Ulenspiegel wrote:...when we have only to pay for the differential costs, which even may be negative.
yellowcanoe wrote:People who talk about health care savings due to less air pollution, reduced smoking, less exposure to cancer causing materials, etc. etc. rarely discuss the impact on pension funds. Reducing the number of premature deaths means that people will on average collect a pension longer. Eliminating the health costs associated with a premature death doesn't necessarily translate into an overall savings in health care as it is merely postponing a death that may involve just as much health care expenditures as would have been entailed by the premature death that was avoided.
KaiserJeep wrote:Both problems only need heaps of money to solve. Too bad all of you are still working, unlike us retired folks. Taxes are gonna have to be raised so my lifestyle is maintained.
ROCKMAN wrote:"From a relative point or differential costs we can see that are not impossible and sometimes are even better than today numbers." Which obviously explains why the world has abandoned hydrocarbons and runs primarily on alternative energy sources.
Might want to rethink some of those assumption. Just saying: even while one can try to defend those assumptions one still has to justify them to the fact the overwhelming amount of energy consumed on the planet is from fossil fuels. If those assumptions have failed for many decades and continue to appear invalid today (especially in light of decreased oil prices, low coal prices and an expanding global market for NG) when will they become impactful factors?
Timo wrote:KaiserJeep wrote:Both problems only need heaps of money to solve. Too bad all of you are still working, unlike us retired folks. Taxes are gonna have to be raised so my lifestyle is maintained.
Snark aside, how much is the projected cost of implementation versus the projected cost of BAU?
I ask that with no snark intended. I'm actually quite serious with that question. What is the value of continued life on this planet?
ROCKMAN wrote:Timo - A valid point IMHO. OTOH you make the assumption that those who would pay the price in the long run for trying to maintain BAU are the same folks who would have to pony up the money to change our direction. Not a valid assumption IMHO. We are not the collective of the three Musketeers...we are not "all for one and one for all".
ROCKMAN wrote:Might want to rethink some of those assumption. Just saying: even while one can try to defend those assumptions one still has to justify them to the fact the overwhelming amount of energy consumed on the planet is from fossil fuels. If those assumptions have failed for many decades and continue to appear invalid today (especially in light of decreased oil prices, low coal prices and an expanding global market for NG) when will they become impactful factors?
ROCKMAN wrote:"From a relative point or differential costs we can see that are not impossible and sometimes are even better than today numbers." Which obviously explains why the world has abandoned hydrocarbons and runs primarily on alternative energy sources.
Might want to rethink some of those assumption. Just saying: even while one can try to defend those assumptions one still has to justify them to the fact the overwhelming amount of energy consumed on the planet is from fossil fuels. If those assumptions have failed for many decades and continue to appear invalid today (especially in light of decreased oil prices, low coal prices and an expanding global market for NG) when will they become impactful factors?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest