«

»

What is the energy policy of this administration?

I have been wasting my time trying to have an argument with CM about the Obama administration’s energy policy on the “If you still think they are not hostile to modernity” post I made a few days ago. CM is avidly telling me that not only am I an evil liar for saying that the primary focus of the Obama Administration energy policy was the control of CO2 emissions – Cap and Trade/Tax wasn’t about getting more energy, but by controlling access to it through taxation and higher prices, and the only reason this disaster of a policy didn’t get passed was that the donkeys sunk all their energy into something much worse, Obamacare, and then didn’t have any juice left to push this disaster of a bill – which indubitably means higher energy prices, but that Obama and his people are engaged in “very sensible” energy policies. Well, I guess this is what “sensible policies” look like:

Utility giant American Electric Power said Thursday that it will shut down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions of dollars to comply with a series of pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations. The company’s dramatic plan to comply with the regulations could give Republicans and moderate Democrats ammunition in their ongoing fight against EPA’s efforts to impose new regulations aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants including mercury and arsenic.

Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) immediately pounced on AEP’s announcement. “This is a perfect example of the EPA implementing rules and regulations without considering the devastating impact they may have on local economies and jobs,” Capito said. Capito said she will write a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking whether the agency took into account the economic impact of its regulations. “Let me be clear, it’s decisions like the one made by AEP today that demonstrate the urgent need to rein in government agencies like the EPA, preventing them from overstepping their bounds and imposing regulations that not only cost us good American jobs, but hurt our economy,” said Manchin, an outspoken critic of the EPA.

But EPA defended its regulations Thursday, noting that the agency has worked closely with industry to ensure that its regulations are “reasonable, common-sense and achievable.”

Sounds like the EPA and CM are reading from the same script here. Of course, CM will accuse me of being emotional while dismissing the fact that the Obama Administration is hostile to energy production simply as my opinion. Examples like this, or even Obama’s own words, be damned. Anyway, why is the EPA claiming it’s doing this in what amounts to the worst economy since the great depression? Well:

The agency also stressed that the regulations are essential for protecting public health. “These reasonable steps taken under the Clean Air Act will reduce harmful air pollution, including mercury, arsenic and other toxic pollution, and as a result protect our families, particularly children,” EPA said in a statement.

Cool, they are looking after our health! And the fact that electricity they are now going to take offline is critical for a modern society where we have all these other things that can help our health? I am certain they have some plan to close that gap without costing us all some serious moolah?

In a statement outlining its plan to comply with EPA’s regulations, AEP said it would need to retire 6,000 megawatts of coal-fired power generation in the coming years. The company, one of the country’s largest electric utilities, estimated that it will cost between $6 billion and $8 billion in capital investments over the next decade to comply with the regulations in their current form. The costs of complying with the regulations will result in an increase in electricity prices of 10 to 35 percent and cost 600 jobs, AEP said.

Hmmm. Less energy gets produced, to keep Gaia clean, and the energy that does get created is going to cost more? Wait a second. Isn’t that exactly what I said the Obama Administration’s policy is? Whether it is the intended one or not, the fact remains that the agenda of these people is costing us more, and is going to cost us all a lot more, while making the available energy pool smaller and harder to get at. Not my words, but Obama’s own:

Get that?

In total, AEP estimated it will have to close five coal-fired power plants by the end of 2014. Six additional plants would see major changes, including retiring some generating units, retrofitting equipment and switching to natural gas.

“We support regulations that achieve long-term environmental benefits while protecting customers, the economy and the reliability of the electric grid, but the cumulative impacts of the EPA’s current regulatory path have been vastly underestimated, particularly in Midwest states dependent on coal to fuel their economies,” AEP CEO Michael Morris said in a statement.

And this agencey, the EPA, is doing this without congressiona approval, since congress refused to pass these things the Obama Administartion asked for as low. Sensible policy indeed!

UPDATE: Obama’s old hometown paper, the Chicago Tribune, now pointing out that government’s current energy agenda will drastically raise electricity prices

Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years. The reason: Pending environmental regulations will make coal-fired generating plants, which produce about half the nation’s electricity, more expensive to operate. Many are expected to be shuttered.

The increases are expected to begin to appear in 2014, and policymakers already are scrambling to find cheap and reliable alternative power sources. If they are unsuccessful, consumers can expect further increases as more expensive forms of generation take on a greater share of the electricity load.

“Each generator will have to decide for itself whether the investment required to meet environmental requirements can be justified based on its projection of market prices and the cost of its capital. In any case, those costs will be passed through to consumers,” said Mark Pruitt, director of the Illinois Power Agency, which procures electricity for Illinois.

This administration’s policies are hostile to energy generation. We are going to pay more for it and have less of it too. That’s the end game.

82 comments

No ping yet

  1. bgeek says:

    It’s time for the states to just say FuckYalls and produce the power to meet demand. Wishful thinking.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  2. CM says:

    I have been wasting my time trying to have an argument with CM about the Obama administration’s energy policy on the “If you still think they are not hostile to modernity” post I made a few days ago. CM is avidly telling me that not only am I an evil liar for saying that the primary focus of the Obama Administration energy policy was the control of CO2 emissions – Cap and Trade/Tax wasn’t about getting more energy, but by controlling access to it through taxation and higher prices, and the only reason this disaster of a policy didn’t get passed was that the donkeys sunk all their energy into something much worse, Obamacare, and then didn’t have any juice left to push this disaster of a bill – which indubitably means higher energy prices, but that Obama and his people are engaged in “very sensible” energy policies.

    That’s one hell of a sentence! Quality trolling though, even loserlame would be impressed by that degree of leg-humping.
    I’m struggling to see how you could have misrepresented that thread any further. What it came down to in the end is that you failed to even read the source document upon which you based your narrative. If I was to give you the benefit of the doubt, I’d say you read it but didn’t understand it. But I think that’s unlikely.
    Anyway:
    (1) Never said or implied you were evil, or anything like it.
    (2) Never said or implied you were a liar, or anything like it.
    (3) I have no doubt that the Obama Administration is wanting to encourage alternative sustainable energy. Like pretty much every other nation in the world. That doesn’t mean every single decision they make is anti-oil (e.g. he’s invaded Libya to steal their oil, apparently)
    (4) Cap and Trade was about pricing the negative externalities inherent in pumping carbon into the the atmosphere. It’s an attempt to correct an obvious market failure.
    (5) Why are sustainable energy policies “hostile to modernity”? What is “modern” about relying so heavily on a non-renewable energy resource?
    (6) Do you get all your information from The Hill blog? Do you simply take as gospel what an energy company says, and take for granted that anything coming out of the Obama Administration, or the EPA, is 100% wrong? How on earth do you expect to reach any sort of objective conclusions doing that?

    I do agree that he blew his wad on Obamacare, and didn’t have sufficient political capital to also push Cap and Trade through. Personally, I would have much preferred that he’s shot his load with Cap and Trade.

    As for your video, that’s obviously ridiculous blaming Obama for current gas prices. Gas prices are high everywhere because the cost of crude is high. Honestly, who do you (and they) think they are kidding? People in comas?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  3. CM says:

    My bet is that this is AEP taking workers hostage to stop pollution controls. They’re making the same tired arguments used by polluters over the past 40 years to frighten legislators into opposing pollution safeguards

    What their ‘decision’ means is that they’d rather close 21 coal fired electricity units rather than make investments to reduce their toxic air pollution under the forthcoming EPA reduction requirements. So this is their threat, in order to get as much Congressional opposition to EPA’s efforts to reduce toxic air pollution from coal fired power plants as possible. So far, it sounds like several legislators have already risen to the bait.
    Yeah, shame on the EPA for attempting to protect people from cancer-causing air pollution.

