It is good to see that renewable energy production costs are declining. Governments can move things along by providing incentives for cleaner energy. Selling rights for oil drilling on federal lands is not a good idea.

A couple of points:

1) the article you linked to went into US initiatives and what is possible in our country with our degree of development. Given that the US is (generally) more technologically advanced than other countries, their predictions see reasonable for the US.

2) the Paris Treaty is international in scope – 191 signers plus maybe the USA. America’s potential success isn’t likely to translate into similar gains across the rest of the world. The reason for an international treaty is to ensure or cajole all countries to have similar goals. One country by itself is not going to solve the problem.

I can almost agree with you up until the point where you get on your political soapbox and get into the “super government” bullshit. That’s where I think you are dead wrong.

Economics (and free market economics) do not exist in a vacuum. They exist (and thrive) only in the context of governments, politicians, and their will. So to try and separate economic success from government isn’t realistic.

The simplest example is China. One of the major reasons they are so economically successful for the last 15 years is that they moved from their 5-year-planned economy to a far freer capitalist system. Yes, they are still repressive and communist (in name), but their economy wouldn’t be where it is without governmental changes.

If you had kept to facts, I would have agreed with you.

Capitalism has limitations. An important one is the matter of hidden costs. For example, water, air and land pollution by industry are societal costs, but these costs are not borne by industry. Use of fines and prohibitions force companies to pay the costs of what they are causing, thus acting as a corrective to unregulated capitalism.

@crazyguy What’s a “super government?”

@LostInParadise ”...water, air and land pollution by industry are societal costs”

What you are describing is what economist call an “externality”. The best laws require the internalization of externalities.

It’s the reason scrubbers were put on chimneys of coal burning plants, so as to avoid more acid rain and air pollution.

That is why corporate accounting practices are now having to evaluate the cost of mitigating contribution s to climate change.

As to @crazyguy, the advancements on “cost of wind and solar power and batteries for electric vehicles” arose out of government incentives to adopt new technologies. Tesla would not have gotten off the ground without California providing incentives for Musk to buy the old NUMMI plant in Fremont, and the CA Air Resources Board giving Tesla stickers to use carpool lanes.

Anyone who expects “free enterprise” to solve our pollution problems must either deliberately neglect or be shockingly ignorant of how we arrived here to begin with. The lack of depth to such perceptions is rather frightening. What possible use is the ingestion of endless research if the obvious is to be ignored? If we are to wait for greed and the profit motive to mitigate our pollution problems our “condemnation is pronounced”.

The study you’re quoting was written in response to the Paris Agreement. Free enterprise has a role to play in reducing CO2 emissions but the overall plan comes from the UN and national governments.

ALL, I agree 100% that free enterprise does not exist in a vacuum. However, my point is that if and when government starts to favor a particular technology to the exclusion of alternatives, bad things happen. My go-to example is Jimmy Carter’s Energy Independence push in the late 70’s up through early 1980 (when Reagan took over). Instead of setting generalized guidelines, Carter thought it was essential to pour government funds into coal gasification/liquefaction and shale oil extraction. Sadly, both those technologies survived just as long as the government support. The latest example is the State of California mandate that no gasoline cars can be sold after 2035. The market may force this change well before 2035. However, no amount of government cajoling will make it happen before it is economically sensible. Ask yourself a simple question: if gasoline cars make sense in 2035 and you cannot buy one in California, what would you do?

@flutherother You say: the overall plan comes from the UN and national governments.

All I request you to do is read the contributions of a few countries to the Paris agreement, and compare them to Obama’s submission. Keep in mind that the follow up meeting to the Paris meeting resulted in no commitments of any kind. Every country wants all other countries to do the heavy lifting.

@zenvelo You make an excellent point. If government can truly estimate the cost of “mitigating contribution s to climate change”, then the government could increase the cost of permissions to perform the relevant activities. What government ends up doing is holding industry and companies retroactively responsible for cleaning up their mess.

@gorillapaws I am not exactly certain. I guess it depends on what level of control is exercised by an international coalition over an individual national government. In the case of the US, I do not think that any international coalition can kick us around. Other countries probably sell the same idea to their citizens. However, if we accept that, then what use is an international coalition to us?

@LostInParadise I agree 100%. If the harm done by a company, or even by one of its projects, can be accurately determined, the situation can be remedied. I think the problem arises when the harm is not apparent through the life of the project.

@elbanditoroso I agree with you that The reason for an international treaty is to ensure or cajole all countries to have similar goals.

However, as you know, a follow-up meeting of the Paris signatories, that was supposed to result in concrete commitments compared to vague promises, collapsed! So much for ensuring and cajoling.

@LostInParadise I agree that government incentives can indeed move industry in some direction. Whether that direction is the right one or not may be hard to predetermine.