The tragic thing is that the economy actually would benefit if half the unemployed were paid to dig holes in the ground and the other half paid to fill the holes in.
This is the result of insane political economics. So it is true that even if there is no global warming, paying unemployed people to fight it would result in trillions of dollars of benefit simply because wealth is so insanely maldistributed that the demand side of the economy is failing to attract capital to job-creation. The first thing you do in any business plan is look at whether there is demand for the thing the business provides: No demand -- no investment. On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Brad Lowe <ecatbuil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> One thing we can agree on: Any "solution" proposed to fight global >> warming will cost trillions of dollars (short of a breakthrough in LENR, or >> a nuclear renaissance). >> > > I guess so, but to put it another way, any solution will *earn* trillions > of dollars. The money will not be wire transferred to Mars. Unlike the > money spent on wars, it will produce positive values in addition to > preventing global warming. > > For example, imagine a massive project to produce synthetic liquid fuel in > the U.S. from wind and solar sources. As I have mentioned, from wind alone > the U.S. could produce more liquid fuel than the Middle East produces oil. > That would be very profitable for us. It would cost a lot initially, but in > the end we would be raking in more money than Saudi Arabia and the other > countries in the Middle East. The fuel would not only be carbon neutral, it > would be very pure and it would cause no pollution. This would be a > tremendous benefit even if it turns out global warming is not caused by > CO2. With plug-in hybrid cars we could power every automobile on earth with > this source. > > You may think this would take a long time. Not necessarily. Consider how > long it took the U.S. to build 1,200 warships during WWII: about three > years. > > That is assuming: > > 1. Cold fusion does not come along. > > 2. Liquid synthetic fuel really can be produced as cheaply as projections > indicate. I think that is likely. > > - Jed > >
