Nice article in physicstoday.
Other stuff
* Wiley coverup: The great Wegman and Said "redo" to hide plagiarism and errors - the Wegman stuff keeps rumbling on. Wegman reminds me of the TSA guy here - what he says isn't believeable, but he has powerful organisations propping him up, because having him admit error would be embarrassing.
* Hansen Wins - Wabbett sez the US is going to require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. That would be a good result, but the wrong way to do it. The right way is a carbon tax, not an arbitrary limit.
- Log in to post comments
Awesome Informationen, vielen Dank an den Beitrag Schriftsteller. Es ist verst?ndlich, mir jetzt, wird die Wirksamkeit und Bedeutung überw?ltigend. Nochmals vielen Dank und viel Glück!
Well, they were offered the choice. Perhaps this will concentrate their minds.
I agree 100%...the 'carbon tax' is the only fair way to go. Otherwise it will get to cumbersome to figure out the offenders case-by-case.
> cumbersome to figure out the offenders case-by-case.
Lessons available to be learned:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=nitrate+pollution+california+source…
where testing by anonymous sampling, rather than testing identified wells, is a talking point for the ag business lobby.
A man's well can't be made to give evidence against him, does that sound right?
And speaking of the US approach (protecting the individual's freedom to ignore any consequences to others), would you believe The Supreme Court Strikes Down the Clean Air Act?
Only kidding.
So far.
Maybe they are bulled rather than cowed?
You take what you can get, politically. A carbon tax isn't currently possible in the US, as much as I agree it's the better option.
> a good result, but the wrong way to do it
As long as it works, it's the right way even if a bit crude... and it has the merit that no money changes hands visibly, a useful feature in a society that is very corrupt, or where the electorate is readily bamboozled, or both