Obama acts to reverse Bush climate moves

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Waht you dont say here is that you would use cap n trade to run the
>prices up so hight . . .

No, we're talking about subsidies to support emerging technologies. The subsidies for solar-PV worked. Prices have gone from $10 a watt to $4 a watt to $2.50 a watt; a four fold decrease.

K, I grew up on a farm. My dad hated the subsidies but he had to take them because of the false market it created. Similar here I would think but I will defer to you cause I know little about that tech and market.

Query, are you for cap n trade?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

>Mix a little BS into your replies and you'll keep these guys going all day!

Naah. There's enough of that floating around.

Actually, I was talkin' about me.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[billvon 3,113]

>My dad hated the subsidies but he had to take them because of the false
> market it created. Similar here . . .

To me, the measure of the success of a subsidy intended to drive acceptance of new technology is twofold.

One, does it accomplish the goal of driving the new technology? And two, can you phase out the subsidy after a while and have the desired technology sustain itself economically? If the answer to both those questions is "yes" then it worked well.

>Query, are you for cap n trade?

Depends on what pollutant you apply it to.

For most pollutants, no. We should set a maximum level of pollutants per energy generated (for power plants) or at a given power level (for cars and trucks) and stick to that. No new source review loopholes, no grandfathering. Just one set of rules that everyone has to meet.

For CO2, I'd get rid of the "cap" part and just implement the "trade" part. Want to spend the money to build a solar plant? You get credit that you can sell to other people. Want to build the dirtiest legal coal plant to save money? You can do that, but expect to get taxed for the CO2 you emit. You can always buy the credits from the solar plant if you want.

This is effectively setting up a "false market" like the one you mention. It would join the market in CDSes and municipal funds as a market that's not based on anything but ideas - but when properly implemented, they can work well.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>My dad hated the subsidies but he had to take them because of the false
> market it created. Similar here . . .

To me, the measure of the success of a subsidy intended to drive acceptance of new technology is twofold.

One, does it accomplish the goal of driving the new technology? And two, can you phase out the subsidy after a while and have the desired technology sustain itself economically? If the answer to both those questions is "yes" then it worked well.

>Query, are you for cap n trade?

Depends on what pollutant you apply it to.

For most pollutants, no. We should set a maximum level of pollutants per energy generated (for power plants) or at a given power level (for cars and trucks) and stick to that. No new source review loopholes, no grandfathering. Just one set of rules that everyone has to meet.

For CO2, I'd get rid of the "cap" part and just implement the "trade" part. Want to spend the money to build a solar plant? You get credit that you can sell to other people. Want to build the dirtiest legal coal plant to save money? You can do that, but expect to get taxed for the CO2 you emit. You can always buy the credits from the solar plant if you want.

This is effectively setting up a "false market" like the one you mention. It would join the market in CDSes and municipal funds as a market that's not based on anything but ideas - but when properly implemented, they can work well.

All good points.. Unfortunalty farm subs still exist today in one form or another. That false market still is there. The alcohol market (which is now in trouble) also created a false pricing system that is hurting the farm economy right now to some extent.

I also have no problem with the limits and the "form "of offsets (if that is a proper term) to an extent. It does supply incentive to explore what is possible.
The company that I work for that is trying to build the coal fired plant is currently working with the DNR on finalizing the air quality permit. Bad news it is expesive to meet the requirements. Good news is the plans for this plant so far have exceeded what the DNR has proposed in the permit. This company also has huge investment (and it is growing) in wind in the area. Both in purchased power and are building their own farm starting this year. (some of this is political but it is what it is)

In principle you and I are not too far off. I guess it is eye opening once the topic heads the right direction for exchanges.

Thanks
Marc

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Killing off even half the phytoplankton would result in the death of most of the life on earth.

It seems we should give more consideration of carbon dioxide as an ocean pollutant:

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0921-oceans.html

http://courses.ma.org/sciences/dowen/StudentWork/Global_Warming/Ocean_Acid2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

The implications are shocking.

Bump - read what really matters fuckers, as in, what's above ya'

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Killing off even half the phytoplankton would result in the death of most of the life on earth.

It seems we should give more consideration of carbon dioxide as an ocean pollutant:

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0921-oceans.html

http://courses.ma.org/sciences/dowen/StudentWork/Global_Warming/Ocean_Acid2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

The implications are shocking.

