<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Climate policy and The Black Swan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.marcgunther.com/2009/03/29/climate-policy-and-the-black-swan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.marcgunther.com/2009/03/29/climate-policy-and-the-black-swan/</link>
	<description>This blog is about the impact of business on society.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 18:42:10 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: paullm</title>
		<link>http://www.marcgunther.com/2009/03/29/climate-policy-and-the-black-swan/comment-page-1/#comment-273372</link>
		<dc:creator>paullm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:45:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=577#comment-273372</guid>
		<description>Try this: much has changed since April, &amp; where&#039;s everybody?

Since global warming is on holiday, climate change never has been and GHG&#039;s apparently don&#039;t warm above their real world heat capacity which hasn&#039;t influenced temps much so what&#039;s the concern?

Forget your schemes to make yourselves seem so important and encourage real investigation into the actual climate changes that will continue.  In order for humans to continue and explore we must be able to read and adapt to real climate changes as best we can.     

This will call for robust entrepreneurship and a very healthy economy which can be fueled by nuclear energy, etc.  I like the modulars.  These afford great decentralization and independence.  

Getting off-planet will require tremendous effort, not rationing of energy but a massive flourish of innovation.  Off-planetism is necessary for survival and the pursuit of experience.  Humans (and all life on Earth) can be eliminated at any moment let alone longer term sun burnout, earth heat death, etc. so there lies the necessity for the mindset of expansion.

Cultures bordering on anarchy will probably be best suited to providing the greatest impetus, so forget too much order.  The adventurers will continue to pave the way for the others.  