    AEP would prefer to shut these plants because it claims that the cost of reducing the arsenic, lead, mercury, acid gases and other toxic pollutants are prohibitive. What AEP did not say is that the cost of cleanup is too much because these units are very old – 50 years old on average. One of the units was built during World War II, and the newest one was completed during the Carter Administration. Most of the other units were built in the 1950’s.

    And of course their announcement is also somewhat misleading because they had apparently already planned to close 5 units at the Phillip Sporn Plant in New Haven, West Virginia.

    In October 2010, Ohio Power Co. filed an application with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio for the approval of a December 2010 closure of the coal-fired Philip Sporn Power Plant unit 5…In September 2009, Appalachian Power filed an integrated resource plan (IRP) in Virginia that projected a 2010 shutdown for Sporn unit 5. The same IRP projected that Sporn units 1-4, with 580 MW of total capacity, would be retired in 2018.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_Sporn_Power_Plant

    In other words, they planned to close this plant five months before the EPA proposed toxic air pollution reduction requirements kicked in for coal fired utilities. Nice.

    These plants emit mercury, a recognized neurotoxin which causes severe developmental disabilities, deafness, and blindness in cases of prenatal and infant exposure. The chemical can also lower fertility rates and raise chances of heart disease in adults. And then there is all the arsenic. And lead. And acid gases.

    http://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/coal-fired-plant-hazards.pdf

    AEP even acknowledges that “jobs would be created from the installation of emissions reduction equipment.” In other words, the reduction to toxic air pollution will drive capital investment in aging power plants, which will create jobs.

    This has been borne out by an analysis by University of Massachusetts of the net job impact of the air transport and utility air toxics rules. It found that there would be significant “construction, installation, & professional job gains over 5 years” from capital expenditures to reduce these pollutants. In addition, most of the AEP affected states would experience a net increase in operation and maintenance jobs too.

    http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/new-jobs-cleaner-air

    Sure, there will certainly be some job transitions, but there is no reason why the workers affected by this shouldn’t receive assistance with job placement, retraining, and education.

    Twenty years ago the utility industry predicted that reducing acid rain pollution would spark horrific rate increases. In fact, utility rates were lower in most states in 2006 compared to 1989. Acid rain polluters also predicted huge job losses that didn’t occur either. And the cost of cutting acid rain pollution was one-quarter of EPA’s prediction.

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/04/electricity_rate.html
    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/02/crystal_ball.html

    Anyway, other major utility companies (including Exelon, the largest) are on record saying that the air toxics reductions from coal fired utilities plants are affordable, and will have little impact on reliability. CEO’s from over half a dozen wrote in the Wall St. Journal:

    For over a decade, companies have recognized that the industry would need to install controls to comply with the act’s air toxicity requirements, and the technology exists to cost effectively control such emissions, including mercury and acid gases.

    To suggest that plants are retiring because of the EPA’s regulations fails to recognize that lower power prices and depressed demand are the primary retirement drivers. The units retiring are generally small, old and inefficient. These retirements are long overdue.

    Contrary to the claims that the EPA’s agenda will have negative economic consequences, our companies’ experience complying with air quality regulations demonstrates that regulations can yield important economic benefits, including job creation, while maintaining reliability.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653040755204932.html

    So yeah, it might be that AEP is holding its employees hostage in order to continue polluting. AEP’s plans are an economic kidnap note that reads: “let me keep poisoning our air and water if you ever want to see these workers jobs again.” The ransom AEP demands is continued mercury, arsenic and other cancer-causing pollution.

    But, sure, why not defend deadly toxic air pollution from coal fired power plants. it’s what your ideological handbook tells you to do. So really, you have no choice.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  4. balthazar says:

    I do agree that he blew his wad on Obamacare, and didn’t have sufficient political capital to also push Cap and Trade through. Personally, I would have much preferred that he’s shot his load with Cap and Trade.

    Wow really? Do you really not know what that sort of policy has done to Spain? Take a look sometime then get back to us. If your looking for something that will totally destroy the US economy, thats it, Obamacare just put a drag on it. A severe drag, but a drag none the less.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  5. Kimpost says:

    You are right of course, CM. This is the AEP using the moment to push their agenda. EPA regulations are science based. Rejecting their recommendations, or de-funding them, is anti-science, which of course is why various health organisations are urging Boehner not to push for EPA policy riders.

    Many here might not trust that the EPA isn’t influenced by political interests. That’s fine, but why on earth would anyone go from there, to trusting AEP on a matter like this? That’s just bizarre. This isn’t just about global warming either. This is about pollution. About spouting carcinogens into air and water.

    Further more, this is a planned move to stop old and dirty plants. It’s been in the makings for 20 some years now.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  6. loserlame says:

    7) Alex never mentions me anywhere, or anything, so why bring me up? Maybe I should insert Euros into the discussion?
    They tell me that the US produces well over 90% of the evil (their term) CO2 wordlwide, for profit, that we’re in Israels pocket, and that they’re earning big, financng wars abroad for oil and profit . Thats how a pretty generic energy discussion unfolds on the Internets.

    (3) I have no doubt that the Obama Administration is wanting to encourage alternative sustainable energy. Like pretty much every other nation in the world. That doesn’t mean every single decision they make is anti-oil (e.g. he’s invaded Libya to steal their oil, apparently)

    So what the effing hell could possibly be taking the rest of the goddam pious world so goddam long to finally develop and implement alternative energy? See above.

    I can only conclude that the US won’t offer free health care because it knows how much its polluting the earth and people, and can’t possibly afford the doctor bills it causes.

    Most every modern malady is caused and sustained by global warming

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  7. AlexInCT says:

    You are right of course, CM. This is the AEP using the moment to push their agenda. EPA regulations are science based.

    Oh, my Kimpost I see you are here to defend your sidekick. Thanks for that laugh. I was sure your kind, just like the idiots in the USSR did when it came to communism, believes that what benefit’s the progressive ideology is the only “real science”, but it is nice to have you validate that for me yet again.

    Here is a fact: if what the EPA is doing is based on real science, then why is the AGW cult so desperate to hide their “real science”, and busy demonizing anyone pointing out their “real science” smacks of witchcraft? I mean, as an engineer, I was always thought that real science wasn’t based on either consensus or politics, but on the ability to check the work of those making claims, thoroughly, then the replicate their work with the same result. I have heard the AGW circle jerk claim they do that all the time, and then demonize anyone that has said they couldn’t. In fact, until they had they system hacked and the massive chicanery exposed, they refused to let anyone but true believers even near their work.

    And here is another even more important tidbit for you. The EPA doesn’t have the authority to enact any legal or regulatory measures not passed by congress in the US. They are not allowed to do what they are doing. In fact, that the Obama administration simply avoided the fact congress denied the EPA the law they asked to do this smacks of fascism. And spare me the “they are doing it for our good” argument. It reeks of the same bullshit a pedophile tells the child he rapes.

    At least neither you nor that idiot CM are any longer pretending to argue this subject in good faith after you have revealed the real agenda behind your defense of the indefensible is to push the AGW cult’s agenda.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  8. AlexInCT says:

    So what the effing hell could possibly be taking the rest of the goddam pious world so goddam long to finally develop and implement alternative energy? See above.

    I second this qestion by loserlame. Can you please amplify CM? Or are you going to ignore it to?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  9. loserlame says:

    June 28, 2006
    The United States has five percent of the world’s population and 30 percent of the world’s automobiles, but the country contributes 45 percent of the world’s automotive emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, according to a report released today by the advocacy group Environmental Defense.
    The report says gas-guzzling SUVs will soon be the main source of CO2 emissions from U.S. autos, because in 2002 they overtook small cars in market share.

