Is capitalism the solution for Global Warming?

T. Boone Pickens made a smart investment. Electric rates averaged $89 per MW-h in the US in 2006. The current spot price is $93. The article does not state whether the 4000 MW are peak or average power. One has to assume that Pickens did his homework and the wind turbines will operate at peak at least half of the time. This means at least $1.8 billion in revenue at current prices. That is enough to cover the cost of capital and there is a lot of upside. The wind won't cost any more in 5 years, but the price of energy could be a lot higher than it is now. The US needs about 780,000 MW to cover peak demand at present. Pickens 4000 MW is a step in the right direction but 200 similar projects are needed to solve the problem. If Pickens makes a good profit, more investors will follow his example and the 200 projects needed will get built.

The economy is a subset of the environment.

The entire economy is a giant Ponzi scheme based on the future value of resources.

Capitalism does not protect the environment. Capitalism rewards people for exploiting the environment.

The fundamental motivation of a capitalist is self enrichment.

There are finite resources in the world so self enrichment is always at the expense of someone else.

Currently, we enrich ourselves artificially faster by stealing resources from the future. This is called "growth".

Inequity and poverty (both the excess consumption by the few and desperate consumption by the many) are causing great environmental harm.

The ends never justify the means.

Fundamentally, the answer is no.

We must have self determination, but for the sake of the environment

(and therefore our economy and ultimately our society)

it must be within the framework of a just, equitable, sustainable, steady state economy.

Socialist and Capitalist alike can and do pollute and reason a number of the climate replace. that's the human way of thinking it relatively is inaccurate. we can all get interior the automobile and stress a short walking distance to the shop and justify it as 'nicely it became into basically for slightly of a distance' and 'it would not make any distinction what I did'. nicely it does acquire to a capability. Governments and massive companies won't spend funds to shrink pollution except compelled to or it makes extra earnings for them. to declare human form isn't the clarification for no less than area of the subject is extremely undesirable technological know-how while there is plenty information that climate replace has occurred worst in greater human density areas. What desires to start to happen is to be sure ourselves, and admit to what we see. we can all discover numerous information on the thank you to be kinder to planet Earth, our abode. shrink down on capability waste, stroll short distances while conceivable, recycle and plant a tree or some shrubs around you abode. think of approximately what you do and it will all upload up if we are arranged to alter our very own behavior.

"Green" or environmentally friendly, or rational management of the environment are always very good business and very profitable. The lie that they are costly and anti capitalistic is one of the standard propaganda lines of those mentally and/or financially invested in the obsolete, filthy, poison producing technology that is used by the laziest of capitalists to bleed the consumers of the world white.

I'd say 'Yes'. Capitalism is the means by which everything gets done. There's no pure capitalism mind you, but that's how it has to happen, if it's going to happen. I have a friend who's a patent attorney. I don't believe in AGW and neither does he. But he says he has a lot of idea's coming across his desk to lower or eliminate carbon from various aspects of our commercial world, that all need to be patented.

Not *the* solution, no. The next step in the denial movement after they finally accept AGW is to argue we need to let the free market regulate carbon emissions. That's essentially been our solution so far, and CO2 emissions have continued to rise.

While capitalism can play some role in reducing our emissions due to intelligent investments like this oil guy building wind farms, we still need to take much greater strides to sufficiently reduce our emissions. Government regulation will be necessary.

People can talk about climate change all they want, man has nothing to do with it. The windmill is a great idea to lower energy cost to the public, but there are no many environmentalist and wealthy bastards that will fight against the windmill. The rich will come out complaining they are an eyesore and the greens will come up with some wacky BS about being environmental unfriendly. As long as special interest controls our elected government nothing is going to change that will help the working American say a little money.

Absolutely, he has every incentive to get results, when is the last time a government program solved anything? The government is self serving and has no incentive to solve anything.

well it looks like we are going to find out. the 'cap and trade' system has been a fiasco so far, cheers american delegation to kyoto, insist on your capitalist 'solution' then run away huh!

i would quote someone; the market is a good tool, but a terrible master....

we need regulation and international agreements whatever the mechanisms chosen. and we know we can do it, after the successes of the antarctic and montreal treaties.

Judging by the posts I see on this forum the capitalism solution for Global Warming is to pretend it doesn't exist.