Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Prisoner’s dilemma is a games theory scenario which explores cooperation in difficult circumstances. The classic description, there are two prisoners accused of a crime. Their options are:
- They both keep quiet, and when convicted they both receive moderate sentences.
- One prisoner rats on the other prisoner. The prisoner who betrays his fellow villain receives a light sentence, the other prisoner receives a heavy sentence.
- Both prisoners rat on each other – they both receive heavy sentences.
So how does the Prisoner’s dilemma apply to carbon dioxide mitigation?
The answer of course if that, if CO2 matters, it is a prisoner’s dilemma on a global scale.
Of course, if CO2 has minimal impact on global climate, then it makes no sense to reduce CO2 because it is a waste of resources. But lets consider the interesting scenario – what if CO2 is every bit as dangerous as the IPCC claims it is?
Consider two countries, country A and country B. Both countries have the following options:
- They can both attempt to reduce CO2 – both countries will accept moderate to severe economic damage.
- Country A could attempt to reduce CO2, while country B continues full steam ahead, maximising economic growth. Country B gets the advantage of an unencumbered economy, and the full benefits of industrialisation – they can afford to switch on the air conditioning, when the weather is too hot. Country A not only gets slammed with the costs of climate mitigation, and the economic damage of trying to compete with country B from a position of permanent structural disadvantage, but any benefit from reduced CO2 thanks to country A’s sacrifices are mostly enjoyed by country B.
- Both countries could ignore the issue of CO2. Both would experience equal pain from climate disruption, but with maximal economic development, both countries would be able to switch on the air conditioning, when the weather outside was too hot.
Of course, in the real world we’re dealing with more than two countries – there are hundreds of countries. If just a handful of those countries decide to break ranks, to ignore CO2 mitigation, openly or covertly, the countries which betray the effort will receive most of the benefit which accrues from the sacrifices of everyone else.
In the paranoid swamp which is global politics, no serious attempt at altruism could survive the first economic recession it caused. Voters would quickly reject the pain, especially if they saw everyone else was accruing any benefit to be realised from their sacrifices.
So it never, under any circumstances, makes sense to be the sucker. Even if the IPCC is right about CO2, your sacrifices will mainly benefit the people who don’t make an effort.
It makes much more sense to steam full power ahead, maximise economic growth, and use the full resources of your expanded industrial base to mitigate any problems which arise from the consequences of climate change.
Simple and correct.
I think “tragedy of the commons” is an easier way to look at this.
This is exactly why environmentalists feel we need a totalitarian one-world government. Without it, saving the planet is impossible (if one thinks the world actually needs ‘saving’).
“This is exactly why environmentalists feel we need a totalitarian one-world government.”
I have yet to meet an environmentalist who feels that way. That would be as inaccurate as saying that all climate denialists suffer from delusional paranoia and spend their days railing about non-existent green boogeymen.
Odd. I have yet to meet an environmentalist who did not feel that way; who did not want to remove 90% of people (if not all) from their “Gaea” image of a perfect world.
RACook is right, as anyone who reads up on this subject knows. How many official quotes have we seen here, from the Rockefellers, to Prince Charles, and many, many others, saying that culling the global population to a half million or so, and having a one-world government is their goal? Agenda 21, anyone?
The UN is fully prepared to take over, and if they had the divisions they would have already. Since they don’t, they are using the eco crowd’s naive lemmings to do their dirty work. Some of them even post here.
I wouldn’t even blame the UN for wanting to be King of the World. What I don’t understand are the credulous lemmings who believe the BS they’re being spoon-fed by those charlatans.
Try opening your eyes and ears maybe? There are sooo many more quotes, but I got tired of doing your work for you.
“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire elitist, primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Quote by Gus Hall, former leader of the Communist Party USA: “Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible.”
Quote by Peter Berle, President of the National Audubon Society: “We reject the idea of private property.”
Quote by Jack Trevors, Editor-in-Chief of Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: “The capitalistic systems of economy follow the one principal rule: the rule of profit making. All else must bow down to this rule…The current USA is an example of a failed capitalistic state in which essential long-term goals such as prevention of climate change and limitation of human population growth are subjugated to the short-term profit motive and the principle of economic growth.”
Quote by Judi Bari, an American environmentalist and labor leader, a feminist, and the principal organizer of Earth First!: “I think if we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically,”
Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
Quote by David Rockefeller, heir to billion dollar fortune: “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis…”
Quote by Judi Dench, famous UK actress: “The need for a global structure of control in the form of a world environment court is now more urgent than ever before.”
Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: “The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.”
Quote by Gordon Brown, former British prime minister: “A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis.”
Quote by Lester Brown, founder of the Worldwatch Institute, and founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute: “Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance.”
Quote by Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S.: “The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises – whether real or not – is expected to lead to – compliance”
Quote by UN’s Commission on Global Governance: “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”
Quote by David Shearman, an IPCC Assessor for 3rd and 4th climate change reports: “Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task.”
https://www.intellihub.com/bill-gates-calls-global-government/
http://www.indaba-network.net/needed-a-world-government-to-save-the-blue-planet/
http://www.alternet.org/story/151918/do_we_need_a_militant_movement_to_save_the_planet_(and_ourselves)
Well, Flashman? Any response to those quotes?
No. A bunch of out of context quotes from random people, some entirely harmless, some completely insane, and some undoubtedly made up, don’t say anything about what “Greens” want, let alone form evidence of organized conspiracy. Seriously, bro, this is material for that guy that stands on street corners wearing cardboard signs written entirely in caps and superfluous quotation marks. Down this path lies madness.
Sir Harry Flashman,
Also I want to re-iterate that very very small sample. I’m not going to spend hours comprehensively gathering quotes just so you can dismiss it out of hand anyways with some bogus assertion along the lines of “well these just extremists and don’t represent environmentalist I know!”. Yes of course. And Islam is a religion of peace.
See my response to DB on the topic.
“See my response to DB on the topic.”
Where? So I’m just supposed to search randomly through all the comments until I think I’ve found it? Uhhh, no thanks.
Just for fun here are a few more articles.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-world-government-will-still-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe/
http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-ov.htm
http://www.petition2congress.com/9440/support-one-world-government
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/24/a-rothschild-plan-for-world-government/
“Out of context”???
Flash, you’ve lost your grip on reality. Those quotes and articles are right on-target.
That response is the old ‘Say Anything’ ploy. Really. If you believe those quotes are out of context then you have no understanding of anything. We could post a thousand other relevant quotes, and you would say the same thing. But it is nonsense. And I think you know it. If you don’t, we do.
Alarmists say that sort of thing when they’re out of arguments. They never man-up and admit anything. That’s the big difference between them and skeptics.
[trimmed. .mod]
First of all, you are right with your example, with the Prisoner’s dilemma applied on reducing the CO2 emissions. Still, I believe that those discussions on reducing the emissions may become steril and lead to other topics. And this is because using less cars, or turning off computers are not solutions to reduce effects of global warming. I guess the causes of global warming should be searched for elsewhere, like the oceans and the sun. So I read on http://www.1ocean-1climate.com and I trust this hypothesis, which is very well analyzed there.
Funny. When I first started reading this I thought the prisoner dilemma was referring to the old TV show “The Prisoner”.
Perhaps the story would have made more sense if they had stopped with “Secret Agent”?
The plants have voted, more CO2 is good for their environment. There are more plants than people, so they win.
Another problem is that with multiple variables, it’s not possible to know if the IPCC or the skeptics are right. We’re all a jury with insufficient evidence. Any global warming or cooling we’ve seen the last 65 years is just as likely to be “natural variability” as the GHG forcing. Same for any similar warming or cooling we see in the future. An hypothesis that Thor, Neptune (the planet or the god), or the Easter bunny has caused the warming or cooling is unfortunately no more falsifiable than hypotheses about solar or GHG, ocean oscillations, Milankovitch cycles, and other forcings. There are just too damn many forcings and no footprint by which to separate them.
Are we entering a period of catastrophic warming from GHG masked by the new ice age we’ve entered? Or is the climate sensitivity so low that the GHG forcing never or seldom rises above the “noise” of natural variability? How would we ever know?
Yes, specific model projections of warming like the ’88 Hansen or ’90 IPCC might be falsified at the 95% or 99% level using standard statistical practices, but hardly anything in climate science is standard, and such falsification based just on statistics without understanding the power of the forcings and the contribution of unknown unknowns is a unreliable.
