1. 

I'm all for small government socialism.

But putting all seriousness aside, we already live in combination of the two with plenty of compromise. And the balance of course swings depending on who the people elect to govern. What I can't understand is how anybody in their right mind can think making the government bigger and/or with more power is a good thing.

If you look at some of the big industries right now, one is doing particularly well and has been for many years (well except for a stock bubble in 2000). Yes, that's the technology industry. And that's an industry that has seen the least amount of government intrusion.

And just to throw a final curve ball, I'd like to see a little more regulation (in Canada at least) in the technology industry since I believe, at least in the case of cellular providers, there is a lack of competition due to the big boys playing hardball.

Edit: Oops, I see I didn't even answer your actual title question.

If renewable or low to non-carbon energy was technologically competitive, then with capitalism all we'd have to do is sit back and watch the solar and wind farms grow.

If renewable or low to non-carbon energy was not ready for prime time, then socialism could step in to bring forth policies without regard for cost or unintended consequences since it would be a non-starter in a free market situation.

Has socialism ever solved any problem? What good has socialism ever done for mankind other than the Autobahn and the Volkswagen? It has created more misery and deaths than any other form of government. In the US the installing of socialistic ideas has eroded the original Constitution into non-effectualness. Its ideas are soothing for lame brained idiots who don't have any idea of how things actually work.

As to socialism's effectualness of solving AGW, AGW is only a tool to get to socialism or an other form of tyranny. AGW is not real because mankind does not have the power to alter Earth's atmosphere enough to amount to a hill of beans. So as regarding if either one can solve a non-existent problem, well I would say niether form of government can solve a scam.

We currently have a mix of both, and how well is it working? That being said, I agree with you for the most part. In fact my nuclear plan is a mix of both. This is not the reason I do not like the plans of the warmers, specifically the cap and trade and other taxation plans.

Why I do not like them is because they give no specifics on how much the costs will be to the people nor the timeframe to see real reductions. They are also going to be generally ineffective in the world market because they do not bring down the cost of "clean" power, but instead artificially increase the cost of "dirty" power. Because this is an artificial raising of the cost in the US, the overall effect for the rest of the world market will be a lowering (less demand = lower prices). The end result is that any country that does not wish to tax themselves and artificially increase the cost of their "dirty" energy will be able to get the "dirty" energy at a lower price.

The end result of this, would be neutral. The same cannot be said for my plan. The nuclear power as a replacement would still have the effect of lowering demand in the worldwide market, but because it would lower CO2 emission in the US faster. Plus the technology expenditures, I have talked about would be geared towards lowering the costs of clean energy, thereby providing a methodology for other countries to follow.

There is more lying and denial under pure socialism. Capitalists tend to be more practical, and there is nothing practical about going on science-hating crusades to deny reality.

Beyond that, however, the obstacles to doing something significant to reduce global warming have mainly to do with intergenerational equity and the free-rider problem. Neither socialism nor capitalism has been of much use in those two areas.

As for compromise, it all depends on what is being compromised.

Half-worshipping ignorance, half-lying about science, half-sabotaging education, is NOT better than no pandering to ignorant science-hating deception and disruption.

Socialism. When workers are given the power to control their workplace, they become much more reluctant to pollute their communities with poor business practices.

Your question reminds me of a recent war. Which would be better, a rampant Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction or a subdued Iraq?

The problem is that both questions beg another. In the case of Iraq the question was, did they actually have any WMDs? It seems we assumed the answer was Yes and killed over 100,000 in the name of the precautionary principle.

Neither one will inherently reduce global warming. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will reduce global warming, no matter how that is achieved.

Personally I would prefer a capitalist solution.

Neither.

What human do or don't do has no effect on the weather.

But there's more to it than just that.

There's a spectrum from complete, unfettered capitalism, to complete controlled socialism.

And a blend of both, sometimes favoring one or the other more.

Why do people think we must have one or the other extreme?

Wouldn't a compromise be better?

In most political situations, wouldn't a compromise be better?

capitalism because they care more about the environment

socialism and I think there have no enough scope to reduce global warming more.

a mix of both would solve the problem the fastest.

The sun gets hotter everyday it shines....how is either going to stop that?

Your question presupposes that human activity is capable of influencing "global warming" (which, in point of fact, has been on hiatus for the last 18 years) in the first place.

Socialism would reduce CO2 emissions more, as it is more associated with poverty.

Environmentalism is socialism with a better wrapping.

Neither. Monarchy or Nazism are BEST. Capitalism is worst. Socialism is somewhat better.

Neither You would have to Shut down everything and go back to being Hunters again .

Stop firing Scientists who have honor and not been "bought". They have proven that the Global Warming claim is bogus.

I believe it is already too late.