    Sure enough, all we have is SUVs, anymore. They suck gas like theres no tomorrow. Some newer models get only 30 mpg highway. And they’re all American made. I’ll just bet, without even looking, that non-domestic SUVs get 40+, and yer average non-domestic coupes, enjoyed the world over, surely do 60 mpg plus?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  10. Kimpost says:

    I know, I know. I want to turn the entire world into a socialist paradise. I’m showing that with my elitist environmental concerns, based on nothing but pseudo-science. Common Sense Science (CSS), as practised by you, suggests that pollution is easily solved by building higher chimneys. Other scientists might disagree, but that’s mainly because they have an agenda (forming a new world order, control, socialism, caliphate).

    .

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  11. loserlame says:

    http://www.grist.org/list/2011-04-18-physics-breakthrough-could-mean-solar-panels-made-of-nothing-but

    Exploiting an effect previously thought too small to be worth anyone’s time, a bunch of researchers at the University of Michigan have figured out how to exploit the magnetic properties of light in a way that could ultimately lead to solar panels made entirely of glass or transparent ceramics.

    Total irony: Michigan is where US makes it SUVs.

    “We’ve all been taught that this doesn’t happen,” professor Stephen Rand told Michigan Today. “It’s a very odd interaction. That’s why it’s been overlooked for more than 100 years.”

    Whats the hangup? Cost. Scientifically proven lack of earnings potential.

    Ultimately they’re predicting that up to 10 percent of the energy of incoming light could be converted into electricity. That’s about as good as a ho-hum conventional solar panel, so in order for this discovery to be meaningful for the power generating industry, it will have to represent significantly less cost than conventional solar PV.

    Lastly, until these panels can be made with biodegradable materials, such as hemp, they’re simply just another carcinogen

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  12. AlexInCT says:

    (1) Never said or implied you were evil, or anything like it.

    No CM, just that I lie to promote the evil agenda then?

    (2) Never said or implied you were a liar, or anything like it.

    Well, you didn’t come right out and do so, but you over and over take the facts I bring up and try to convince anyone that is able to read through your screeds that they are just opinions, and bad ones at that, which for all intents and purposes means you are saying I am lying.

    3) I have no doubt that the Obama Administration is wanting to encourage alternative sustainable energy. Like pretty much every other nation in the world. That doesn’t mean every single decision they make is anti-oil (e.g. he’s invaded Libya to steal their oil, apparently)

    Thanks for your honesty, if a bit late. So, at least we are finally able to see you’re your beef with this all is after you admit that I was right when I pointed out that the top priority of the Obama administration, IS and remains, to follow the AGW cult’s war on CO2, because it is the worst evil inflicted on mankind, and that governments need to by necessity control access to energy for the serfs, through taxation and wealth redistribution & a one world government, so Gaia can survive. Next, I am sure we will get the population control scams, Gaia is being burdened by all those parasite humans after all, but we can save that argument for another time.

    (4) Cap and Trade was about pricing the negative externalities inherent in pumping carbon into the the atmosphere. It’s an attempt to correct an obvious market failure.

    “Cap and Tax” was about government yet again using a false crisis to drastically increase its control of access to energy, use that money it ripped off the productive sector to grow the already behemoth-like government and make it even larger, while pretending to be doing wealth redistribution where a good chunk of the money stayed with the elite to pay their lifestyles, with negligible impacts on anything environmental. But you can pretend otherwise. Want proof? Tell me how well Kyoto or such other sham acts worked for those that followed along? After all. Kyoto’s purpose, just like the current green agenda, is to control, if not outright destroy, the industrial advantage & the economy of the United States.

    (5) Why are sustainable energy policies “hostile to modernity”? What is “modern” about relying so heavily on a non-renewable energy resource?

    Because these ‘sustainable energy policies” are nothing if unsustainable? Modern societies need cheap and massive energy resources. I can just point out how the Gaia worshippers are absolutely and totally hostile only viable form of non CO2 producing energy production that could meet the existing rising demand – nuclear energy. If the crisis was that big, wouldn’t nukes be popping up everywhere? And spare me the bullshit about how dangerous it is. In fact, more people have died in cars driven by the Kennedys, at the BP oil rig explosion, and in the earthquake that caused the disaster itself, than because of the Fukushima multi-reactor meltdown which is considered as a massive disaster as a can be.

    And I am frightened about what remains unsaid when the insane enviros mention “sustainable energy policies”, in a world where the population is growing fast and everyone wants to be modern. What the insane eviro movement calls sustainable policies usually implies, no matter how hard they deny it, that with the types of energy production they approve of, that half or more of the world population needs to go.

    (6) Do you get all your information from The Hill blog? Do you simply take as gospel what an energy company says, and take for granted that anything coming out of the Obama Administration, or the EPA, is 100% wrong? How on earth do you expect to reach any sort of objective conclusions doing that?

    Oh, so this is your weak ass defense now CM? Can you point me out where the Hill has gotten any of this wrong? And I take anything anyone that isn’t part of the enviro or progressive movement tells me a lot more seriously than otherwise. That’s because when I ask them to show me proof and let me do my own analysis, I don’t get told the science is settled and I am an heretic denier for daring to question them. And yes, when it concerns energy and energy policies, I am 100% certain that if it originated from the EPA or anywhere else within the Obama administration, that it is not just going to be bad and wrong, but that it will be costly, destroy jobs, serve to funnel money to democrats and their favored few, spell economic ruin, and isn’t based on any real or verifiable science.

    I have already reached an objective conclusion, based on my ability as someone educated as an engineer to tell what’s following real and rigorous scientific methods and what is not, that anything coming from the progressives and the environmentalists – thin skinned watermelons as I prefer to call them, because the moment you scratch that green surface, even a bit, you find the deep red of collectivism & and its vile agenda right under it – is seriously suspect and isn’t about saving the planet but using a crisis to push on people more destructive ideologically based control.

    As for your video, that’s obviously ridiculous blaming Obama for current gas prices. Gas prices are high everywhere because the cost of crude is high. Honestly, who do you (and they) think they are kidding? People in comas?

    Do you know why the cost of crude is high CM? Since you collectivists have such trouble with the way the real world works, let me give you a hint: supply & demand. And here the problem is clearly the supply side, because one of the world’s biggest consumers of crude, the US, has a policy where its government is blocking any and all attempts at finding new sources of crude and extracting that energy, because of the ridiculous notion that it is trying to save the planet through a mechanism where they control CO2 emissions and use the money they steal from the productive sector to spread the wealth.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  13. AlexInCT says:

    The United States has five percent of the world’s population and 30 percent of the world’s automobiles, but the country contributes 45 percent of the world’s automotive emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, according to a report released today by the advocacy group Environmental Defense.

    Here is some perspective; one volcanic explosion puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than a few years of SUVs driving around. Mother nature is still be far, the biggest producer of CO2 and H2O, in the form of water vapor, which the AGW cult has done a very successful job of hiding actually is responsible for over 97% of any green gas effect.

    I also hear the Dinosaurs must sure as hell have been drving a lot of SUVs considering how hot it was when they were around.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  14. Kimpost says:

    Here is some perspective; one volcanic explosion puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than a few years of SUVs driving around. Mother nature is still be far, the biggest producer of CO2 and H2O, in the form of water vapor, which the AGW cult has done a very successful job of hiding actually is responsible for over 97% of any green gas effect.

    We went through this volcano thing of yours before, remember? You were as wrong then, as you are now. Nobody’s hiding the impact of water vapour. In fact, climate models wouldn’t work at all, if it wasn’t accounted for.

    I also hear the Dinosaurs must sure as hell have been drving a lot of SUVs considering how hot it was when they were around.

    Seriously.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  15. loserlame says:

    Our driving cars across the wide spaces we stole from the Native America is by far the most popular scientifically-proven criticism.