If nations could co-operate enough to hold carbon emissions to a predetermined level, we might have a chance after all the component lags in the system reached equilibrium- god knows how long that would take- we might have some idea of the role of the non-GHG forcings- the climate variability. Guess what! We already have that information. We have 100 years or more of instrumental data and milllennia of anecdotal data about warm periods, little ice ages, growing seasons, etc.
When I examine the climate data from the pre-GHG-forcing era, which the IPCC says is 1945 or 1950, and when I look at the anecdotal information of earlier times, there’s nothing that suggests to me that fears of CAGW are supported by evidence. So although we can’t falsify hypotheses because of too great complexity, we certainly can infer that nothing catastrophic is happening or looks likely to happen based on the instrumental and anecdotal climate record. There is not enough information to convict any of the prisoners!
We have 100 years or more of instrumental data and milllennia of anecdotal data about warm periods, little ice ages, growing seasons, etc.
———–
Yes, but the 100 years of data only covers about a quarter of the globe, if that, lacks the precision claimed, and has been heavily modified. In other words, scientifically, it is useless.
No one has to falsify CAGW. Reality has already done that for over thirty years.
You are correct though in your overall thought. We simply don’t know enough at this point. The sad thing is, rather than try to invest in equipment that would increase our understanding, the current mob in power is more interested in politics and revisionist history.
Thirty years is no where near long enough falsify hypotheses about climate because some of the known oscillations and cycles are a lot longer than 30 years. I truly wish we could use standard scientific method to falsify CAGW/AGW hypotheses, The complexity and the cycle/oscillation lengths make that more than problematic. The Hansen 1988 and IPCC 1990 models lack skill. Only based on the assumption Hansen and the IPCC stated, that natural variability could be treated as noise, can we falsify those hypotheses, but natural variability isn’t noise, so that leaves us with a wicked problem, doesn’t it?
The example from Germany is intresting: http://www.finadvice.ch/files/germany_lessonslearned_final_071014.pdf
For 420 billion USD spent on renewables, they have got: The most expensive electricity in Europe (3x US price), CO2 emission as high as year 2001, grid near collapse.
All pain, no gain.
German electricity is comparable to US at a wholesale level, although consumers do pay more to build out the new technologies. However, they’re enormously more efficient so the cost per user is similar. The grid itself has about 1/10 the number of breakdowns (in minutes per user) vs the US. The Energiewende is not without hiccups, but that’s inevitable when you’re creating the next generation of infrastructure, and it will pay off in the long run.
Odd that. You are assuming that the very energy policies that threaten the very closely controlled, highly socialized but densely populated and very civilized region in a small area of the world’s smallest and most densely civilized continent can be compared to the energy needs in the rest of the world.
80% of who fight daily problems of NOT being civilized = heat, light, power, electricity, clean water, sewage, commercial and private transportation, refrigeration, clean streets and clean animals and insulated houses and reliable roads, canals, and highways ….
So, across all of Africa, “you” are going to use Germany’s failing energy policies to supply an area 66 times larger with 10 times the number of people of Germany – NONE of whom have ANYTHING now?
You’re going to supply South America ( 50 times the area of Germany and 5 times the number of people) without the 120 kilometer cables connecting Sweden and Norway’s vast hydroelectric dams to the Germany’s wind mills? Next, you will claim that can be done by damning the Amazon, right?
And yet, Germany is your “ideal” …
But Germany gets 36% of its heat (natural gas and electricity) and 39% of its oil (transportation and shipping, food and farm production!) from the Soviet Union. The rest of the oil comes from the MidEast. Two phone calls and Germany is shutdown. It can run at 1850 levels.
You’re making my point for me. Of course Germany would want to reduce dependency on Russia, hence the Energiewende.
http://www.dw.de/german-electricity-price-is-half-taxes-and-fees/a-17849142 (bold added)
Wholesale prices are low, because of dumping of excess “green” electricity at dirt cheap prices, sold way below what it’d be worth if it came from a stable electricity source.
How can an industry be considered viable, when it survives on subsidies and is continually forced to sell below market rates because it can’t control rate and timing of production?
Storage. Maybe a decade away.
Former German Minister Of Economics Calls Energiewende “A Disaster”…”Careened Completely Out Of Control”
http://notrickszone.com/page/2/#sthash.iGUFVyVd.dpuf
While Germany benefits by its small size, the full consequences of Germany’s foray into renewable energy have yet to be realized.
Germany is indeed a prisoner of renewable energy!
