believe that the stuff that comes out from the coal plants' smoke stacks or the stuff that comes out of exhaust pipes is good for you? To me it seems that getting rid of pollution is reason enough to switch to clean energy. You would think any sane person would be supportive of clean energy. The only thing I can conclude is these people are insane, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal I was "attacked" once riding my bike back from work by one of these coal rollers. A blast of black soot in my face and I almost fell off my bike. Haha, just because someone disagrees with you and you don't understand why doesn't make them insane. If you look at fossil fuels in the big picture, both the positives and negatives, and evaluate them against a standard of human flourishing, they are overwhelmingly a good thing that everyone should be using more of. There's more to fossil fuels than pollution, and an honest evaluation of them requires carefully looking at the negatives AND positives. This is actually a point Munger made regarding Coke at the BRK annual meeting this year. "We ought to have a law ... where these people shouldn't be allowed to cite the defects without citing the advantage. It's immature and stupid."

It's pretty simple - there's a lot of oil and coal money that supports the GOP that is at risk if we make a dramatic shift to renewables. While it's pretty easy to dismiss people that disagree with you by smearing their motives, there is actually a reasoned, thoughtful argument against the prevailing leftist view of climate change.

It's hard to believe that a dictatorial theocratic government that violates the most basic human rights of its citizens and funds the deaths of Americans has a valid claim to the protection of its own property rights, particularly when the property in question belonged to the government that it deposed just prior to committing an act of war against America.

I think it's been successful because we avoided war. Peace for our time! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time

You can't ensure a yield with a tax rate, but you can ensure that taxes aren't in excess of your yield.

That would be sort of a strange line of logic though given that the chief risk of nuclear/chemical annihilation comes from Islamic fascists, who the most recent administration has appeased on a scale unprecedented since WWII.

What's the answer?