ARE YOU AWAKE CARGOSQUID?

In case you missed it, today CNN reports:

“An oil spill off Louisiana was designated a spill of “national significance” Thursday, meaning assets can be drawn from other states and areas to combat it, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said.

“The U.S. military may be called on to assist authorities scrambling to mitigate the potential environmental disaster posed by the spill as it expands toward the Gulf Coast, the Coast Guard said.

“In addition, another controlled burn of the oil slick may be conducted, Coast Guard Chief Petty Officer Erik Swanson said.

“Officials said late Wednesday the estimated amount of oil spewing into the Gulf from three underwater leaks after last week’s oil rig explosion has increased to as much as 5,000 barrels, or 210,000 gallons, a day — five times more than what was initially believed.”

And you said “no oil is leaking”?

Tobacco does not cause cancer either.

DDT does not harm the environment.

The world is flat.

The climate is not changing.

OK if it is, humans have no role in that change.

And they need not take action to protect against negative impacts.

Oh yes, be sure to tell your friends that it is intelligent to continue to rely on Autonomobiles for Mobility and Access.

And all the while, the Dow is up by 125 or so because after all cleaning up oil spills is a plus for the GDP.

Sleep well.

EMR


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

67 responses to “ARE YOU AWAKE CARGOSQUID?”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    DDT does not harm the environment.

    In each example you make the mistake of assuming that the value of one side is infinite compared to the costs on the other side. There are still useful purposes for DDT, which we forego with a total ban on DDT production.

    Oil leaks.
    Planes crash
    Cars Crash
    Trains crash
    Coal miners die.

    But we don't stop those practices because we calculate the risks are worth it.

    In La Arroyo, 90% of the children have lead poisoning as a result of the smelter. Yet the people living there for the most part) accept this as part of the cost of having a job.

    That is an appalling price to pay, but whne you option is zero, it looks like a bargain.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    And they need not take action to protect against negative impacts.

    Wrong, they do need to take action to protect against negative impacts. but they should STOP when the costs of prevention or cleanup are more than the cost of the damage.

    We canot spend an infinite amount to get perfect cleanup against every negative impact. You ave to make a trad off somewhere. You WILL make a tradeoff somewhere.

    If youdo not know where that is, then you are wasting resources.

    RH

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    cleaning up oil spills is a plus for the GDP.

    This is knon as the broken window fallacy.

    Yep, the way we measure GDP, you would be correct. But the loss of that oil to the energy economy counts as a negative GDP.

    But cleaning it up after it gets away is much more expensive than captuiring it as it comes out, in the normal way.

    The event of it getting away happens many times less frequently than the event of capturing it in the normal way so the DAMAGE the spill does to the ENTIRE oil production GDP, is still a negative number.

    Hence the assertion that oil spills help the GDP is false.

  4. Larry G Avatar

    What's clear is this. There is no known way to shut this kind of a leak down before a massive amount of oil is let loose.

    They are talking about drilling another well.. something that will take months not days.

    Ray will be the only guy left in the US who will continue to cling to the idea that "some" damage is inevitable.

    I predict that this kind of drilling will soon be outlawed if no way is found to stop the oil.

    Ray will argue that that is the wrong thing to do.. that we need to consult his equation like it's some sort of a Ouija board.

    Can anyone imagine day after day after day – for weeks and months of oil washing ashore from Florida to the Yucatan Peninsula depending on the wind direction?

    "Drill baby drill".. I bet those guys are going to slink back into the shadows now…

    100% prediction time.

    BP oil will NOT propose to drill for oil off of Virginia next week.

    And if they do.. Bob McDonnell's hair will catch on fire.

    heh heh

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The three comments by RH (lets toss some dirt before anyone else has a chance to comment) are a perfect example of what Observer is saying at the end of the “Just When You Thought Drilling Was Safe” post by PG.

    Did Dr. Risse say there were no useful applications of DDT?

    Did he say argue that humans should spend an infinite amount to limit negative impact?

    Humans have reached – or will soon reach – Peak Oil but they have not run out of oil. Therefore containing this oil spill will have a positive impact on GDP as currently calculated just as Dr. Risse says.

    What drives RH to continue to make a fool of himself?

    I am not sure I would go as far as Larry on this but what a terrible blow to the folks of Louisiana!

    They have not recovered from what the Corps and others did to exacerbate the damage from Katrina.

    RNT

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Here is a bet for Larry:

    Cargosquid will change his handle and come out supporting RH

    BJC

  7. Groveton Avatar

    Before all you libs go too far down the pike howling at McDonnell … it seems Dear Leader had some misconceptions which could make Cargosquid's innocent mistake seem tame:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/29/flashback_obama_says_oil_rigs_today_dont_generally_cause_spills.html

    At the time Cargosquid posted his comment it was being reported that no oil was spilling. The reports are now obviously now proven wrong but the early word was "explosion but no spill".