If anyone had asked, how much CO2 is averted by building windfarms, or solar farms, the answer, because of the need for backup produced from fossil fuel generation running at less than optimum efficiency, would have been none, or almost none.
If anyone had asked, how much temperature increase will be averted by building windfarms or solar farms then (even assuming that CO2 drives temperatures which is looking less and less certain all the time), the answer would have been none, or almost none, because no or almost no CO2 emissions are curbed by the building of windfars/solar farms (because of the need for backup from fossil fuel generation running at less than optimum efficiency).
That is the problem for politicians; their ‘solution’ has not and cannot result in the meaningful reduction of CO2 emissions, and the politicians have failed to ask tghe basic questions of those pushing the green mantra.
Too bad the “Prisoner’s dilemma” as described is flawed.
Nah. They’ll get heavy sentences for refusing to admit guilt, refusing to cooperate with authorities, and lack of remorse.
Nah. Each are admitting they did it and the other guy did it too. They’re both cooperating, pleading guilty, thus lighter sentences than otherwise, unless what they did was really horrendous and depraved. Also both have to rat out the other at about the same time, ideally a joint confession, otherwise only one gets the points for most cooperative.
People here are failing to notice the current US Administration has envisioned the benefits of option 2, being first to confess. By taking the high road, on their high horse, they freely admit the failings of the US in stopping the obvious nigh-runaway greenhouse warming that the American people are subsequently primarily responsible for. Thus the US shall lead the way in seeking forgiveness for our carbon sins by reducing emissions and choosing energy austerity as we wait for Green Clean Free energy to undoubtedly fulfill its abundant promise.
Then the world will see the US as a reformed sinner, now as pure as the few remaining shards of Arctic sea ice, and will flock to the US as a preferred partner in commerce and diplomacy known for honesty and integrity, as opposed to THOSE DIRTY CRIMINALS who refuse to repent. Who’d want to deal with them, even if they are charging only half as much? There are more important things to businesses and governments than money!
A profound thought provoking post by Eric Worrall, wonderful stuff to stimulate us by.
A dilemma cannot be a false dichotomy. If it is then it isn’t a dilemma.
Is the Prisoner’s Dilemma a false dichotomy? Yes, there are very plausible other scenarios than those presented like a win at court, etc etc etc.
If you are looking for a dilemma (containing no false dichotomy) which might be useful to compare to the climate change cause’s view of our situation then I have a couple of suggestions:
– The Kobayashi Maru Starfleet Test (no win situation) Dilemma
– The Overcrowded Lifeboat Dilemma (Robert Heinlein’s (1907-1988) version is one of the best)
They are dilemmas.
Analysis of them against the climate change cause’s view of our situation reveals that our situation is not a dichotomy and not a dilemma. Our situation is just business as usual for applied reasoning toward normal wealth creating human action.
John
The benefit of “full steam ahead” is that it maximises the opportunity to innovate with new technology that reduces pollution, and sustains us all in the long run. The whole world and the environment benefits from these innovations.
This is one of the greatest fallacies of the debate. When you let the market take its natural course, new technologies emerge and are adopted based on their economic viability. When you pursue a “full steam ahead” aproach, what you are doing is forcing new technologies into the market on the basis of incentives, subsidies, regulations, and so on. This distorts the market and ensures that technologies that are NOT economical and beneficial are adopted in the short term. This in turn squeezes out the R&D in the real long term winners. If there are no artificial “full steam ahead” distortions of the market, innovators continue to research until they have something viable to bring to market. As soon as artificial constructs make a less than viable product profitable, the focus on R&D ceases and attention turns to production instead. The long term solutions that would otherwise have continued to be researched get shelved in favour of profits that can be had right now. When the ability to subsidize these artificial industries comes to an end, the industries collapse and we’re left with a pile of garbage instead of long term solutions based on sound economics. “Full Steam Ahead” is quite possibly the worst possible thing we could do for long term environmental stewardship.
Kadaka, wrong. totally wrong you have no understanding of the “Prisoners Dilemma” Both may be innocent. It is a test in ethics. Is it more natural for a human being to lie and betray the not. To do anything to save one’s own skin. The President of the United States sold out a nation that had the good graces and trust to elect him twice. Just so he could appear popular, Judas at least gone some silver out of his deal.