Bump - read what really matters fuckers, as in, what's above ya'

Now thats asking nice. Read it yourself

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[vortexring 0]

I have! Amazing?

What's your opinion? What's your opinion on our acidification of the oceans?

Similiar to that of ancient peoples beliefs in fuckin' witches ya mong?
I see the contention with the atmos'; but the oceans?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Quote

>why would any Solar energy company bother to develop a cheaper
>product if the government will subsidize the purchase of one?

Because if you provide a good incentive (i.e. tax deductions for homeowners who purchase one) the cheapest supplier still wins out. This has in fact happened; solar prices are dropping fast now that the economies of scale have kicked in. This occurred because incentives (first here, then Japan and Germany) created an environment where companies were able to compete within a billion dollar market instead of a million dollar one - and thus they were more willing to invest a lot of money in factories.

>If I'm willing to spend $10K on a system, but the system costs $15K, I
>don't buy and the company that can sell at 10K stays in business.

No, because no one could make it at $10K when they are making only ten thousand panels a year. To sell the system for $10K they have to be able to build an automated factory that can make a million a year - and no one is ordering that many panels.

So what you do is have a short term subsidy that gives you that $5K in tax breaks. Now you buy that system for $15K since your cost is $10K. So does your neighbor. So does his friend.

Now the company is seeing a demand of a million panels a year. They install the new factory. Now they can make the systems for $10K a year. A smart subsidy (like the California one) will now start reducing the subsidy. Now it's $2K. Far smaller subsidy, but the system still costs you less (now it's $8K.)

Now Kyocera notices that market and says "you know, we could be making all that money." So they put in the factory as well and sell the system for $9K a year. Lower labor costs and all.

So now your other neighbor has a choice between the $10K system and the $9K system; he's still going to get $2K back.

Which one do you think the neighbor will buy?

Waht you dont say here is that you would use cap n trade to run the prices up so hight (artificailly I might add) to support a tech that is not yet there. A head of it time so to speak. To support your beliefs and screw up the free market.

For "free markets" to work, ALL costs have to be included. That includes the costs of sustainability and fixing environmental damage.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

What's your opinion? What's your opinion on our acidification of the oceans?

Well, it is most definately a threat and there seems to be some decisions that need to be made w/r/t new Iron fertilization experiments.

This new website promoting a film on the issue gives reference to the ban on iron fertilization in May 2008 by the UN's convention on Biological Diversity, unless conducted through small scale.

However, the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research and the National Institute of Oceanography in India are leading a large scale iron fertilization expermiment.

"Alarmed environmentalists, led by the Canada-based ETC Group, urged Germany's Environment Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, to stop the experiment. The German government suspended it while legal and environmental reviews were carried out, and the scientists expect to hear the result early this week."

Dr Richard Lampitt of the University of Southampton's National Oceanography Centre. . . says: "We desperately need to make this sort of experiment if we are going to make rational decisions in the future."

A Sea Change-Main website

A Sea Change-Film Trailer

I still have much to learn on this subject, but it's got my attention.

I have decided that I will no longer release flatus while swimming in the depths...every little effort will help.

Also, there is an enviornmental film festival approaching and I've been looking for some good issues to promote....this looks like it could be one of them.

thanks for the links....

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[434 2]

A new scientific study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reaches a powerful conclusion about the climate change caused by future increases of carbon dioxide: to a large extent, there’s no going back.

The pioneering study, led by NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon, shows how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are completely stopped. The findings appear during the week of January 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html


http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-warming27-2009jan27,0,7387230.story

Number 1 We have to change our living!
Number 2 We are to many people on the planet!
Number 3 We can continue knowing we did nothing to stop it!

[mnealtx 0]

So when are you quitting skydiving, then?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[434 2]

I quit in 95 :-) only 50 jumps to start wingsuiting for base!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>why would any Solar energy company bother to develop a cheaper
>product if the government will subsidize the purchase of one?

Because if you provide a good incentive (i.e. tax deductions for homeowners who purchase one) the cheapest supplier still wins out. This has in fact happened; solar prices are dropping fast now that the economies of scale have kicked in. This occurred because incentives (first here, then Japan and Germany) created an environment where companies were able to compete within a billion dollar market instead of a million dollar one - and thus they were more willing to invest a lot of money in factories.