    As for human behavior warming the Earth … that annoying polar ice is making quite a comeback.

  8. Larry G Avatar

    I think this demonstrates that this President is looking for soe common ground – obviously – not without some risk.

    My question to Groveton.

    do you want MORE of that nasty big socialist Obama govt regulating offshore drilling

    or LESS of that nasty govt regulation?

    fess up Groveton.

    more ..or less … no weaseling

    I can see Bush right now "Way to go Brownie"!!!!

    dear leader – indeed

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Groveton:

    "that annoying polar ice is making quite a comeback."

    Could you be more specific?

    gmr

  10. Larry G Avatar

    What would this oil spill look like off of the Virginia Coast?

    take a look:

    http://twitpic.com/1j4im8

  11. Groveton Avatar

    "do you want MORE of that nasty big socialist Obama govt regulating offshore drilling

    or LESS of that nasty govt regulation?

    fess up Groveton."

    LESS

    My point wasn't actually about more or less regulation. It was meant to illustrate the fact that both liberals (Obama) and conservatives (McDonnell) both thought off-shore drilling was safer than it seems to be. Cargosquid apparently joins Obama and McDonnell in that misperception. So did I.

    I referred to President George W. Bush as "Dubya" because I didn't like him and I felt "Dubya" was a good nickname for a preppy redneck with limited sense. I call Obama "Dear Leader" because I don't like him and I think it's a fitting tribute to a socialist.

    Maybe, some day. there will be another Calvin Coolidge. A president who not only talks about smaller government but who actually makes government smaller. If so, I will call him/her President <>.

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Snore…

  13. Groveton Avatar

    GMR:

    There have been a number of articles and credible blogs about the increasing ice cap. Here is one:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climate_change_happening_before_your_eyes

    I can post some others if that would be helpful.

    To be clear, I don't know the answer to the question, "Is human activity escalating global temperatures at a rate that will cause severe problems?". I just know that the issue seems more in doubt today than it seemed 3 years ago.

  14. Groveton Avatar

    Anon 9:30 – Sorry you are bored. Of course, posting "snore" is pretty boring in and of itself. But I'll guess that would never have occured to you.

    If you want loud aggressive, presumably interesting (to you) commentary, try …

    http://www.bvbl.net

    Since that blog permits only hyper-conservative commentary, there is a different and seperate blog for the liberal commentary which would be screamed off the site at BVBL. The URL for the alternate site?

    Anti-BVBL.Net

    Please accept our apologies for participating in a site where both conservative and progressive opinions can be posted without the need for an Anti-BacondRebellion.Com site.

  15. Larry G Avatar

    the envelope please……

    the answer….

    to oil spills

    is

    LESS govt regulation…

    correct?

  16. Groveton Avatar

    The answer to oil spills has nothing to do with government regulation. There is plenty of government regulation. Accidents happen. Added regulation didn't prevent this spill and new regulation won't prevent the next one. You are suffering from the mistaken belief that government actually accomplishes what it sets out to do. Our economy should be evidence enough of that falsehood.

  17. Larry G Avatar

    well no.. it was a straight up question.

    do we need govt regulation of offshore drilling or not?

    in this particular case, if it was known before-hand that there was no known way to handle a blow-out malfunction at that depth, is it still a decision reserved to the private enterprises without the involvement of government?

    now don't go weaseling here.

    the basic question is – if an private activity can result in this much damage to other private property – what is the proper role of govt?

    We know for instance, in the case of NUKES that if NUKES were left up to the private sector, that adequate insurance could not be obtained without driving the costs so high that the price of the electricity would not be competitive – so the govt regulates in exchange for providing what amounts to – insurance paid for by taxpayers.

    is oil drilling in the Gulf a similar situation?

    if this spill continues for months and coats the beaches from Florida to Yucatan making the entire gulf a giant version of Prince William sound.. is it still the unrestricted domain of private industry?

    I think you know the answer but I'd like to hear it …..

  18. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Emr,
    All is can say is:

    "Blog, Baby, Blog!"

    Peter Galuszka

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    So, after being below the 1979-2000 normal for the entire winter, the level of Arctic sea ice have been at normal levels for a couple of weeks in March/April. Yeah, that graph really disproves global warming!

  20. Larry G Avatar

    Understanding context is not an optional exercise:

    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure3.png

    more and more of us are developing an understanding (sic) of the world – from sound bites an the purposeful misrepresentation of information by media like FAUX news and talk radio.

    look at the chart provided for the truth about Arctic Ice.

    make no mistake.. this is not the chart that the sound bite guys are touting.

  21. Larry G Avatar

    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticsea
    icenews/20100406_Figure3.png

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Metro Fare Hikes Add to GDP.