Sorry in a foul temper
michael
A few have mentioned it in this thread but none of the “dilemma” scenarios are correct regarding AGW because it’s not about temperature. It’s about wealth redistribution. It’s about punishing the industrialized countries for their sin of success. While we’re hell bent on proving AGW wrong they are continuing as usual. Articles like this….rarely printed but increasing…..are just being ignored by them. I think it’s time to gather our pitchforks and torches and march on the citadel (or something equally dramatic).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
To not do what is right because others aren’t is a terrible reason to not do something. If your reason is because you disagree with someone else that is one thing. What do we want to teach our kids? If it’s right to do but painful, don’t do it? It’s too soon to be that negative and no one should assume that not enough people would do the right thing for the environment if the occasion called for it. It is natural for a person to make choices and not everyone would choose to lie and betray others to save their own skin.
The problem Victoria is who is right? You believe you are. I believe I am. Both of us will act accordingly
michael
Markl, sorry the Dilemma is about human beings and how we act. Okay lets play the game. First our intrepid prisoners are accused of robbing banks. Now play the game with them being accused of of being members of the French underground 1944. What appears logical and intelligent in one case is monstrous and horrific in the other.
I dealt with this in College hated it then
still in a foul temper
smile
michael
Economics! Another worthless science! The real wealth of the world is not measured in money or jobs or growth. It is measured in food, products, energy and standard of living. It really is irrelevant which energy is used to power us all as long as whatever energy we choose is up to the task of providing all the energy we require. Wind and solar don’t appear to be up to the task yet, and that is the only reason why economies will suffer as a result of relying on them too much.
wickedwenchfan. Sigh, we call too many things a “Science”.
Economics is very important. Unfortunately, because it rhymes with comics, people have treated it thus.
All of the points you made are bedrock to any stable civilization and are the proper realm of Economics. People have to be able to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves, as well as provide a surplus for the common good, to build infrastructure, defenses, and expansions. I sometimes wonder if these people should be asked to play any of the “Civilization” type simulations, just to see how long they would last . I mean it is a Model. And if they would, it would be so much fun to watch a “play back” of the simulation.
When the world’s “economists” reject communism, reject Keynesian theory in total, accept capitalism and reject socialism and all of its lies, then they will be more than comics.
The prisoners dilemma tells me that we should use the Chinese as a shining example of what to do about climate change. Pretend to do something by agreeing to do nothing. Obama thought it was a pretty good deal and therefore should be pleased if Australia did the same. In fact every other country should adopt the Chinese approach and remain committed to increasing Co2 for 16 more years. By then the fraud of AGW will be exposed and we can carry on as if nothing happened at least until they roll out the next scare.
If only American policy was decided on the basis of “what’s best for the U.S.”.
Unfortunately, politics is all about winning elections and being in control of government. Statesmanship is about doing what’s best for the nation. Our Legislative and Administrative branches of government now appear to be inhabited almost exclusively by politicians.
Some politicians would rather be in control of a poorer and less economically competitive nation than let some other politicians control a richer and more competitive nation. Figuring out who those politicians are and voting them out of office is the citizen’s responsibility.
Pick your poison, citizens!
Defect is the winning strategy in this game and the CO2 game.
This game:
-Defect = 4 years average
-Cooperate = 10.5 years average
CO2 game:
-Defect = remain competitive glabally
-Cooperate = the opposite
The big IF in this equation is whether carbon dioxide has enough effect on climate that mitigation would be effective. The percentage is so small that any sacrifice would is swallowed up in natural variation. It is very much like spitting into the wind.
The prisoner’s dilemma is not relevant because there is no ‘crime’.
We don’t need to wait until the average global temperature trend is unequivocally down. Anyone with access to existing CO2 and temperature measurement data-sets can falsify the statement that CO2 causes significant warming.
If CO2 is a forcing, a scale factor times average CO2 level times the duration divided by the effective thermal capacitance (consistent units) equals the temperature change of the duration. During previous glaciations and interglacials (as so dramatically presented in An Inconvenient Truth) CO2 and temperature went up and down nearly together. This is impossible if CO2 is a significant forcing so this actually proves CO2 change does not cause significant temperature change.
See more on this and discover the two factors that do cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900) at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com . The two factors which explain the last 300+ years of climate change are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.
If CO2 is as dangerous as predicted it should be self regulating on the human infestation of the planet so we don’t have to worry. As the temps rise humans will decline and produce less CO2, thus reaching a livable equilibrium.
Agreed.