    Surely China must emit some kind of something with his huge petrochemical industry? I don’t know why Europe hasn’t long ago dismissed politics and profit to team up with them to at least fix some of China’s heavy industry emissions, driving energy and production costs down, thus making products more affordable to the masses? Screw the US. Get with silent winner China and fix the problem for us all

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  16. Seattle Outcast says:

    The energy policy is quite clear: less of it, with higher taxes

    Can we all agree now that the EPA has been a total disaster and should be done away with?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  17. loserlame says:

    Hey, some folks have that same thing going with Islam, or Bono…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  18. CM says:

    I second this qestion by loserlame. Can you please amplify CM?

    Because it’s far from simple or easy.
    And there is considerable opposition (and that opposition is very very well funded).

    Or are you going to ignore it to?

    Don’t know what you mean.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  19. CM says:

    This about says it all. Alex believes denier talking points always trump actual science.
    As I say, you can’t use logic on someone who rejects the very concept.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  20. CM says:

    No CM, just that I lie to promote the evil agenda then?

    Again, I never said or implied that you lie. Although if you continue to maintain that I have, then you will be lying.
    As for ‘evil’, that’s just deflection.

    Well, you didn’t come right out and do so,

    Neither did I imply it. Which is why I said that I didn’t imply it either.

    but you over and over take the facts I bring up and try to convince anyone that is able to read through your screeds that they are just opinions, and bad ones at that, which for all intents and purposes means you are saying I am lying.

    You don’t introduce many facts. You take a fact and construct a narrative around it and portray the narrative as fact.
    Again, no, I think you’re an ideologue. You genuinely only seem to be able to see everything from one perspective.

    Thanks for your honesty, if a bit late.

    Bit late for what?

    So, at least we are finally able to see you’re your beef with this all is after you admit that I was right when I pointed out that the top priority of the Obama administration, IS and remains, to follow the AGW cult’s war on CO2, because it is the worst evil inflicted on mankind, and that governments need to by necessity control access to energy for the serfs, through taxation and wealth redistribution & a one world government, so Gaia can survive.

    No, that wouldn’t describe my opinion at all.
    Read that correction action notice yet Alex?

    Next, I am sure we will get the population control scams, Gaia is being burdened by all those parasite humans after all, but we can save that argument for another time.

    I look forward to it. Sounds fascinating. I’m sure you’ll bring an overwhelming array of facts and evidence to the table as usual. ;-)

    “Cap and Tax” was about government yet again using a false crisis to drastically increase its control of access to energy, use that money it ripped off the productive sector to grow the already behemoth-like government and make it even larger, while pretending to be doing wealth redistribution where a good chunk of the money stayed with the elite to pay their lifestyles, with negligible impacts on anything environmental. But you can pretend otherwise. Want proof? Tell me how well Kyoto or such other sham acts worked for those that followed along? After all. Kyoto’s purpose, just like the current green agenda, is to control, if not outright destroy, the industrial advantage & the economy of the United States.

    Another ‘Alex Fact’.
    Tell me about the fake mooning landings too please??!!
    Can you tell me how correcting for market failure is anti-capitalist?

    Because these ‘sustainable energy policies” are nothing if unsustainable? Modern societies need cheap and massive energy resources.

    Sustainability is significantly more than ‘cheap’. Determining something solely on cost is the opposite of sustainability. But it IS entirely consistent with your strict adherence to idelology.

    I can just point out how the Gaia worshippers are absolutely and totally hostile only viable form of non CO2 producing energy production that could meet the existing rising demand – nuclear energy.

    What a load of nonsense.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/nuclear-power-yes-please-1629327.html

    If the crisis was that big, wouldn’t nukes be popping up everywhere?

    No, nuclear power doesn’t just ‘pop up’ period.

    And spare me the bullshit about how dangerous it is. In fact, more people have died in cars driven by the Kennedys, at the BP oil rig explosion, and in the earthquake that caused the disaster itself, than because of the Fukushima multi-reactor meltdown which is considered as a massive disaster as a can be.

    You’re pre-emptively playing down the Fukushima disaster before anyone even mentions it. Brilliant.
    As if human deaths are the only reasonable measure.

    And I am frightened about what remains unsaid when the insane enviros mention “sustainable energy policies”, in a world where the population is growing fast and everyone wants to be modern.

    Clearly you’re frightened by a lot of stuff. It’s a shame too, it’s so unnecessary.
    Do you believe that those who discuss sustainability when it comes to energy are all insane environmentalists?

    What the insane eviro movement calls sustainable policies usually implies, no matter how hard they deny it, that with the types of energy production they approve of, that half or more of the world population needs to go.

    Ah I see, we’re all actually heavily promoting genocide.
    Damn, you’re too good!

    Actually, those pushing for string climate change mitigation AND adaptation measures are inherently trying to maintain as much of a liveable planet as possible. Those fighting to increase climate change as rapidly as possible are inherently attempting to reduce liveable areas. What does that do for population?

    Honestly, your arguments are something a 10 year old would come up with. A 10 year old without access to the internet.

    Oh, so this is your weak ass defense now CM?

    It’s neither a defence (what am I defending?) not a singular point.

    Can you point me out where the Hill has gotten any of this wrong?

    You were woefully let down by relying on their ‘reporting’ on the corrective action notice weren’t you. If I were you, I’d feel pissed off at their inability to accurately present a story.

    And I take anything anyone that isn’t part of the enviro or progressive movement tells me a lot more seriously than otherwise.

    It shows. I assume you’ll take that as a compliment.

    That’s because when I ask them to show me proof and let me do my own analysis, I don’t get told the science is settled and I am an heretic denier for daring to question them.

    You have conversations with sources?
    You’re a denier simply because you have no interest in being objective, and you just rotely follow an ideological line. Someone else has pointed that out already in this very thread.

    And yes, when it concerns energy and energy policies, I am 100% certain that if it originated from the EPA or anywhere else within the Obama administration, that it is not just going to be bad and wrong, but that it will be costly, destroy jobs, serve to funnel money to democrats and their favored few, spell economic ruin, and isn’t based on any real or verifiable science.

    Well there we go. You’re inherently incapable of assessing any of this rationally or objectively. The next step would be to figure out how you can change that.

    I have already reached an objective conclusion, based on my ability as someone educated as an engineer to tell what’s following real and rigorous scientific methods and what is not, that anything coming from the progressives and the environmentalists – thin skinned watermelons as I prefer to call them, because the moment you scratch that green surface, even a bit, you find the deep red of collectivism & and its vile agenda right under it – is seriously suspect and isn’t about saving the planet but using a crisis to push on people more destructive ideologically based control.

    You are the undeniable master of the long sentence. I suspect you think the longer a sentence, the better it must be.
    Ah no, as shown in this very thread already with that single climate change example, your ability to understand science appears to be quite poor. Even simple concepts appear to be beyond your grasp. What makes it even worse (and incredible really) is that you’re displaying the exact same lack of understanding you did only a week or so ago. Yikes.

    Do you know why the cost of crude is high CM?

    Because Obama has invaded Libya to steal oil? ;-)

    Since you collectivists have such trouble with the way the real world works, let me give you a hint: supply & demand. And here the problem is clearly the supply side, because one of the world’s biggest consumers of crude, the US, has a policy where its government is blocking any and all attempts at finding new sources of crude and extracting that energy, because of the ridiculous notion that it is trying to save the planet through a mechanism where they control CO2 emissions and use the money they steal from the productive sector to spread the wealth.

    Another “Alex Fact”. Show me some analysis which concludes that Obama is to blame for the high oil prices. I would certainly accept that the US has continued to devalue its currency by allowing the Federal Reserve to print dollars like they are going out of fashion (which has boosted the price of all commodities).
    But the oil price eased at the end of last week as it become clear that the US economy – the most oil-thirsty in the world – will be struggling for some time yet. This will limit demand and it should keep a lid on prices, if a dollar fall is ordered.

    As for his policies – Obama has actually opened up more areas of the Gulf for drilling, and is currently actively working to open up areas of Alaska for oil drilling. Even in the wake of the BP oil disaster, he is still allowing more drilling permits for deepwater drilling.

