On 7/27/06, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) "Again, energy is almost never consumed for its own sake. We use power to accomplish goals. If your new car can get you where you want to go as quickly, safely, and pleasurably as your old one, you don't mind that it burns a lot less fuel in the process.." I say energy is indeed consumed for its own sake. More precisely for the sake of that false deity called GDP growth and its microeconomic offspring, consumerism.
Which would not be for its own sake. But part of my argument is that we can get the same GDP with less energy.
2) "If we did not care about global warming, air pollution, and human health, this would not be our lowest priced alternative. Excluding such effects, it would be cheapest to install the least expensive of the efficiency and renewable measures, and use fossil fuels to supply most remaining needs." You are assuming a level of rationality that homo economicus has never been known to exhibit. -raghu.
Don't see how I'm assuming any level of rationality. I'm pointing out what would be the rational given commonly proclaimed assumptions - a different matter. Granted I'm assuming that rational argument has value - even though it is not the primary things that shapes opinions and motivates actions.