In case you haven’t been keeping up with the Green agenda…….that’s the plan.
Agreed
Why would Greens work to reduce CO2 if their plan is to reduce the human population through excess CO2?
Wrong question, SHF.
Greens use the idea of excess CO2 in order to implement their plan to reduce human population.
The whole plan to reduce carbon emissions stems from the UN/IMF/IPCC fairy-tale of man-made global warming (through carbon dioxide emissions = anthropogenic global warming, AGW for short) which is altering the Earth’s climate, no less, to near extinction if all that hype were true.
That man-made fairy-tale, however, is nothing but the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever.
In arriving at this opinion, I rely on two sources, described here: http://tinyurl.com/naexuho
The description of the prisoner’s dilemma problem in outcome 3 is incorrect, it should state that if both prisoners rat out each other, they both receive light sentences.
[No. Technically, both could only be “promised” lighter sentences. They might actually both be hung, drawn, and quartered, or both be set free, or both be burned alive. .mod]
Technically, they aren’t even at any risk since they are simple characters in a thought experiment, not real humans.
I think now that I’ve looked it back over, that the mistake may have been mine due to the semantic vagueness of the diagram: I mistook the sense of who was co-operating/defecting against whom.
But once I realized that, the text still appears incorrect: if the three outcomes are light, moderate and heavy, then statement 1 should be ‘light’, statement 2 should be ‘heavy’ and statement 3 should be ‘moderate’ to match the graphic:
6 months (or less – see below) = light
8 years = moderate
20 years = heavy
Also, the diagram has a fourth outcome, of a single defector going free and not receiving any sentence.
Or, the fourth outcome.
The guards lie. Both prisoners are killed, but only after confessing and informing on 4 other innocents who are then imprisoned and their estates and houses taken by the Government.
“Development Integration Of Renewable Energy: Lessons Learned From Germany” is a White Paper outlining the detrimental effect of Germany’s renewable energy policy on the wholesale electricity markets, and on the Germany’s Economy. The authors of this white paper state that they fully support renewables as a part of the overall power portfolio. All the authors have worked with both electric utilities and purely renewable companies. Some of them have 20+ years of experience in the power sector, and a couple have direct equity interests in renewable projects.
“Large penetration of renewable energy has not only translated into higher costs for the economy, it is also having profound effects on wholesale electricity markets that could ultimately result in a deterioration of the country’s reliability. Subsidized renewables have dispatch priority over thermal generators and come first in the market’s merit order, thus depressing wholesale prices to levels that are making thermal plants uneconomical. At the same time, increasing amounts of renewables require increasing amounts of back-up and balancing power that only thermal plants can provide. The implications of these developments for reliability are evident.” The problem is that prior to the introduction of utility scale renewables the wholesale market was orderly. The subsidized renewables impact on the wholesale market is destabilizing causing the thermal generators to become unprofitable and no longer viable. Ironically Utility Scale Renewables need the thermal producers to exist due to the intermittency of power production. ”
http://www.finadvice.ch/files/germany_lessonslearned_final_071014.pdf
I’m familiar with this narrative and credentials of the report writers notwithstanding, I would argue that there’s more to this story.
-Are renewables creating an unstable grid?Germany has one of the most stable grids in the world, about 10x more reliable than the US),
– Are renewables costing money because they require thermal backup? Alll grids require excess capacity, Since they must capable of supplying power at peak load, and during slow periods. Power plants aren’t cheap to build or run, so builders typically want guaranteed contracts to ensure they can always cover their fixed costs. That means that regardless of what type of generation is used, you’re always going to end up paying for more power than you need – it comes with the territory. Personally I’d advocate nuclear for backup, but that’s not the way they’ve decided to go.
That’s not to suggest the Energiewende doesn’t have problems. Of course it does, but that’s not surprising when you’re working out a new business model to deliver power to 80 million people. However, my money is on the Germans to make it work.
“However, my money is on the Germans to make it work.” Easy for you to say since it’s not your money they are spending and it’s not going to “work”. I don’t think the German people are willing to become energy victims or lower their standard of living to make a point.
In a survey taken this year, 88% of Germans agreed with the goals of the Energiewende, and 66% said they wanted it to move faster. Not sure who you’re speaking for. http://www.presseportal.de/pm/62786/2929231/trendmonitor-2015-deutsche-sehen-energiewende-in-gefahr