    You seem to also ignore the fact that before the recession, and before Obama was in office to enact any of these “price-raising policies,” American consumers were paying more than $4 per gallon of gasoline at the pump. Not surprisingly, this little nugget of information didn’t make it into your narrative.

    There is no quick fix for U.S. energy policy.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  21. CM says:

    Yeah we went through the Spain Cap and Trade propaganda campaign at MW forums. Don’t you remember it?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  22. balthazar says:

    Yes and its still destroying their economy. Hence why I still don’t understand your idiocy on the subject.

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30316

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009385016_will26.html

    Prime example of WHY Cap and trade fails, and itrs from a greenie site.

    http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar-energy/energy_economics.html

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  23. CM says:

    LOL @ Kimpost. It’s all just a big hoax. The scientists also eat children.
    Better check under your bed Alex, I heard some commies were hiding there. You might as well do something other than simply repeat your narrative over and over again here, as if that makes it truer. I assume you’ve got nothing to rebut my substantive response?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  24. CM says:

    This piece goes through the problems with that study, the main points being:

    1. The US does not have the same incentive structures that were instituted by Spain. Spanish incentives in support of Renewable Energy technologies has been in the form of Feed In Tariffs (FITs) that have reached levels up to $0.60/kWh of energy produced. This varies markedly from the typical U.S. approach of employing Producer Tax Credits (PTCs) to stimulate growth, which are typically on the order of $0.02/kWh.

    2. According to the United Nations, official estimates of green jobs resulting from Spain’s renewable energy program are 188,000, yet Calzada only lists 50,000 green jobs and does not explain why he uses those dramatically different numbers.

    3. The Brattleboro Reformer has pointed out a flaw in Calzada’s heavy use of the idea of “opportunity cost.” Opportunity cost is the true cost of something is what you give up to get it— or as The Brattleboro Reformer explains it…” that a dollar spent on green jobs is a dollar that can’t be consumed or invested by the private sector. Thus, a job that depends on consumption might disappear or not be created.” As the Brattlebore Reformer points out, this doesn’t apply in Spains’s case. The study works from the assumption that public spending crowds out private spending. But green jobs should not crowd out other types of jobs because the public investments are supporting the private sector. There is a great deal of historical data available that demonstrates that public investment in the nation’s physical economic infrastructure improves private-sector performance by raising average productivity and contributing to private-sector growth.

    4. The study does not provide an analysis of the full range of the types of jobs that are being funding in the Recovery Act. The study limits its analysis to just cleantech jobs that are focused on in Spain. It ignores any inclusion of analysis of the jobs created as a result of jobs programs dealing with energy efficiency, conservation, light rail, or mass transit. Historically, these types of public investments have demonstrated to pay a high rate of return in a relatively short period of time. These jobs also create a large number of jobs in sectors of the economy that have been hit hard by the current crisis, such as manufacturing and construction. So instead of causing a loss of jobs, they are likely to do what they have done in the past… creates jobs for those who do not have jobs.

    5. Public Investment in Renewable Energy in the Renewable Energy Sector in the US is not new – it’s been going on for years. The Recovery Act extended these pre-existing business incentives. According to a recent study by PricewaterhouseCoopers, entitled “CleanTech Comes of Age”, when the government spends in a sector, private investments increase. This has proven to be truth for biotech, agriculture, pharmaceuticals and …you guessed it…renewable energy. These policies provide more certainty for investors leading to larger investments in renewable energy technologies. This assesment is supported by numerous private sector studies based on investment activity within the past ten years.

    6. It seems possible that Caldaza is not presenting the numbers in a relevant and accurate way. In addition to using inaccurate numbers and omitting several sectors from his analysis, he fails to factor in that Spain historically has had very high unemployment rates since the restoration of democracy thirty years ago, (source: International Monetary Fund), while the US has not. In fact, since the green jobs program has been initiated in Spain, unemployment has been much lower than before it was put in place.

    And it goes on and on.

    More here (including why the Spanish govt had rejected the conclusions).

    As for the study’s author:

    Gabriel Calzada is a founding member of the Prague Network, an international grouping of institutions aimed at countering panic connected with global warming. He is also a fellow at the Centre for the New Europe, a Brussels-based libertarian think tank that in recent years has accepted funding from ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil has a history of funding groups that have misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence. According to a study conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2007, ExxonMobil had spent over $16 million to fund climate change skeptic groups as part of a “tobacco-like disinformation campaign on global warming science.” They have continued to channel money to these groups. Since the study was published, Calzada has become a popular speaker at the events sponsored by these groups.

    Calzada is also the founder and president of the Fundacion Juan de Mariana, another libertarian think tank. The libertarian movement in Spain does not believe in taxes, so it is my guess that they would not support many programs paid for with tax dollars. Calzada is also an admitted climate change skeptic and recently spoke at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) hosted by the conservative think tank, the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute is another well-known hub of climate science denial. This year’s conference was its second effort on climate change, and attracted representatives from conservative and free enterprise groups around the world; many of their members and supporters deny climate change and work aggressively against renewable energy and environmental endeavors. A large number of the attendees also came from bodies funded by ExxonMobil and other fossil-fuel companies.

    http://greeneconomypost.com/debunk-spanish-study-green-jobs-1582.htm

    Now none of this about the author means the study should be rejected. It stands or fails on it’s quality. However it does provide some context…..

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  25. loserlame says:

    ignore the fact that before the recession, and before Obama was in office to enact any of these “price-raising policies,” American consumers were paying more than $4 per gallon of gasoline at the pump. .

    I seem to have forgotten the price-raising policies causing this spike – wars abroad? What? Elaborate.

    Some trivia: California has the highest combined taxation on gasoline of all states, and is only edged out of the #1 most expensive gas slot because of Hawaii’s transportation costs. Still, in a list of the top 20 most expensive cities in which to buy gas, you have Honolulu at #1, New York City at #20, and 18 California cities between them. The per-gallon prices range from $3.459 in Bakersfield to $3.568 in San Francisco.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  26. loserlame says:

    To reiterate, surely China must emit some kind of something with its ever-huger petrochemical industry? I don’t know why Europe hasn’t long ago dismissed politics and profit to team up with them to at least fix some of China’s heavy industry emissions, driving energy and production costs down, thus making products more affordable to the masses? Screw the US. Get with silent winner (and “happiest place on earth” ahead of North Korea and Cuba, according to the Internets) China and fix the problem for us all

    {Neutral, scientific data here. http://hken.ibtimes.com/articles/153551/20110528/north-korea-happiness-index-rank-china-top-us-bottom-photos.htm}

    I saw solar panels on the roofs of homes in ever cold and rainy German villages of 2,000 inhabitants or less back in 1977. To claim that further developing technologies could take so much time – 30+ goddam years – with so many experts and science around, doesn’t wash. To sit and wait until the technologies are supposedly “perfected” as per “expert requirements” is crap as well. Virtually everything man has creation has undergone some kind of OTJ evolution?

    I should be seeing outlets everywhere outside the US, offering free, low-voltage green electricity that adds up quickly in bulk.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  27. Kimpost says:

    EU (and US) do have green projects in China. China does too. They aren’t doing enough, far from it, nor are we helping them enough, but saying we are doing nothing is wrong. China plows huge amounts of money into renewable energy. But they are also opening coal plants, most of which are clean coal plants, but not all of them, and they aren’t closing old ones either.

    One of the problems China is facing, is their ridiculous growth, with its following need for energy. They are still building their country. In that sense it’s easier for Europe and US, even if it’s not really that easy here either.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  28. AlexInCT says:

    And there is considerable opposition (and that opposition is very very well funded).