>If I'm willing to spend $10K on a system, but the system costs $15K, I
>don't buy and the company that can sell at 10K stays in business.

No, because no one could make it at $10K when they are making only ten thousand panels a year. To sell the system for $10K they have to be able to build an automated factory that can make a million a year - and no one is ordering that many panels.

So what you do is have a short term subsidy that gives you that $5K in tax breaks. Now you buy that system for $15K since your cost is $10K. So does your neighbor. So does his friend.

Now the company is seeing a demand of a million panels a year. They install the new factory. Now they can make the systems for $10K a year. A smart subsidy (like the California one) will now start reducing the subsidy. Now it's $2K. Far smaller subsidy, but the system still costs you less (now it's $8K.)

Now Kyocera notices that market and says "you know, we could be making all that money." So they put in the factory as well and sell the system for $9K a year. Lower labor costs and all.

So now your other neighbor has a choice between the $10K system and the $9K system; he's still going to get $2K back.

Which one do you think the neighbor will buy?

Waht you dont say here is that you would use cap n trade to run the prices up so hight (artificailly I might add) to support a tech that is not yet there. A head of it time so to speak. To support your beliefs and screw up the free market.

For "free markets" to work, ALL costs have to be included. That includes the costs of sustainability and fixing environmental damage.

And you are making assumptions with which I do not agree and you cant prove.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

A new scientific study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reaches a powerful conclusion about the climate change caused by future increases of carbon dioxide: to a large extent, there’s no going back.

The pioneering study, led by NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon, shows how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are completely stopped. The findings appear during the week of January 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html


http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-warming27-2009jan27,0,7387230.story

Number 1 We have to change our living!You want eveyone else to change
Number 2 We are to many people on the planet! You goning to pick who needs to go?
Number 3 We can continue knowing we did nothing to stop it!

Stop what? As of yet nothing has been proven

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I quit in 95 :-) only 50 jumps to start wingsuiting for base!

Still takes energy to make all those man made fibers

AND fossil fuels

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[434 2]

Quote

Quote

Number 1 We have to change our living!You want eveyone else to change
Number 2 We are to many people on the planet! You goning to pick who needs to go?
Number 3 We can continue knowing we did nothing to stop it!

Stop what? As of yet nothing has been proven

1. We have to change as human beings, taking new values for our selves and the ones who coming after us!

2. We do not need to pick, what we need to do is stopping religion/guilt to make decisions for people. Stop the demand for continuous growth which include continue populate the earth! Also stop populating areas, where there is no living close resources. Places you have to give emergency aid until next crises appear! Birth control, education, packages which make them take other choices, than populate the world when they are not able to take care or survive by them selves! There is no human right to have babies borned in to poverty and misery!

3. What proof do you need? We are POLLUTING the earth! We are DESTROYING the earth. I dont understand what prove you are looking for? We are messing up the earths balance!

If China did not have one child policy? How would china be today?

UNICEF estimates that more than 950 million people now suffer from a lack of food – 100 million more than the previous year. Higher food prices exacerbate other problems that children face, such as increasing their exposure to disease and forcing families to take extreme measures like sending children out to work or having them marry young.

“It is creating a new level of vulnerability for children,” Mr. Arsenault said.

http://www.unicef.org/har/index_47517.html

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Number 1 We have to change our living!You want eveyone else to change
Number 2 We are to many people on the planet! You goning to pick who needs to go?
Number 3 We can continue knowing we did nothing to stop it!

Stop what? As of yet nothing has been proven

1. We have to change as human beings, taking new values for our selves and the ones who coming after us!

2. We do not need to pick, what we need to do is stopping religion/guilt to make decisions for people. Stop the demand for continuous growth which include continue populate the earth! Also stop populating areas, where there is no living close resources, with emergency aid until next crises appear! Birth control, education, packages which make the take other choices than populate the world when they are not able to take or survive by them selves! There is no human right to have babies borned in to poverty and misery!

3. What proof do you need? We are POLLUTING the earth! We are DESTROYING the earth. I dont understand what prove you are looking for? We are messing up the earths balance!

If China did not have one child policy? How would china been today?

UNICEF estimates that more than 950 million people now suffer from a lack of food – 100 million more than the previous year. Higher food prices exacerbate other problems that children face, such as increasing their exposure to disease and forcing families to take extreme measures like sending children out to work or having them marry young.