    RH

  23. Groveton Avatar

    Should the government regulate off-shore drilling?

    Yes. The government owns the rights to the oil offshore. As I understand it, the states own the first 50 miles and the federal government owns it further out.

    I have no problem with government per se. I have a problem with the size of government, the intrusiveness of government and the especially with the continuous growth of government.

    Do we really need a federal Department of Education? How many schools does the federal government operate? West Point, I guess. Shouldn't education be left to the states? Frankly, I have a lot of confidence in Fairfax County's ability to deliver a high quality public education product. If anything, Richmond only serves to dumb down our public schools. If anything, Washington only serves to dumb down our public schools.

    Layer upon layer of redundancy in government is counter-productive. It drives up the cost of government. It slows down the pace of progress. It stifles innovation.

    The question of global warming seemed like it had been definitively answered two years ago. Now, it seems less clear. Data has been doctored and discarded. Temperature sensors have been found near airport runways where they register plane engine exhaust temeratures but count as an overall meaure of temperature over a large area.

    The obvious melting of the polar ice was the cincher for me. You could see the pictures, you could read the maps. However, even that has been brought under debate recently. Maybe the ice caps are growing again. Maybe not.

    The missing link in this debate is the scope and scale of the proposed carbon abatement programs. If most of the programs are implemented the sum total will be no less than a reordering of the world economic order. Take a microcosm. What would happen to West Virginia if the new carbon abatement regime put such a high tax on carbon that coal was no longer a viable input fuel for the generation of electricity?

    Cuccinelli is right, We'd better be damn sure that global warming is real and we'd better be damn sure that we understand the implications of the carbon abatement measures before we just jump in.

    The recent fiasco in health care (non) reform does not give me confidence that the politicians from either side of the aisle possess the honesty or intellect required to get this right. And, the MSM has essentially stopped covering the health care issue since the vote. Unfortunately for us, the implications of the hastily written and generally hapless legislation are just coming out.

    So, LarryG … the "government" should regulate offshore drilling just like I regulate property which I own but rent to others. I seriously doubt that more government regulation will result in less spilled oil but there needs to be some level of regulation.

    I'd like to see the federal government address one of its constitutionally mandated responsibilities – immigration. Dubya tried but failed. Now, it seems, Dear Leader lacks the gumption to even try. Shame on him and shame on Congress for this dereliction of duty.

    One of the very, very few areas where I think government should be doing more is around the funding and coordination of affordable alternate energy R&D.

  24. Groveton Avatar

    Metro Fare Hikes Add to GDP.

    Maybe.

    If the costs of employment rise to the point where the return on employment is below the cost of capital employment will be curtailed and GDP will fall.

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Layer upon layer of redundancy in government is counter-productive. It drives up the cost of government. It slows down the pace of progress. It stifles innovation."

    Which is exactly why EMR suggests we have something like eleven layers of government: make it impossible to do anything.

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Metro Fare Hikes Add to GDP.

    Maybe.

    Nice. Glad to see that someone gets it.

    RH

  27. Larry G Avatar

    if we have too many layers of govt then did we not have enough for the gulf drilling rigs?

    see I ask this question on purpose.

    how about Wall Street ?

    was small govt regulation the right kind or not?

    and remember this – you don't get regulation without a majority vote in Congress PLUS the Presidents signature PLUS the SCOTUS usually weighing in at some point.

    re: productivity

    productivity = what you have left over after you expend resources.

    using more resources to increase output is not productivity unless you gain more than you added in resources.

    Bonus Question:

    does an aircraft carrier add to the GDP?

    How about the govt spending that same money on solar panels?

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Cargosquid will change his handle and come out supporting RH

    BJC

    Why make this partisan? I have no position and no clients.

    I simply believe that it is a waste of resources, and therefore NOT green to spend more preventing a problem than the problems costs.

    That is a pretty simple concept, but in practice it is fairly complex. not difficult, since we know how to undertake each of the steps needed to ensure that this does not happen, but there are many inter-related steps.

    The consequence of not doing it, aside from wasting resources, is that some people's lives get valued at less than other people's lives.

    My prognostication is that it will cost $10 billion to clean this up, and we will shut down $200 billion worth of future business because of it.

    In the Exxon Valdez accident each Sea Otter saved would cost Exxon forty thousand dollars after feeding them lobster and crayfish that was flown in every day. The boats used in the cleanup were chartered for as much as eight thousand dollars a day.

    At some point we have to ask what such efforts are worth, distasteful as it is to ask. How many people have been turned down for a life saving medical procedure because it costs $40,000?

    I'm not opposed to shutting down drilling or banning DDT, or declaring the world flat. i just think we need a clear understanding of what such decisions cost, and to whom.