    Ah,yes. This trite defense of the “rich oil companies can afford to buy off people” again. You thus think me stupid and unable to grasp that their opposition – the many collectivist western governments & the UN, which stand to rip off people to the tune of trillions of dollars in faux energy taxes, and also get the biggest expansion of power and control over the serf’s lives through the ability to control their access to energy – are not well funded? By my estimation they outnumber the funds available to their opposition by orders of magnitude. Of course, you will pretend that’s not the case right? The poor people pushing this madness are all broke and doing it for noble reasons.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  29. AlexInCT says:

    Surely China must emit some kind of something with his huge petrochemical industry? don’t know why Europe hasn’t long ago dismissed politics and profit to team up with them to at least fix some of China’s heavy industry emissions, driving energy and production costs down, thus making products more affordable to the masses? Screw the US. Get with silent winner China and fix the problem for us all

    Yah, but going after China, or for that matter any rising third world country likely to far, far outperform any and all western countries in the production of CO2 as they industrialize, isn’t going to help the collectivist western governments and their agenda much, is it? As I repeatedly pointed out: if these AGW cultists really believed the bullshit about the planet turning into water world because of man, they would not only be demanding we switch to nuclear energy for most if not all of our electric generation, to drastically impact our own CO2 emissions, while offering to build the rising third world powers like China & India that are going to generate CO2 in numbers that will make what the west has done so far look like chump change as they try to generate all the energy they need to industrialize and modernize as many free nuke reactors as possible. Instead what we get is sham paper deals that horribly impact the US economy and serve only to raise a ton of taxes while restricting people’s access to energy by pricing out of their range because they are busy taking offline as many fossil fuel electricity generation plants as they can while replacing them with ultra expensive bullshit that can’t generate a fraction of the power they are taking offline.

    If you understand the real agenda the watermelons have, you wouldn’t have any trouble understanding why the focus has always been hammering the US economy, and through energy pricing schemes that foolow, control people.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  30. AlexInCT says:

    EU (and US) do have green projects in China. China does too. They aren’t doing enough, far from it, nor are we helping them enough, but saying we are doing nothing is wrong.

    OK then Kimpost. They are doing just enough, but nothing of any real significance if this problem they tell us all we are facing were real, to allow people like you to make claims like this.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  31. AlexInCT says:

    CM, here is a HuffPo post – this is as left as you can get – dealing with the revelation from the SPANISH GOVERNMENT where they admit the “green economy” thing was a FAILURE. That’s May 2011, after all the bullshit about how awesome it was.

    Pajamas Media has received a leaked internal assessment produced by Spain’s Zapatero administration. The assessment confirms the key charges previously made by non-governmental Spanish experts in a damning report exposing the catastrophic economic failure of Spain’s “green economy” initiatives.

    Read that. Instead of creating jobs this bullshit has sucked tons of money out of the already bloated and inefficient economy of Spain, and created even worse joblessness. And that’s what Obama wants to do here too. On top of the damage he already has done to us.

    Get off the stupid please and pay attention to dates and facts. This bullshit site you link to – zero objectivity, so I pass – has a lot of excuses, some actually quite clever, but nevertheless wrong, but the fact remains Spain’s “green economy” is COSTING them more than it is delivering, and then at a time the Spanish are facing a massive economic downturn that has caused massive job losses. That’s a fail in anyone else’s book.

    Spain’s green economy was a massive failure. Their government has admitted it. And that’s what Obama’s plan was. Now, where does that leave us when I say Obama’s agenda is destructive and you continuously pretend that is “my opinion” and that I am arguing in bad faith, huh? I do have to admit that you watermelons sure have dedication to your revolution.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  32. Kimpost says:

    Your Huffington Post-link lead to some article about Spanish protests. Here are the links you probably meant to link to. Incidentally the presentation is from April 2010, not May 2011.

    Article page 1
    Article page 2 (translation of the PowerPoint below)
    PowerPoint in Spanish

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  33. loserlame says:

    I’m oft told that China a gentle giant, like Master Po from Kung Fu, and the only nation that would/could make the US change its ways. So Europe should stir them up a bit more about going green. The Chinese all enjoy free health care, but they’d also all like to own their own cars, too.

    Whats taking the technology so damn long to get here, putting those vastly intricate solar panels on simple unused spaces ?
    Surely theres no vast quiet conspiracy telling the Chinese what to do?

    CM says:
    Because it’s far from simple or easy.
    And there is considerable opposition (and that opposition is very very well funded).

    End of discussion. When its convenient alternative energies are all more intricate and complex than we can fathom.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  34. CM says:

    Ah,yes. This trite defense of the “rich oil companies can afford to buy off people” again.

    Primary, and far ahead of anything else, is the first reason I gave. I never said or implied that rich oil companies can afford to buy people off. But it’s not even arguable that they’ve fought long and hard to protect the status quo.

    You thus think me stupid

    I think you don’t mind misrepresenting whenever you get the chance.

    and unable to grasp that their opposition – the many collectivist western governments & the UN, which stand to rip off people to the tune of trillions of dollars in faux energy taxes, and also get the biggest expansion of power and control over the serf’s lives through the ability to control their access to energy – are not well funded?

    Straw man argument.

    By my estimation they outnumber the funds available to their opposition by orders of magnitude.

    Apples/oranges. And a straw man argument.

    Of course, you will pretend that’s not the case right?

    Well you’ve misrepresented what I said.

    The poor people pushing this madness are all broke and doing it for noble reasons.

    People who think it’s probably a good idea to move towards sustainable energy sources as part of climate change mitigation and adapation are usually just following the science. It all makes sense. No implausibly large conspiracy required.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  35. CM says:

    Just going to ignore that science yet again Alex. And yet you must keep wondering why you keep finding yourself trapped in the same cycle. Weird.

    If you understand the real agenda the watermelons have, you wouldn’t have any trouble understanding why the focus has always been hammering the US economy, and through energy pricing schemes that foolow, control people.

    Fortunately, Alex has tinfoil wrapped around his head so the government can’t intefere with his clear and reasonable thinking.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  36. CM says:

    This bullshit site you link to – zero objectivity, so I pass – has a lot of excuses, some actually quite clever, but nevertheless wrong,

    That’s an absolute classic considering the ‘sources’ you frequently seem to not only quote from, but rely on entirely (read that corrective action notice yet, you know – the SOURCE DOCUMENT of your conspiracy?). “The Hill” is a business and lobbying newspaper. You know that right?

    It’s also absolutely hilarious that you’re claim ‘biased reporting’ in the very same post where you link to a story created by the author for the purpose of floggin his book. In terms of reliable sources it simply doesn’t get any worse than that. So well done on picking the very same post to link to that. That degree of stupidity must take years of practice.

    Not good enough to say “nevertheless wrong”. You’ve got to explain why and how they are wrong. Otherwise it’s meaningless.

    As for this internal Spanish assessment – it’s pretty hard to assess and respond to a report that isn’t available. But you’re also missing the main point – as noted above the US proposal isn’t comparable to the Spanish (e.g. FITs v PTCs). So even if the Spanish experience was more costly than anticipated, that doesn’t necessarily mean it a US equivalent will be. And shit, if the Spanish did get some things wrong, then let’s all take advantage of that by learning what has worked and what hasn’t. That would be the logical thing to do.

    Sounds like they’re tracking fairly well in terms of sustainable energy targets:

    The plan will see Spain exceed the European Union target of producing 20 percent of energy from renewable sources by the decade’s end. Spain will meet 23 percent of total energy demand and generate 40 percent of its electricity without emitting carbon dioxide by 2020, the industry ministry draft said.

    Spanish Industry Minister Miguel Sebastian plans to meet with executives of renewable-energy companies and government officials this week as he prepares a final proposal for cutting prices paid for clean energy, a ministry spokesman said yesterday.