“It is creating a new level of vulnerability for children,” Mr. Arsenault said.

http://www.unicef.org/har/index_47517.html

Sorry, but we are not destroying the earth. My opinion. You have yours.

We may destroy ourselves but this planet will go on long after us.

I really believe attitudes like yours are born by our school playing the Captian Planet shows for kids too much.

That said, the US is cleaner today than it was 40 years ago. I do not want my kids and grand kids to die from lung cancer and open wounds from poluted soils. But, attitudes that are as extreem as yours (again, IMO) are as danerous as polution

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[434 2]

And where is all your stuff you consume produced now? Sure USA is cleaner!

Goods and products are sent 2-3 times around the world from parts to complete assembled product? Understand how it is getting cheaper? EC make us fish the fish, send it to China for packing, and next to send it back? This is only one simple example!

I have no idea what captain game you are talking about.

You are right, the earth will continue for a long time even after humans have left the earth!

[billvon 3,113]

>For "free markets" to work, ALL costs have to be included.

Agreed, and that's something that is often missing from cost discussions. Many places (like Harriman, TN and Donora, PA) are learning this the hard way. We'd be better off if we included these costs up front, where people could make a more informed decision on the costs of various types of energy.

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

3. What proof do you need? We are POLLUTING the earth! We are DESTROYING the earth. I dont understand what prove you are looking for? We are messing up the earths balance!

I have asked it repeatedly and never once seen an answer to that question.

Sure, i'll ask again. This time more specifically than ever so they can't hedge and insist they answered it.

Rush and other anti-change advocates (on the issue of global warming and the environment, i mean), please, tell us a specific scientific experiment that would prove to you that yes, it is worth it and necessary to change NOW. Oh hell, it doesn't even have to prove it to you, it just would have make you think twice. Design an experiment for us that you would see done and tell us what results would make you rethink your "position" on this issue. You say nothing has been proven. Step up. propose something that WOULD prove it, in your mind.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>So what you do is have a short term subsidy that gives you that $5K in tax breaks. Now you buy that system for $15K since your cost is $10K. So does your neighbor. So does his friend.

Ok, now you and your two neighbors just took $15K from "people you don't know". Nice job.

The subsidies don't appear by magic - the net result is you are forcing others to pay for your system. Good intentions (or not) and all.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,113]

>Ok, now you and your two neighbors just took $15K from "people you don't
>know". Nice job.

Yep. And they'll take it back from me when they send their kids to school, or when they get a job at the DMV. We're all in this together.

>The subsidies don't appear by magic - the net result is you are forcing others
>to pay for your system.

Correct. Any subsidy, whether it is a tax break for solar, a tax break for mortgage interest, free medical care for veterans, free ATC support for your flight or deductions for kids are "forcing" others to pay to drive behavior the government considers good or fair.

[rehmwa 2]

I know you think it would be so much easier if the government just took it all and spent it for us. I know you trust them completely. I'm a bit skeptical.

I'm glad you got your system at the expense of others that then had to wait to afford their own.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

3. What proof do you need? We are POLLUTING the earth! We are DESTROYING the earth. I dont understand what prove you are looking for? We are messing up the earths balance!

I have asked it repeatedly and never once seen an answer to that question.

Sure, i'll ask again. This time more specifically than ever so they can't hedge and insist they answered it.

Rush and other anti-change advocates (on the issue of global warming and the environment, i mean), please, tell us a specific scientific experiment that would prove to you that yes, it is worth it and necessary to change NOW. Oh hell, it doesn't even have to prove it to you, it just would have make you think twice. Design an experiment for us that you would see done and tell us what results would make you rethink your "position" on this issue. You say nothing has been proven. Step up. propose something that WOULD prove it, in your mind.

YOU are the one making an assurtion that we are destroying the planet. YOU are the one saying we shoud change to live the way you think we should all live. Therefore, it is up to YOU to prove it. Not anybody else

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,113]

>I know you think it would be so much easier if the government just took it
>all and spent it for us.

And I know you'd prefer we not have a military, a government, roads, bridges, water systems, sewers or police. But the world is an unfair place, and sometimes you get things you didn't pay for (exclusively.)

>I'm glad you got your system at the expense of others that then had to wait
>to afford their own.

And I'm glad you got your roads at the expense of people who don't use them, and your ATC services at the expense of people who don't fly or skydive.