    RH

  29. Larry G Avatar

    If citizens measure one way and the industry measures another and the govt a 3rd way and then Ray measures.. who do we know is correct?

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Clearly in the Airline industry we can see increasing levels of safety that are the result of both government regualtion and private initiatives.

    The oil industry seems to have failed in achieving a similar safety record, but I could be wrong in that assessment.

    The Exxon Valdez accident clearly stemmed from human error and failur to obey regulations. this case may turn out to be a pure accident. the role of appropriate government regulation is going to be different.

    RH

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If citizens measure one way and the industry measures another and the govt a 3rd way and then Ray measures.. who do we know is correct?

    You are asking a truly idiotic question.

    We don't argue about how land an inch is, yet we have continuously redefined it over the years.

    When it comes to measuring costs and benefits we have not invented the yardstick yet, let alone agreed on its length.

    The whole point of this exercise is to ELIMINATE the kind of disagreement you describe.

    First you agree on the yardstick, and then you go measure. Once that is done there can be but little argument. We will still argue whehter it is 3 ft plus or minus 0.00001 inches, but we will at least agree on the three feet part.

    What youare saying is that we cannot discover the price, because it is intangible. What I say is that the way you discover the price is to put an object up for sale. When someone agrees to sell and someone agrees to buy, then you know that tyouhave the "correct" answer.

    The problem with conservationism is the same as the problem with 50 mile commuters: they don't pay the costs, so they don't care how much they use.carnicu

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Worrying is less work than doing something to fix the worry. This is especially true if we're careful to pick the biggest possible problems to worry about. Everybody wants to save the earth; nobody wants to help Mom do the dishes" -P.J. O'Rourke

    RH

  33. Larry G Avatar

    " What youare saying is that we cannot discover the price, because it is intangible"

    not at all. there are values for sure but different people and institutions value things differently and they change.

    For instance, do you think the value of drilling rights has changed of late?

    do you think that citizens, industry, and govt values about what drilling in the Gulf is worth are the same as before much less the same for each of them?

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Groveton said:

    “There have been a number of articles and credible blogs about the increasing ice cap.”

    The reason I asked about ‘sea ice’ (your term, not ‘ice cap’) is that in 2008 and 2009 (2010?) there has been ‘creditable’ data on ‘sea ice’ forming at ‘normal’ rates in both the Arctic and the Antarctic.

    At the same time glaciers on land, ice caps on land masses and ice shelves have been melting and calving at record rates.

    How come? We have seen no creditable expiation.

    Could it be similar to ‘record’ cold and snowfall in the winter (and in Vermont this week) and record heat in April?

    Now that the House of Lords committee has put ‘climategate’ in the same category as ‘tobaccogate’ (1954), citizens need better information.

    The citizens we used to call ‘Eskimos’ are said to have had 100 words for snow and ice. Perhaps they were on to something as is Dr. Risse with his Robust Vocabulary concerning human settlement patterns.

    gmr (small letters please)

  35. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Groveton stated:

    “The answer to oil spills has nothing to do with government regulation. There is plenty of government regulation. Accidents happen. Added regulation didn't prevent this spill and new regulation won't prevent the next one.”

    This is the first time EMR has noted Groveton completely off base.

    Larry made a good point re nuclear power generation – the need for insurance (e.g. the reaction of investors to a power company without insurance) make Agency regulation, review, inspection and a huge Agency subsidy an absolute necessity.

    Same is true with Airlines and there remain huge hidden subsides that Euro NGOs have been hammering on for decades.

    As to off-shore drilling there will be new regulations – sea floor auto shut-offs, permeant containment booms around every rig, system redundancy including standby rigs over every well, recycling tanks, crew training, etc.

    And there will be inspections and permits and, and, and – the cost of oil will go up – way up. That will be the case because many of the new resources (e.g. Brazil) that will extend the ‘tail’ of Peak Oil are in deep water. Every nation-state will have to comply because a major spill contaminates the Global Common. The market will react – See ‘Blood Diamonds.’

    The same is true for food and coal and every other good and service upon which citizens depend to support contemporary technologically driven civilization.

    With satellites, private aircraft, instantaneous communication, cell phone cameras, etc. there is no longer any place to hide.

    If Enterprise owned MainStream Media tries to bury the evidence to protect its bottom line, some Blogger will blow the whistle.

    Oiled birds…

    Dead cats and dogs…

    Spinach and tomatoes that make Granny sick…

    Cribs that collapse on Babies …

    Accelerators that stick…

    Even health care that does not work…

    All these things will be regulated and all will EVENTUALLY be more safe and all will be MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE or civilization as it is known will Collapse.

    Agency Services (e.g. paying to enforce the new Arizona Police Guidelines, for quality education that turns out competitive workers, for EVERYTHING ‘public good’), Enterprise Services (see above) and Institutional Services will ALL cost more.

