It's All about Energy, or me being nasty.

Plug Ships into an electrical outlet in Ports, rather than run the Ship’s engines to supply Power; it sounds fine, but has it disadvantages. It requires cheap Electricity, and a designed Ship’s electrical system to accommodate the Change; by the way, has Anyone tried to live in a cold Ship’s cabin heated only by an electric Heater inside a Ship designed to draw heat from the engines. It is perfect in the Tropics, has some disadvantage in the Temperate Zone, and don’t try Winter in the Arctic. There are Ports where you can get 2" of Ice build-up on your Porthole window. There have been Ships which had to divert to warmer Sea routes, in order to keep their refrigerated Product from freezing solid. The article does not discuss the BTU variance between utilization of the two separate systems. One Study I would like to see is One which estimates the total Heat generation of electrical generation units Worldwide. The simple use of Electricity in volume produces Surface Heat, and it would be nice to discuss magnitudes. It will make Us all feel ridiculous if a Car burning the worst fuel imaginable produces less trapped Surface Heat, than massive electrical power generators to supply the Transportation fleets on per Unit basis.

This article worries me, not because of the Greenhouse Price tag though significant, but because of the mis-allocation of Land and Labor resources. Suitable land is left fallow because of Labor Costs, and Labor is left unemployed due to a Corporate environment which insists on the cheapest Cost at all Points of the Production cycle. A truly Socialist Government achieving power anywhere in the World would have to consider a rational Tariff system, simply to protect their People from a predatory lowest Cost system. It is a Tenant of Modern Business that the Consumer is always Right. Fine and Good, but the Consumers want their Jobs back; and they seem to find no Response from the Profits-driven Corporate structure.

Mark Thoma presents an excerpt from Tim Rutten, then provides commentary which should be read. Read them before you read my Comments. Pigouvian taxation is unlikely to impact public practice, as long as the Pigouvian taxation remains a minor element in the matrix: A prominent Economist who I will not name to forestall any animosity being generated, publicly suggested a 11 Cent increase in Gasoline tax, back before the last Gas Price run-up; Consumers would not even be able to spot the Tax, Taxes must be seen as a Cost to have impact–most especially of Pigouvian nature. Rutten says the Toll system discriminates against the Poor, and Thoma says these effects can be mitigated by methods of Tax expenditure. None of the Proposals would seem to register on the radar of the Public, or change their travel preferences; combined with the elemental suggestion that Toll roads consume greater amounts of fuel by a Speeding and Slowing practice. I would advocate a impact-generating Pigouvian tax where every 10,000th vehicle is Fined $250, Traffic noted by Camera with capture of license numbers. Fines unpaid would be added to Californian License fees. This Practice might capture the Public’s attention. lgl