> The linked article I was rebutting wasn't making that utilitarian case, they were making a moral case about not being obligated to avert warming at all

I re-read the article and I don't understand how you arrive at this interpretation. This appears to be something you're assuming. The article is precisely about the utilitarian argument: the trade-off between the expected effectiveness of energy policies and their cost.

It matters precisely in a moral sense. Because of the (in)effectuality of the action. Resources are scarce, and you are taking food from a baby...somewhere in the world. Of course none of this matters if you are having "first-world" pyschological problems about guilt...or you are trying to secure some money or presige for your first-world cushy lifestyle.

Energy production is the main 'human contribution' (I think?).

Are you really saying, that the Energy industry is a starving baby?

They are the richest companies in the world, they can easily afford ALL of the changes that have been suggested, but it isn't about 'affordability' it is about profitablity.

Making things more efficient, and encouraging more self/clean power generation runs contrary to Energy companies profit motive, so of course they will resist it and even run marketing to say that the world will be worse off if it is more efficient and "cleaner".

And as a collective we have and continue to be stupid enough to buy into their narrative.

This is an argument from convenience. Its like blaming the drug dealers for wall street's cocaine problems. Notwithstanding that issue, you have the opportunity cost of focus and attention on something. Which means you likely have remidiable inefficiency in other areas. It is that which kills...like taking your eye off the road and having a car accident. Again, that has nothing to do with the (oil,power,auto) companies or whether or not you dirve a prius, a tesla, or an F-150.

Then please refute the "energy is the largest contributing industry" statement with some fact rather than rhetoric.

In your metaphor, this is like blaming the drug dealers for the "drugs being sold on the street" problem. The drug dealer has no interest in selling you a 'drug manufacturing kit' for your home, he/she wants to keep you coming back.

I was pointing out, that given it is a humanistic/moral issue. The corporate 'profit motive' has nothing to provide. We have the resources to do everything we want to do, and it makes ethical sense. But a rational organisation (which is, by definition driven by profit) would never invest in this, because it would reduce its profit.

This isn't an argument of convenience, this is a "point out the fucking obvious"

This is a political argument about taxes, and has nothing to do with either climate or science. If you want to tax these people, go ahead...get together a bunch of special interests and some money and go lobby the relevant folks.

"I was pointing out, that given it is a humanistic/moral issue."

It may very well be indeed. But in the context of the submitted article and its discussion, it is proving the point about the use and abuse of data and science. There is a difference between a "moral use of science" and dressing up a "moral/political special interest position" as a <position of science>.

As I am sure you would appreciate.

I have no 'special interest'. I was responding to the idea that "we can't respond because of starving babies" comment.

That is factually untrue, and my response was based on fact, there is money, and it could be used, no babies would stave.

But I pointed out it was never considered because if the profit motive.

You seem to be railing against a position I am not holding.

To simplify:

"We could do everything we thought was needed to decrease global warming and no baby would need to starve".

I'm not saying:

- We need to do something

- We are the cause of global warming

- Doing the things we think will reduce global warming will actually reduce global warming.

Scarce resources aren't the cause of starving babies

> Scarce resources aren't the cause of starving babies

They aren't? Wait, let's make the claim more specific. Biofuel mandates that had been justified in part based on CO2 concerns have driven up the cost of corn and other grains - crops and farmland is being needlessly diverted from food to fuel. Making grains more expensive has indeed been a cause of starvation in the third world.

Um, here:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62609/c-ford-runge-an...