    Last week the IMF said that to achieve a Balanced economy following the Great Recession Meltdown, First World nation-states would have to tax MORE and citizens would have to work MORE. More hours in a day, more days in a year and more years in a lifetime.

    What they did not YET say is that all citizens and their Organizations will have to consume LESS and pay more for what they do consume.

    Citizens have been living off of Natural Capital and Natural Capital is running out – oil, top soil, aquifers, marine animals, etc… Cheap Natural Capital is already gone.

    WAKE UP CARGOSQUID – AND EVERYONE ELSE

    EMR

  36. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Part II

    Later Groveton thought he drove a spear through the heart of functional governance advocates with:

    “Layer upon layer of redundancy in government is counter-productive. It drives up the cost of government. It slows down the pace of progress. It stifles innovation.”

    What Groveton really did is put a nail in his grandchildren’s coffin unless Groveton and those he admires grasp reality. Lets take a look at this one sentence at a time.

    “Layer upon layer of redundancy in government is counter-productive.”

    Of course it is. But who favors ‘redundancy’?

    Not those advocating Fundamental Transformation in governance structure. Recall: Level of Agency responsibility at level of impact. (See full discussion in TRILO-G concerning evolving shared responsibility where there is impact at multiple scales.

    Groveton understands this concerning some federal (aka, continental) and state (aka, MegaRegional and Regional) issues but he still pretends that a municipal government with a million citizens is functional.

    “It drives up the cost of government.”

    As noted above to do what the majority of citizens want in Agency Services will result in more work for Agencies. But the cost can go DOWN IF THERE IS A RATIONAL ALLOCATION OF RESPONSIBILITY – aka, Fundamental Transformation.

    “It slows down the pace of progress. It stifles innovation.”

    Here is where the rubber meets the road. “Progress” and “Innovation” are already far ahead of the majority of citizens. Human capacity has not evolved to match the complexity of what ‘progress’ and ‘innovation’ have already provided. Do you NEED a smarter phone?

    Democracies with market economies cannot survive if systems outsmart citizens.

    More on this in Future Sketches, Forthcoming.

    EMR

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "do you think that citizens, industry, and govt values about what drilling in the Gulf is worth are the same as before much less the same for each of them?"

    You still don't get it.

    Citizens/government can claim any value they like for drilling rights, but it is a meaningless claim unless they own the drilling rights and they are for sale.

    You do not have general agreement on a value until you make a deal, and the nature of a deal is that both parties come away thinking they are better off than before.

    You are correct about timing, of course. Right now, a lot of people are thiking they would be better off if the government did not sell oil leases at any price. when the price of oil is high enough, they will change their minds.

    RH

  38. Larry G Avatar

    when the "govt" owns the drilling rights… then folks who elect the govt are also owners, no?

    If voters don't want to see drilling rights because they think the price is too low and industry will not buy them because they think the price is too high…

    in theory both of the are doing their own calculations as to the "value" – no?

    if voters decide that offshore drilling off of Virginia is not worth the money.. then what?

    are you disagreeing with their decision or the "equation" they are using or what?

    you say that I don't get it.

    I'm only telling you the realities…and it has nothing to do with my views..

    It's the majority of voters who make these decisions and I'm asking you about how they make them – not my views.

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    This is the first time EMR has noted Groveton completely off base.

    My first thought too. Government regulation will never prevent all accidents, short of a total ban, which RNT claims EMR does not support. Increased regulation might prevent some accidents, but the question is, at what cost prevention.

    Larry made a good point re nuclear power generation – the need for insurance the market for insurance is won way we agree on risk. Your retirement plan holds insurance stocks that could go south in the event of a major loss. You buy the stock becuase you agree the risks the insurance company covers are small and well-understood.

    Lets be clear about this. Nuclear power plant insurance is not subsidized. There is no insurance, and none needed because government has limited the liability. No money has changed hands.

    There was an an external cost of nuclear pwoer production known as libility protection. Governnent has eliminated that cost by eliminating the liability. Airlines, however are fully insured, so how we got from power company insurance to airlind subsidies is s logical leap that defies me.

    DOD and FAA today approved the go ahead on two huge wind farms. It was important to do that because if they are not finished in time they will miss out on huge government subsidies. Besides the furor over the oil spill makes the (previous) furor against the wind arms seem trivial.

    I think this thing had a sea floor auto shut off that failed. Maybe someone will suggest cauterizing this thing with a small tactical nuke.

    Every nation-state will have to comply because a major spill contaminates the Global Common.

    Among other things EMR is in favor of diminishing American sovereignty. Notice that position claims ownership of the Global Common, in order to defend the property rights presumably of commoners. It is a big step to speak for everyone and do it as if the people drilling for oil had no rights to their part of the common.

