Comment Re:Scientists are the minority (Score 1) 786
What we'll probably see occur is at some point the insurance companies are going to stop writing policies on risky properties. Some have already. Currently, there's a lot of investment going on in new Miami properties by many people who aren't actually planning to live there, they see it as an investment. And since at the moment, they are able to get disaster insurance, how can they lose? Well, they can should their policies get cancelled. Give it another Katrina or New Orleans and that could start happening.
The other possibility is the government could at some point decide the problem is serious enough but understand that taxing the fossil fuel industries directly will be ineffective. An alternative would be more subsidies on clean energies and disaster bail-out funds all paid for by taxes on the consumption of fossil fuels. That could happen after the next disaster incident where people start clamoring for "bail outs" or money to build more sea walls. Those things could find funding from consumption taxes, which will make fossil fuel production less attractive because the market is moving elsewhere. But there's going to be a lot of opposition from moneyed interests, it remains to be seen how long it will take for such things to occur and impact the market sufficiently to make any difference.
The other thing I'm worried about though is the tendency to use this as an excuse to expand nuclear power. The problem I have with that is not that nulcear power CAN BE made safe, but that the way things work, IT WON'T BE. Think Deepwater Horizon. Do you really want a BP running a nuclear power station? Think incompetence. Google "nuclear accidents." The history of safety in the industry is not good, nor is it in ANY of the fossil fuel industries. And there's a new one now-- New Mexico. Not too serious an accident I gather (though an expensive one), certainly it's not a Fukushima, but the point is not how serious it is, but that it happened at all, demonstrating that stupid accidents happen all too often: http://www.latimes.com/nation/...
The other possibility is the government could at some point decide the problem is serious enough but understand that taxing the fossil fuel industries directly will be ineffective. An alternative would be more subsidies on clean energies and disaster bail-out funds all paid for by taxes on the consumption of fossil fuels. That could happen after the next disaster incident where people start clamoring for "bail outs" or money to build more sea walls. Those things could find funding from consumption taxes, which will make fossil fuel production less attractive because the market is moving elsewhere. But there's going to be a lot of opposition from moneyed interests, it remains to be seen how long it will take for such things to occur and impact the market sufficiently to make any difference.
The other thing I'm worried about though is the tendency to use this as an excuse to expand nuclear power. The problem I have with that is not that nulcear power CAN BE made safe, but that the way things work, IT WON'T BE. Think Deepwater Horizon. Do you really want a BP running a nuclear power station? Think incompetence. Google "nuclear accidents." The history of safety in the industry is not good, nor is it in ANY of the fossil fuel industries. And there's a new one now-- New Mexico. Not too serious an accident I gather (though an expensive one), certainly it's not a Fukushima, but the point is not how serious it is, but that it happened at all, demonstrating that stupid accidents happen all too often: http://www.latimes.com/nation/...