Redstate

In fact, I have an even better idea, and a probably less-expensive one to implement, that involves shielding the Earth by placing an array of satellites with variable sunlight-deflecting (and power generating) arrays at a point between the earth and the sun.  How could it be done?  That's a secret for now.  :)

That's a similar idea to one that I had. Rather than shade the earth, set up a series of massive solar satellites in orbit around the sun that charge monster batteries and swap out big batteries as they get close to earth.

It could be the first portion of a Dyson sphere.

Will it work - I have no idea. But I agree with you on the solar and nuclear power generation.

. . . that I once read to place mirrors on the top of building to reflect more sunlight away from the Earth as a way to mitigate increased temperature.  I'm not sure of the feasibility of it (seems to me that the heat would just be reflected right back but some of it would surely escape).

I agree with you that it's primarily a technological question but as I am not a fan of industrial policy, I'm naturally skeptical of proposals that involve any sort of large-scale change based solely on concerns over global climate change.

That being said, there some changes that I think make sense in their own merits even if one does not believe that human-created emissions of so-called "greenhouse gases" is causing the Earth's climate to change at an unnatural rate that will on the aggregate be deleterious to human life.  The Bush administration's support for the Markets to Methane Partnership was a good step.  I would also add reductions in black soot and other "greenhouse gases" which create problems for public health.  Even if were to turn out that these emissions didn't lead to unnatural global climate change, insofar as the changes would be brought about by (a) improving industrial efficiency to reduce emissions, (b) savings in energy usage, and/or (c) would reduce the costs from air pollution, they make sense on their own merits.

A revenue neutral "tax swap" of lower income taxes for higher gasoline taxes so that uses of gasoline internalize all of the negative externalities (e.g. cost of air pollution, our Middle East policy, etc.) rather than paying for them with the income tax would encourage energy conservation.  Correcting this sort of distortion makes sense.

isn't that a bit like arguing that medical science will eventually find a cure for cancer so I might as well smoke a pack a day?

Maybe it would be cheaper to just clamp down fuel efficiency standards a bit. Give people an incentive to look for economies. Stop burning so much coal. etc.

Anyhow, I don't think anybody serious is predicting the end of the world in such dire terms. They are predicting a changed world that we won't like as much as the one in which we live today.

It's more like "let's look at proposals that can be defended on their own merits (read: without making an argument one way or the other about global climate change) that way if global climate change is happening, we've mitigated the problem and if it's not, we haven't wrecked our economic and technological progress in the process."

who's going to pay for these giant space rings and/or carbon sequestration facilities? Presumably you and me through our taxes since if there's a market-driven incentive to build these things, I sure can't spot it.

Is it a principled conservative position that state-funded megaprojects in the future are preferable to a little bit of regulation today?

Its arguing that its preferable to wait till symptoms develop, then mitigate those rather than mitigate the causal factor because who knows if the symptoms will ever arise?

Certainly, some people smoke their whole lives but never develop disease afterall.

But there are other reasons to ween onesefl from the addiction - give up smoking and health issues aside your clothes will smell better. Give up petroleum and your economy won't be beholden to hostile potentates halfway around the world.

I think its a pretty tidy little analogy!

But in this sense, I'm not a principled conservative, whatever that means.  I'm not worried about breaking the "rules."  I'm a pragmatist.

Is it a principled conservative position that state-funded megaprojects in the future are preferable to a little bit of regulation today?

First, I don't think that "little bit of regulation today" is a little bit at all, it's more like a huge chomp.  I've suggested some market-based solutions that could actually make a profit for businesess in the area of reducing consumption without requiring regulation.  It's absolutely absurd to me that nobody has so far proposed a good, wireless web-based carpooling service and gotten it funded.  It would work in Chicago:  it doesn't have to have 100% or 50% or even 30% of the people sign up for it.  My guess is that you could achieve meaningful reductions in congestion (and all of the associated time lost sitting in traffic, and all of the fuel burned by cars and SUVs sitting at idle) with just 20% of the people participating - 1 out of 5, or, to put it another way, 1 day out of 5.

I would much rather see the money be invested in private companies, but I'm not afraid of government-sponsored Big Science, either -- as long as there is a commercial spinoff for industry written into the agreement.  I don't care about the government using my tax dollars for focused research like that, as long as it is going to help us solve a global problem and will eventually be diverted to corporations that can make a profit with it, allow corporations to take that technology, and sell it to others elsewhere in the world.  I'm a capitalist and I have no trouble with that at at all.  I'm not a person who hates the military-industrial complex.  The military-industrial complex has been good to us, and I don't care about the Lefty guilt and shame over it.  Lots of other people might be, but I'm not one of them.

Reminds me of the diabolical plot by Mr. Burns to force everyone to consume more nuclear power by putting a gigantic shade in front of the sun.

As you will recall, he got shot for his efforts in conservation. I hope yours go better.

I would rather have half the Health and Human Services budget be diverted to universities working on alternative energy research in this country than have it continue to be spent there.  And NPR's budget, too.  I'm sure the LLNL would do more with it than they do.

"State-funded megaproject?"  Here is the HHS's FY 2006 budget.  Even just the discretionary portion is $67 billion.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 budget enables the Department to provide for the health, safety, and well-being of Americans. FY 2006 outlays will total $642 billion, an increase of $58 billion over FY 2005 spending. The discretionary portion of the HHS budget totals $67 billion in budget authority and $71 billion in program level.

known as "Alpha Centauri". Research indicates that we will need U.N. approval to launch a solar shade. This could be tricky. (Orbital defense pods, however, are A-OK.)

In the United States, the National Ignition Facility has been controversial because of its relationship to the Stockpile Stewardship program and its other uses in designing nuclear weapons.  

In Japan, they have a completely different view of fusion energy and the national infrastructure that might be needed to produce it.  Meet Plasma-Kun!

An additional .5% sales tax increase would, in most areas, create only a price increase of one to three cents per gallon. Given the current fluctuations in gasoline prices, there is a good chance that most consumers would not be adversely affected by the higher costs moreso than they already have been.

I'll take a dollar for dollar exchange of "wasteful liberal" government spending for "wasteful conservative" tax cuts and spend the proceeds on alternative energy.  I don't understand why we don't spend vast sums on the subject - hell, put it under the Defense Department budget, since weening our dependancy on foreign energy is ultimately critical for our self-protection....