    This is going to work less well than the global ban on whaling. Or the air pollution laws in La Arroyo.

    Government regulation will cause the price of oil and everything that depends on energy to go up.

    Some.

    We have unlimited sources of dilute energy, and it will take some resource to collect and manage it. After that happens the price will be stable or more likely declining. What is not so clear is who will be left to enjoy it.

    but the next Risse paragraph baffles me. No place left to hide? who are we hiding from? is there some conspiracy here that I missed?

    Then the obligatory MSM paragraph is stuck in for no apparent reason. Take those two out and delete the list and just jump to the last:

    All these things will be regulated and all will EVENTUALLY be more safe and all will be MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE …

    Well, good stuff cots more. We are going to need a good economy to pay for it, which we won't have if eeryone consumes less.

    Naturally EMR concludes by telling us we will have to consume much less, which undermines all of his previous argument.

    But he is also arguing for a much stronger more regulated government and much higher taxes to pay for it.

    Why not just make them 100% and amit you are proposing communism? That is one regime that is really good at figuring out who will be left to enjoy it.

    RH

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I believe the government, meaning us, already sold the rights in this case.

    Now we are having sellers remorse.

    RH

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Speaking of communism, suppose the government owns the oil, does its own drilling and has its own blowout.

    How is that result any different from the one we have now?

    RH

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "if voters decide that offshore drilling off of Virginia is not worth the money.. "

    Then they have decided that the price is infinite. That they have all the property rights and the drillers have none, even though drillers are citizens, too.

    They have simply claimed that they own those rights: they never had to buy them. they sare working from the position of the claim of superior property rights and demanding unequal protection for their (other) property.

    They will still want oil, just other people's oil, which they will expect them to sell at a price they would not accept. And let them take the risks on the other side of the planet. Like smelting at La Arroyo.

    Your argument is a mental scam, Larry: it is an internal logical schism.

    RH

  43. Larry G Avatar

    re: " Lets be clear about this. Nuclear power plant insurance is not subsidized. There is no insurance, and none needed because government has limited the liability. No money has changed hands"

    I wish Ray would take a few seconds to verify what he says :

    "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is a United States federal law, first passed in 1957 and since renewed several times, which governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first $10 billion is industry-funded as described in the Act (any claims above the $10 billion would be covered by the federal government). At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

    Without this govt subsidy – Nuclear Power in the US would not be feasible on a free market basis.

    This is another thing I find amusing about the anti-gov-regulation types.

    they say "drill baby drill"

    and

    " it's time to build more Nukes"

    an the reality is – that it's not only the govt regulating…

    it's the govt INTERVENING in the free market – that had they not done it – the free market would quickly dispatch those things that have the potential to so damage other people's property rights on such a large scale that no insurance company on earth will insure them.

    so.. blah blah blah.. from the Tea Party types including apparently now.. Groveton.. who have their own versions of of the world – not particularly connect to the realities but so what.. they're "fighting for America"..

    where's my gag spoon…

  44. Larry G Avatar

    Ray -if they have to buy other oil.. don't the folks who are selling it get to charge what they think it is worth?

    your arguments are totally bizarre sometimes…

    people did not decide that oil drilling rights costs were infinite…

    not with over 500 oil drilling rigs in the Gulf alone.

    what kind of garbage do you not spout?

    It turns out that Europe's nasty socialist regulations require a massive concrete plug in the blowout preventer and it falls automatically on a blowout.. required on European Wells.. not required on US wells…

    wanna know why?

    you already know…

    us Americans …we don't tolerate that nasty anti-capitalism regulation, eh?

  45. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims

    On this portion of the act, the main portion, no money has changed hands and no insurance is supplied.

    The only primary insurance required is $300 million per site. To put this in perspective, Groveton probably carries $5 million, personally. There is one insurance comapny involved American Nuclear Insurors, which is a consortium of other large insurance companies.

    If we ever have a serious accident $300 Million is a drop in the bucket. Therefore there is $10 billion is industry funded self insurance. Each licensee's payments into the fund are limited to $10 million per year and $95.8 million in total for each of its plants.

    ANI has a single lifetimecap on its liability and offsite environmental cleanup costs arising out of governmental orders or directives are specifically excluded.

    And anyone who believes that claims over $10 billion will actually be paid by the government probably thinks social security is solvent, too.

    I concede being partially wrong on this point, but the gist of my argument is correct. if you ever need this insurance, I wouldn;t count on collecting it.

    RH

  46. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Without the govt pledge to pay damages – could Nukes be built ?

    that's the point.

    we have folks yammering about too much govt regulation… while apparently oblivious to the fact that it is precisely because of govt subsidies that Nukes are even a viable industry.