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-15/spain-aims-to-boost-renewable-energy-production-67-by-2020.html

    Anyway, inevitably there is going to be some hurt transforming economies to using sustainable energy sources. I’m not denying that (before you continue down that particular avenue of misrepresentation). You can’t transform economies without costs. And that’s particularly painful when economies are already in the crapper. But the do-nothing alternative leads to far far more hurt, and for far longer. Unless you’ve got a magic solution? Oh no, hang on, it’s all a big conspiracy anyway. Wow, how convenient to have your head stuck in the sand.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  37. CM says:

    The changing economics of solar.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  38.   
  39. CM says:

    Upon our initial review, the Clean Energy Group’s Clean Air Policy Initiative believes that EPA’s recently proposed Toxics Rule, on the whole, is balanced and reasonable. The proposal fulfills EPA’s obligations under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and will establish the first national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants for electric utility generators. While we will continue to review the proposed rule and will be submitting comments with recommendations for the final rule, we expect compliance with the rule will promote economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation, all without compromising the reliability of our electric system.

    “We appreciate EPA’s efforts to engage with the electric industry in a transparent way in order to develop an effective rule consistent with requirements of the CAA,” said Michael Bradley, Executive Director of the Clean Energy Group. “We also appreciate efforts to include several elements that allow for compliance flexibility such as the ability to average among units at a facility. This option will enable companies to implement cost‐effective compliance solutions while still ensuring the environmental benefits. We anticipate EPA’s continued engagement with stakeholders so that the final rule is legally and technically sound.”

    Since 2000, the electric industry has been anticipating that EPA would regulate hazardous air pollutant emissions, and as a result, many companies have already taken steps to install control technologies that will allow them to comply with requirements of the rule on time. The technologies to control emissions at coal‐fired power plants, including mercury and hydrochloric acid, are available and cost‐effective. However, if additional time is needed to install control technologies, EPA has the authority to authorize a plant up to one additional year to comply.

    “We’ve made significant investments in technology at our plants, and they are now some of the cleanest coal plants in the U.S.,” said Ralph Izzo, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Enterprise Group. “The work we did reduced hazardous air pollutants and even stimulated important economic activity. We can move forward with this rule without compromising the reliability of the electric system.”

    “We recently completed the installation of a major air quality control system, including scrubbers, a baghouse, and other equipment at one of our major coal facilities in Maryland,” said Mayo Shattuck, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Constellation Energy Group. “Construction took 26 months, employing nearly 1,400 skilled workers. Our new system is not only reducing our SO2 and NOx emissions in compliance with state and federal requirements, but is already helping us to achieve the other emission reductions that we anticipate will be required under the Toxics Rule.”

    Many companies are already making plant retirement decisions independent of the Toxics Rule due to fundamental economics related to lower electricity demand and lower natural gas prices.
    “The electric industry has a proven track record of adding generating capacity and transmission solutions when and where needed and coordinating effectively to address reliability concerns,” said Jack Fusco, President and Chief Executive Officer of Calpine Corporation. “In addition, existing natural gas‐fired power plants have significant unutilized power production capacity to help meet demand as owners elect to retire plants or schedule outages to install pollution control systems, thereby easing reliability concerns.”

    We look forward to working with EPA during the public comment period to ensure the timely finalization of this important rule as well as its effective implementation.

    Statement from a coalition of electric power companies dedicated to responsible energy and environmental stewardship. The member companies are some of the nation’s largest generators of
    electricity, with over 170,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity (including 110,000 megawatts of fossil generating capacity) throughout the U.S., and serve nearly a fifth of all U.S. electric customers. The members include Austin Energy, Avista Corporation, Calpine Corporation, Constellation Energy, Exelon Corporation, National Grid, New York Power Authority, NextEra Energy, PG&E Corporation, Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc., and Seattle City Light.

    http://www.thecleanenergygroup.com/documents/Toxic-Rule-Statement-Final.pdf

    If they can do it, what can’t AEP?
    Who has the serious problem with ‘modernity’ here?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  40. CM says:

    Alex:

    Cool, they are looking after our health!

    According to the Environmental Defense Fund, twenty of the top 25 mercury-emitting coal plants are located within 50-100 miles of some of the America’s biggest cities.

    There are 600 coal plants in the U.S. These 25 coal plants emit roughly 30% of total mercury pollution in the U.S. electricity sector.

    ….while these plants represent one third of mercury emissions, they only provide about 8% of electricity generation.

    The harm from coal, if it were actually added to the cost of their power, would make these plants uneconomic

    http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Screen-shot-2011-06-10-at-10.24.30-AM.png

    Martin Lake: Ranked #1 on the mercury list, Martin Lake is considered one of the dirtiest plants in the U.S. Located near Longview, Texas, the plant operator was sued by the Sierra Club in 2010 for 50,000 air pollution violations:

    It is the worst power plant for mercury pollution among all U.S. coal plants, emitting 1,764 pounds in 2008, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Toxics Release Inventory. In Texas, Martin Lake ranked third for asthma-causing soot pollution and was responsible for 13 percent of all industrial air pollution in the state.

    Scherer Plant: The Scherer Plant is #7 on EDF’s list. Located in Juliette, Georgia, the 2.5 GW facility is not only a top emitter of mercury, it’s also been labeled as the largest emitter of CO2 emissions in America.

    Scherer is owned and operated by Georgia Power, which also owns the Bowen Plant. Scherer burns through an average of three train-loads of coal per day – coal hauled in from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, 1,800 miles away. At any given time, BNSF has thirty-six different two-mile long coal trains somewhere on the ten-day roundtrip between Wyoming and Georgia.

    Colstrip Plant: The 2.7 GW Colstrip plant, located east of Billings, Montana, ranks #23 on the list. The plant has installed scrubbers, but it’s sheer size makes it a top emitter.

    Gordon Criswell, director of environmental and engineering compliance at PPL Montana, the company that co-owns and operates the Colstrip plant, said that the plant has actually cut its mercury emissions by 85 to 90 percent in 2010 after installing a new mercury control system.

    Criswell says the 2009 ranking is due to the size of the plant, where four coal-fired units burn about 10 million tons of coal a year. This is equivalent to one rail car’s worth of coal every five minutes, according to PPL Montana.

    Due to increased pressure, a number of other plants have installed scrubbing technologies to reduce heavy metals and particulates. The EPA is also considering new emissions regulations to lower pollution and protect communities located near these plants.

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/10/242245/do-you-live-near-one-of-the-top-25-dirtiest-coal-plants/

    If you don’t agree with the findings, you should certainly point out where they’ve gone wrong.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  41. loserlame says:

    As SunPower’s Dinwoodie puts it:

    That 17 GW installed in 2010 is the equivalent of 17 nuclear power plants – manufactured, shipped and installed in one year. It can take decades just to install a nuclear plant. Think about that. I heard Bill Gates recently call solar “cute.” Well, that’s 17 GW of “cute” adding up at an astonishing pace.

    Had to bring up mogul Gates, why? And normal people will read this and – cough – naturally assume that the need for 17 nuclear plants has been eliminated.

    This modular technology can be produced and installed at a pace far faster than most energy technologies.

    And I will gladly install it for anyone, with a solar cordless drill. Where? Europe? China?

    However, this comparison neglects the “value” of energy. Nuclear is a baseload resource; solar PV is more of a “peaking” resource. To compare 17 GW of global solar PV development to 17 GW of nuclear power plants ignores the fact that nuclear produces far more electricity than an equivalent solar PV plant.

    “Still, we’ve bee spared us 17 nuclear plants, so ….”

    With that said, solar brings a different kind of value to the grid. Not only can it be quickly deployed on existing infrastructure (warehouses, commercial buildings, residences) at rates that are orders of magnitude faster than nuclear, it offsets the most expensive peaking power plants – providing immediate economic value.

