From: hal@finney.org
Date: Sun Aug 29 1999 - 17:33:01 MDT
Robert J. Bradbury, <bradbury@www.aeiveos.com>, writes:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 GBurch1@aol.com wrote:
> > Seems like reducing whatever current effect human technology has on
> > the planet's heat budget would have to be offset against heat created
> > by use of nanotech . . . of course, that's subject to the same idea
> > contained in the first point, i.e. that the Earth's energy system
> > has only one significant real input -- solar energy.
>
> Yes, solar energy is still much larger than all of our puny
> technological efforts. The ability to relatively easily
> manipulate it is going to result in some interesting property
> rights issues (probably akin to the discussions regarding
> extensions of national rights out to various distances in
> the oceans).
I don't fully understand the heat balance issues, but it's worth noting
that there are a number of proposals for using more than the natural
solar energy input of the earth. These include geothermal energy,
nuclear fission, nuclear fusion plants (power from seawater), and
solar satellites. In some cases these forms of power may be locally
more convenient and concentrated than solar power, and could be quite
attractive. Any large-scale use of these energy sources will just make
the heat problem worse.
As Robert says, the property rights issues may become acute. One approach
is to use the technique some localities are experimenting with for
pollution control, and have "heat pollution rights". Everyone would have
a certain amount of heat pollution they were allowed, and people could
buy and sell the rights so that those who wanted to pollute more could
have their excesses offset by those who were willing to pollute less.
(The market transfers could be restricted to people in the same region
if it was important to keep localized heat balances stable.)
We had a debate here a few months ago about whether it would be ethically
acceptable to impose such abstract property rights on others who wanted
to pollute freely, and there wasn't much agreement. My feeling is that
if you do need to use force to solve the problem, this kind of approach
is the best way to manage it, because it provides the maximum possible
flexibility.
Another approach, which is probably more widely acceptable but is
somewhat clumsier, is tort law, where I can claim that my neighbor
has injured me by emitting excess heat. This can work in some cases
but it will be harder to show injury if the local heat emissions are
well radiated. If the only real problem is the cumulative effect of
billions of individual polluters then it will be harder to claim that
any one of them should be made to stop.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:56 MST