    The govt is underwriting – that industry – while we have goof balls yelling that the govt is preventing more Nukes from being built.

    what's the truth?

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Without this govt subsidy – Nuclear Power in the US would not be feasible on a free market basis.

    The is no government subsidy. The government has not put up a dime.

    RH

  48. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Ray -if they have to buy other oil.. don't the folks who are selling it get to charge what they think it is worth?"

    So you agree with them that damage to their environment is worth less than damage to ours?

    Their sea otters are worth less than ours?

    The lives of their drilling crews are worth less than ours?

    RH

  49. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Obama swears BP i liable for all the damages on this.

    Don't count on it.

    Last month BP was $60/share, today it is $5.

    Where is the money going to come from? Where did it go?

    BP isn't paying for this alone. Anyone with a retirement plan probably has a piece of this.

    TC = PC + EC + GC

    No matter how you slice it, the total cost of oil just went up.

    RH

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    we have goof balls yelling that the govt is preventing more Nukes from being built.

    We have other goof balls that sue NRC every time they try to advance a permit. Government is trying to sreamline the system, but their hands are tied.

    My advice? Buy Vestas, Iberdrola, GE, Siemens, and China Wind

    Build yourself a solar thermal collector.

    RH

  51. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    In 2006 there were 3,858 oil and gas platforms extant in the Gulf of Mexico.

    Most of them are pumping, not drilling.

    There are only around 3000 drilling rigs, world wide.

    RH

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Since this didn’t happen under Bush, it obviously shows that Obama is responsible.

    RH

  53. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: subsidy

    what the govt is providing to the Nukes for free has a value.

    In fact, the value is so substantial that if the Nukes had to obtain that same coverage through the equity market, it would be so expensive that they could not afford it.

    "free" insurance IS a subsidy.

    we're going to find out how much insurance is worth when thousands of property owners make claims against BP and we're also going to find the limits of insurance when they exhaust it and have to start paying damages out of their corporate funds.

    We'll also find out if the govt charges BP for all the resources it has to expend o the cleanup.

    And then – the other companies drilling in the gulf will be called to meet with their insurance companies to discuss premiums in much the same way that private homeowners in the Gulf and Florida found out that living in Hurricane-prone areas was going to be much, much more expensive now that it had been recognized that hurricanes like Katrina could cause damages far, far, in excess of what was originally thought.

    If your equation was of any merit, it could take into account the before and after actuarials of these events.

    Instead, your equation produces different answers before – and after.

    which means the answer it provides before – are not going to be correct because the environmental cost of some activity like oil drilling or Nukes could not accurately provide the actual cost – until after the fact.

    That's not an equation you can use to formulate policy.

    Policy must assume a worst case scenario and provide for insurance for it.

    If the worst case scenario insurance cost is sufficiently high enough in cost to render the activity unprofitable, then what?

    Well, then you get the govt (all citizen property owners who will collectively pay if there is a loss).

    When that happens, the govt gets to set the rules – just as many private insurance companies set rules for you to follow..if they agree to insure you.

    for the anti-regulation folks …

    when your mortgage company REQUIRES you to have insurance in case of a loss AND your insurance company REQUIRES you to not do stupid stuff like keep explosives in your bedroom or whatever .. thats….

    REGULATION …. also

    and yes.. it has a real cost that you have to pay for but you get nothing for it unless you experience a loss.

    THAT's WHY it's called INSURANCE and it DOES have a cost – and if someone will INSURE you for FREE, it is indeed a subsidy.

  54. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Knowing how Ray thinks.. that the govt would say it would insure the Nukes – even if it could not.

    well.. we have folks like that in the private insurances business don't we.

    In fact, I'm quite sure there are those who would say "sure..you give me a $1000 a month and I'll pay you in your house burns down" and I'll give you a fancy piece of paper that says "Certificate of Insurance" on it.

    the only problem the 'insurance' provider doesn't have the assets to cover the potential loss.

    Now what do you call that?

    Fraud, I believe.

    which brings up a very interesting point with regard to BP and it's oil spill.

    Who decides how much insurance they must carry and who decides if the insurer itself is actually financially capable of paying for the losses without itself going broke?

    one word – GOVT

    again.. that same old Nasty GOVT regulation….

    involving itself in the private affairs of business, when it shold not – right?

    Nope.

    why should the govt care if BP has enough insurance anyhow?

    would "enough" be the actual costs of the losses of other property owners in an adverse event?

    well.. who would be responsible to make sure that the oil drilling company has "enough" and how would they make that determination?

    I can tell you this – it won't be by using Ray's equation which does not take into account – risk – and the costs of insuring against failures.

    if it did – it would accurately show the reality that the Nukes are not profitable enterprises if they had to account properly for all of their costs.

    so the govt regulation of Nukes – the target of those who say to ignore the enviro weenies who oppose Nukes – and that the govt should instead get out of the way and let more nukes get built – don't know what they hey they are saying to start with.

