It May Be Pointless, But At Least It's Expensive - Jonah Goldberg - The Corner on National Review Online

It's funny how so many liberals have become "realists" of late, insisting that we can't expect to cajole sovereign nations into doing what we think is right if it's not in their interests, but the same liberals insist that if we hobble ourselves with the dull-rusty axe of cap-and-tax, our example will inspire other nations to do likewise. Yes, yes, liberals will likely say that fighting global warming is in these nations' interest, but they just don't realize it. Well, maybe. But who are we to tell these countries what their interests are? Isn't that the sort of imperial hubris these folks usually denounce? Regardless, there's zero evidence and sub-zero reason to believe that countries such as China and India will ever be inspired by our action on global warming.

Bound to Burn by Peter W. Huber, City Journal Spring 2009

Shoveling wind and sun is much, much harder. Windmills are now 50-story skyscrapers. Yet one windmill generates a piddling 2 to 3 megawatts. A jumbo jet needs 100 megawatts to get off the ground; Google is building 100-megawatt server farms. Meeting New York City’s total energy demand would require 13,000 of those skyscrapers spinning at top speed, which would require scattering about 50,000 of them across the state, to make sure that you always hit enough windy spots. To answer the howls of green protest that inevitably greet realistic engineering estimates like these, note that real-world systems must be able to meet peak, not average, demand; that reserve margins are essential; and that converting electric power into liquid or gaseous fuels to power the existing transportation and heating systems would entail substantial losses. What was Mayor Bloomberg thinking when he suggested that he might just tuck windmills into Manhattan? Such thoughts betray a deep ignorance about how difficult it is to get a lot of energy out of sources as thin and dilute as wind and sun.

Losing with ACES by The Editors on National Review Online

The bill represents a terrible deal for American taxpayers. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, ACES is projected to impose costs averaging about $1,100 each year on every American household by 2050. What do we get in return? Even if the law works precisely as intended — not very likely — the grand result will be that, a century from now, we should expect surface temperatures to be a about one-tenth of one degree Celsius lower than they otherwise would be.