How much would all the CO2 reduction reduce T in a hundred years?  Less than a degree C, if it rises at all.  Get out a little - put on a nice jacket.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Try this: much has changed since April, &amp; where&#8217;s everybody?</p>
<p>Since global warming is on holiday, climate change never has been and GHG&#8217;s apparently don&#8217;t warm above their real world heat capacity which hasn&#8217;t influenced temps much so what&#8217;s the concern?</p>
<p>Forget your schemes to make yourselves seem so important and encourage real investigation into the actual climate changes that will continue.  In order for humans to continue and explore we must be able to read and adapt to real climate changes as best we can.     </p>
<p>This will call for robust entrepreneurship and a very healthy economy which can be fueled by nuclear energy, etc.  I like the modulars.  These afford great decentralization and independence.  </p>
<p>Getting off-planet will require tremendous effort, not rationing of energy but a massive flourish of innovation.  Off-planetism is necessary for survival and the pursuit of experience.  Humans (and all life on Earth) can be eliminated at any moment let alone longer term sun burnout, earth heat death, etc. so there lies the necessity for the mindset of expansion.</p>
<p>Cultures bordering on anarchy will probably be best suited to providing the greatest impetus, so forget too much order.  The adventurers will continue to pave the way for the others.  </p>
<p>How much would all the CO2 reduction reduce T in a hundred years?  Less than a degree C, if it rises at all.  Get out a little &#8211; put on a nice jacket.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: racetalkblog.com &#187; Marc Gunther on Leaving Fortune, Brainstorm:Green 09, Bill Ford and IBM&#8217;s Smarter Planet (Part 1)</title>
		<link>http://www.marcgunther.com/2009/03/29/climate-policy-and-the-black-swan/comment-page-1/#comment-128130</link>
		<dc:creator>racetalkblog.com &#187; Marc Gunther on Leaving Fortune, Brainstorm:Green 09, Bill Ford and IBM&#8217;s Smarter Planet (Part 1)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:54:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=577#comment-128130</guid>
		<description>[...] these days, his thoughts the upcoming Fortune Brainstorm: Green show and how he&#8217;s utilizing his blog as a sustainable-news [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] these days, his thoughts the upcoming Fortune Brainstorm: Green show and how he&#8217;s utilizing his blog as a sustainable-news [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scot</title>
		<link>http://www.marcgunther.com/2009/03/29/climate-policy-and-the-black-swan/comment-page-1/#comment-125685</link>
		<dc:creator>Scot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=577#comment-125685</guid>
		<description>Mark... thanks for your commentary on this important topic.  This debate is really heating up (pun intended) right now and short-sighted decision-making and solutions could be incredibly detrimental in the long run.  I am wondering if you saw the report we published on the potential impact on the cellulosic ethanol industry on our forests?  Here is the link: http://www.dogwoodalliance.org/content/view/266/28/
The over-arching argument is that we believe it is pure folly to replace fossil fuels with terrestrial based carbon.  Forests are better served as carbon sinks than as energy.  The same argument could be made against turning food crops into fuel.  We know some future alternatives may be on the horizon that could hold great potential such as algae fuel, we simply caution against short-term bottom-line thinking over long-term sustainability/profitability.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark&#8230; thanks for your commentary on this important topic.  This debate is really heating up (pun intended) right now and short-sighted decision-making and solutions could be incredibly detrimental in the long run.  I am wondering if you saw the report we published on the potential impact on the cellulosic ethanol industry on our forests?  Here is the link: <a href="http://www.dogwoodalliance.org/content/view/266/28/" rel="nofollow">http://www.dogwoodalliance.org/content/view/266/28/</a><br />
The over-arching argument is that we believe it is pure folly to replace fossil fuels with terrestrial based carbon.  Forests are better served as carbon sinks than as energy.  The same argument could be made against turning food crops into fuel.  We know some future alternatives may be on the horizon that could hold great potential such as algae fuel, we simply caution against short-term bottom-line thinking over long-term sustainability/profitability.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://www.marcgunther.com/2009/03/29/climate-policy-and-the-black-swan/comment-page-1/#comment-123260</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:05:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=577#comment-123260</guid>
		<description>Great article; Since I&#039;m not sure that the Black and white view that ANY energy will be &quot;cheap&quot;, I&#039;d offer my knowledge of/experience with the waste prevention / recycling sector. Maybe &quot;cheap&quot; isn&#039;t a realistic short term goal. Maybe &quot;less expensive than now&quot;-say @25% ?, then &quot;cost parity&quot; with non-renewables (at a certain date-like the baseline year for GHG reduction-as a longer term goal. Since subsidies seem to be integral to ALL energy production, it might be useful to somehow generate easily digested information on how efficiency / renewables continue to be very worthwhile (at the very least economically) and create a metric ($ subsidy/energy unit produced ?) for a useful comparison of energy sources: coal, nuclear, etc...
This could be included as part of an overall bigger picture cost / value analysis.
Probably done already...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great article; Since I&#8217;m not sure that the Black and white view that ANY energy will be &#8220;cheap&#8221;, I&#8217;d offer my knowledge of/experience with the waste prevention / recycling sector. Maybe &#8220;cheap&#8221; isn&#8217;t a realistic short term goal. Maybe &#8220;less expensive than now&#8221;-say @25% ?, then &#8220;cost parity&#8221; with non-renewables (at a certain date-like the baseline year for GHG reduction-as a longer term goal. Since subsidies seem to be integral to ALL energy production, it might be useful to somehow generate easily digested information on how efficiency / renewables continue to be very worthwhile (at the very least economically) and create a metric ($ subsidy/energy unit produced ?) for a useful comparison of energy sources: coal, nuclear, etc&#8230;<br />
This could be included as part of an overall bigger picture cost / value analysis.<br />
Probably done already&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jerry Lee Mayeux</title>
		<link>http://www.marcgunther.com/2009/03/29/climate-policy-and-the-black-swan/comment-page-1/#comment-123198</link>
		<dc:creator>Jerry Lee Mayeux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:23:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=577#comment-123198</guid>
		<description>Consider the Connection to:(CTC1)
Going Green
Please Google Search:
CTC123GREEN</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Consider the Connection to:(CTC1)<br />
Going Green<br />
Please Google Search:<br />
CTC123GREEN</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CTF</title>
		<link>http://www.marcgunther.com/2009/03/29/climate-policy-and-the-black-swan/comment-page-1/#comment-122788</link>
		<dc:creator>CTF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:23:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=577#comment-122788</guid>
		<description>I couldn&#039;t agree more that to stem the tide of global climate change, we need to raise the price of carbon based fuels across the board.  For my money, a revenue-neutral carbon tax approach is superior to a cap and trade scheme; not only does a carbon tax avoid the evasion and market manipulation inherent to cap and trade, but it&#039;s fairer, simpler and more transparent.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I couldn&#8217;t agree more that to stem the tide of global climate change, we need to raise the price of carbon based fuels across the board.  For my money, a revenue-neutral carbon tax approach is superior to a cap and trade scheme; not only does a carbon tax avoid the evasion and market manipulation inherent to cap and trade, but it&#8217;s fairer, simpler and more transparent.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gernot Wagner</title>
		<link>http://www.marcgunther.com/2009/03/29/climate-policy-and-the-black-swan/comment-page-1/#comment-121985</link>
		<dc:creator>Gernot Wagner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:44:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=577#comment-121985</guid>
		<description>Marc, I couldn&#039;t agree more with your main point: put a price on carbon and get out of the way. The market -- i.e. entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and the like -- will be much better at figuring out how to make clean energy cheap than a handful of politicians, researchers or environmentalists.