    The enviro weenies are saying "yes, get the got out of the insurance business – and then we won't have to worry about a single new NUKE.

    and the anti-govt folks are saying – they WANT the GOVT involved (but never ever up front in an explicit way).

    which is in and of itself an interesting juxtaposition with the anti-gov folks hypocritically calling for more govt – in secret.

  55. Mimi Stratton Avatar
    Mimi Stratton

    Coal mining disasters. Oil rigging disasters. Can we step up our inspections of nuclear power plants?

  56. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It is not a subsidy. No money has changed hands. The usual argument against subsidies is that your money is supporting someone else. This is not the case here.

    Subsidy: a grant paid by a government to an enterprise that benefits the public.

    Forget how
    ray thinks, he might be right.

    RH

  57. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    if the govt provides you with insurance that would otherwise cost you a great deal of money – it is a subsidy.

    This is why they call Subsidized Flood Insurance – subsidized – guy.

    and in the case of Nukes:

    " An analysis by economists Heyes and Heyes (1998) places the value of the government insurance subsidy at $2.3 million per reactor-year, or $237 million annually.[3]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

    see that word – "subsidy" ?

  58. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "With the creation of the “Georgia Tourism Development Act” under HB 1251, we can truly attract large developments to Georgia by granting a sales tax refund to companies who establish new tourism attractions here. To be eligible for the tax refund, projects must exceed $100 million and have a positive economic impact on the state."

    From a Georgia newspaper:

    "Plans for a $1 billion, million-square-foot indoor ski resort in Bartow County, Georgia (near Atlanta), are progressing and apparently hinge on one decision — if Governor Sonny Perdue signs the Tourism Development Act passed Thursday by the Georgia General Assembly, the facility, billed as the world's largest of its kind, could go up on more than 750 acres of land near Red Top Mountain State Park.

  59. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    see that word – "subsidy" ?

    See how they mis-used the word? Becosming an econsomist doesn't autmatically make you literate. a subbsidy involves a payment.

    the government simply passed a law saying that basically certain businesses caanot be sued. No money has changed hands, yet.

    When the need arises, subsidies will be the least of our worries.

    RH

  60. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    so… real live economists can use the word… but it's wrong according to you?

    the subsidy has a value just as an insurance premium has a value even if you don't have a loss.

    the govt is providing "free" insurance that if the company had to buy it …would cost more than 2 million.

    that's a subsidy in most anyone's book except perhaps yours.

  61. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You can call anything you like a subsdy, but it won;t make it so.

    On another topic, how do yu like this?

    "…the Supreme Court in a joint session on Thursday approved a resolution on disputes related to protecting property rights and unauthorized constructions.

    The absence of an official permit for a building does not give courts grounds to deny property rights in lawsuits, the resolution said.

    Currently, according to the Civil Code, an unauthorized construction is one built without a special permit, and the builder is required to demolish the building at his own expense. The resolution holds that if the absence of a permit is the building's only sign that it is an unauthorized construction and the owner has tried to obtain a permit, then courts should legalize the building."

    Too bad that is in the (former) Soviet Union.

    RH

  62. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Examples of direct subsidies include payments in cash or in kind, while more-indirect subsidies include governmental provision of goods or services at prices below the normal market price, governmental purchase of goods or services at prices above the market price, and tax concessions. Although subsidies exist to promote the public welfare, they result in either higher taxes or higher prices for consumer goods. Some subsidies, such as protective tariffs, may also encourage the preservation of inefficient producers. A subsidy is desirable only if its effects increase total benefits more than total costs (see cost-benefit analysis)."

    Cash money or goods. Promises don't cost anything, especially if they are essentially wortless promises.

    RH

  63. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " You can call anything you like a subsdy, but it won;t make it so"

    what would you call it if they take it away?

  64. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Promises don't cost anything, especially if they are essentially wortless promises."

    except that would be a lie.

    The US response to Katrina and now to this proves that it has the resources and the commitment to do what it says.

    the only thing worthless here is your blather on this issue.

    it's crystal clear that no NUKE is going to operate without adequate insurance.

    The U.S. is no more or less any different than Lloyds of Loundon or any other insurer in that regard and as far as I know has made good when they said they would.

    so.. basically you're saying that because you doubt the US would pay off that it does not count as a subsidy?

    right…. more nonsensical blather here.

  65. Cargosquid Avatar
    Cargosquid

    Sorry it took so long to get back to you guys.

    I couldn't find where I posted the "no oil leaking." comment.

    Yep. I was wrong. Read the news and the post said that no oil was leaking. Got me. My bad.

    File this one in the archives…..I was wrong. For once……

Leave a Reply