Moreover, we don&#039;t have to enact a steep carbon tax today to make this work. If we sign a cap-and-trade system into law today -- one that goes into effect in, say, 2013 -- we&#039;ll get the same momentum right now: entrepreneurs would start tinkering today in expectation of the higher carbon prices a few years down the line. Policy certainty down the line will prompt businesses to make smarter investment decisions now.

That may well be one way to untie the Gordian Knot. It plays well with the politics of the decision and it&#039;s what businesses increasingly demand themselves.

Best,
Gernot</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Marc, I couldn&#8217;t agree more with your main point: put a price on carbon and get out of the way. The market &#8212; i.e. entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and the like &#8212; will be much better at figuring out how to make clean energy cheap than a handful of politicians, researchers or environmentalists.</p>
<p>Moreover, we don&#8217;t have to enact a steep carbon tax today to make this work. If we sign a cap-and-trade system into law today &#8212; one that goes into effect in, say, 2013 &#8212; we&#8217;ll get the same momentum right now: entrepreneurs would start tinkering today in expectation of the higher carbon prices a few years down the line. Policy certainty down the line will prompt businesses to make smarter investment decisions now.</p>
<p>That may well be one way to untie the Gordian Knot. It plays well with the politics of the decision and it&#8217;s what businesses increasingly demand themselves.</p>
<p>Best,<br />
Gernot</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick DiGiacomo</title>
		<link>http://www.marcgunther.com/2009/03/29/climate-policy-and-the-black-swan/comment-page-1/#comment-121895</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick DiGiacomo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:40:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marcgunther.com/?p=577#comment-121895</guid>
		<description>Taleb&#039;s cautions about the limited utility of the past when it comes to predicting the future are well taken.  
That said, it is worthwhile to consider the lessons of the Japanese national computer projects of the &#039;70s.   Their intent was to &quot;make computing cheaper&quot; via massive government directed and funded initiatives to improve the price performance of supercomputers.  They failed because the paradigm changed from making COMPUTING cheaper (via faster supercomputers) to making COMPUTERS cheaper (via mass produced PCs).  Unfortunately, the government-driven projects couldn&#039;t make the shift because they had too much bureaucratic inertia and too many  vested interests.
Substitute the words &quot;make clean energy cheaper&quot; for &quot;make computing cheaper&quot; and you see the principal risk of taking the path advocated by Jesse Jenkins.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Taleb&#8217;s cautions about the limited utility of the past when it comes to predicting the future are well taken.<br />
That said, it is worthwhile to consider the lessons of the Japanese national computer projects of the &#8217;70s.   Their intent was to &#8220;make computing cheaper&#8221; via massive government directed and funded initiatives to improve the price performance of supercomputers.  They failed because the paradigm changed from making COMPUTING cheaper (via faster supercomputers) to making COMPUTERS cheaper (via mass produced PCs).  Unfortunately, the government-driven projects couldn&#8217;t make the shift because they had too much bureaucratic inertia and too many  vested interests.<br />
Substitute the words &#8220;make clean energy cheaper&#8221; for &#8220;make computing cheaper&#8221; and you see the principal risk of taking the path advocated by Jesse Jenkins.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