    Thats what I’ve been saying. Therefore “Its complicated, too expensive, not quite there yet, technologically, the US needs to get on board, but theres this powerful lobby Bill Gates runs” is so much horse shit.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  42. CM says:

    Had to bring up mogul Gates, why?

    Because Gates said something directly relevant. How is that not obvious?

    And normal people will read this and – cough – naturally assume that the need for 17 nuclear plants has been eliminated.

    And yet if you don’t just cherry-pick from the piece, you’d see that’s not the case. So why cherry-pick and then construct a narrative that someone has been fooled by cherry-picking? WTF?

    “Still, we’ve bee spared us 17 nuclear plants, so ….”

    Good grief.

    Thats what I’ve been saying. Therefore “Its complicated, too expensive, not quite there yet, technologically, the US needs to get on board, but theres this powerful lobby Bill Gates runs” is so much horse shit.

    Which Bill Gates lobby? Who is making that argument?

    And how do you define ‘there’? The whole point of that piece was looking at when the costs will come down to the same as existing power sources. And yeah we’re almost there. But although it works well on buildings, that’s obviously only part of the puzzle.

    What’s complicated is moving the whole economy towards the appropriate range of sustainable renewable energy sources – how to encourage people to improve on them and how to encourage people to take them up. It requires public policy decisions that are complicated, particularly when the prices people pay for power and jobs are at stake. Nothing controversial about saying any of that. But of course because I said it, it must be wrong.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  43. CM says:

    The energy policy is quite clear: less of it, with higher taxes

    Actually, policies to assist sustainable energies quite clearly lead to more energy being produced overall (notwithstanding the amount of oil being drilled out in the United States at the moment, and what is planned). The difference is that the energy is going to be able to be provided at a micro level. Solar is a prime example. The costs associated with setting up a solar energy system on your property might be more in the short term (capital outlay), however you are then producing energy for your own use. And after a number of years, your savings will have paid off your initial capital outlay, and you’ll be paying much much less for power than you ever have. If you sell, take it with you, or price your home accordingly.

    I’m looking at replacing our current electic hot water cylinder which is 25 years and apparently nearing the end of it’s life. I’m looking at either solar or a heat pump hot water system. At the moment my current thinking is to go with a heat pump – there are about 5 companies that make and install them. The best one is about $6500 including installation. I can then apply for a $575 rebate from the government. So it comes out at about $6000. But as the system requires 70% less energy to heat water, I’ll save about $750 a year (around 1/3 of the power bill is hot water). Which means it’ll take 8 years to pay it off. I need to borrow the money (top up on the mortgage) but I figure the additional interest I pay will be more than offset by the additional savings in power bills from increases in prices (our bills have gone up 73% in the last 9 years). I figure we’ll be in our current house for at least another 10 years, and we’ll only be using more hot water as the boys get older, so it seems pretty good.

    But as we continue, that period of pay-back is only going to get shorter and shorter. The more investment (e.g. rebates) the government puts in, the quicker we get there. In Australia they get a much higher rebate – a $6147 system comes down to an installed cost of only $2787 on this one:

    http://www.flaregas.com.au/DUX-SunPro-250L-S20-Gas-Boosted-Solar-Hot-Water-System.html

    Sustainable energy policies are a good idea from pretty much every perspective. Even if you don’t wish to accept the science of climate change, or you believe we’ll have enough oil for another 100 years, or you refuse to accept that the effects of carbon are a market failure (and market theory therefor suggests a correction should be made).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  44. CM says:

    Oops, Romney hasn’t done his nomination chances any good.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-draws-early-fire-from-conservatives-over-views-on-climate-change/2011/06/08/AGkUTaMH_story.html

    He has said that he believes global warming is real and that humans are contributing to it.

    Whoa! Sorry, bub, but if you’re a Republican presidential contender, this is not an ideologically approved position. Rush Limbaugh says he’s doomed now (“bye bye nomination”).

    Apparently it’s remarkable that Romney would accept scientific evidence that Earth’s climate is changing and that humans, because of their historically unprecedented carbon emissions, might contribute to that effect.

    I’m impressed. Considering the immense pressure he must be under to toe the party line (not to mention from contributors), this is pretty incredible. He must know that to many conservatives, this means that he’s totally bought into the man-made global warming hoax. Wonder how long it’ll be before he “sees the light”……

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  45. Kimpost says:

    As difficult as it may be to judge the Republican candidates this early in the process, I think that Romney is the candidate with best chances in a race against Obama. Things can change, others might grow, but right now, he looks like the main contender.

    Political realities might make it difficult for him to win the nomination, though. I guess we’ll see what happens. He’s owned my respect for standing up (well mostly anyway) for Romneycare, and now for science, by acknowledging Climate Change.

    I’ve said it before, acknowledging its existence doesn’t mean that you have to accept or propose massive programs risking to cripple the economy. Not that I agree that cap-and-trade necessarily means that, but I respect such a position. Romney for instance, does not support cap-and-trade.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  46. loserlame says:

    But Gates is no expert on solar so his opinion should be completely irrelevant. Why mention Gates? Hes just rich and famous and more about Windows – which sucks, anyway, say many. And thats a fact.

    You yourself said: “Because [solar is] far from simple or easy. And there is considerable opposition (and that opposition is very very well funded).”

    Ordinary thinking folks start connecting the dots and find that Bill Gates hates solar for some lame reason, not science, thats for sure, and, hey, hes rich, too. He can afford any electricity. His way of thinking built 17 dangerous nuclear power plants we don’t need. Screw him. Solar is the way!”

    Well, I get to thinking and theres nary a reason I can find that honestly explains why businesses and homes outside the US aren’t yet solar-equipped for their “mundane” electricity needs.

    I’m told that installation costs a bit, but it creates jobs, and solar is virtually free after that. And that lot of small, mundane savings add up to large savings that the incumbent industry and its lobby would eventually notice and be forced to act upon?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  47. loserlame says:

    “Haha. Rethuglicans are getting desperate, lying about the Truth to get elected, then they’ll turn right around and send us to church waving American flags for Koran burning sessions
    ‘How about some global heart-warming emissions instead!! loLOLOLOL!!! YEEARGH!!’
    Earth’s climate is changing and humans, because of their historically unprecedented carbon emissions, contribute to that effect. ”

    “Aye, and those who do all vote Rethuglican!!.lololololol”

    “We’d buy solar but Bill Gates and fellow Rethuglicans won’t let us!”

    “Bill the Shill! Bill the Shill! Hes been wrong about so many things. F#%#% the Gates Foundation”

    “Bill Maher is my favorite kind of Bill. Even before the dollar bill.”

    “#% all politicans. They’re all in Big Oils pocket!”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  48. loserlame says:

    Said Bill Gates: “The solutions that work in the rich world don’t even come close to solving the [energy] problem. If you’re interested in cuteness, the stuff in the home is the place to go. If you’re interested in solving the world’s energy problems, it’s things like big [solar projects] in the desert.”

    This translates into “Bill Gates says solar is ‘cute’. ”
    according to level-headed, rational Thinkers.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  49. loserlame says:

    http://earthjustice.org/blog/2011-may/what-bill-gates-should-know-about-solar-energy

    There are numerous problems with [Gates'] characterization of home solar customers and the impact they have on the climate. First, solar panels have dropped in cost dramatically, to the point where middle-class families can lease them and, under the right conditions (roof design and placement) pay less per month for the lease and tiny energy bill than they would for their former electricity costs alone. We’ve hit a point where the economics are compelling, even if you aren’t on board with the carbon reduction goal. And, hey, my solar lease even came with a free iPad 2. There are plenty of incentives.

    I agree. “Kleinvieh macht auch Mist” “Many a little makes a mickle” So wheres neutral China and high-tech Europe with a lot of little solar?

    Submitted by Chris Blaisdell (not verified) on May 19, 2011.

    Here in Maine, where nearly all domestic hot water is heated by oil fired boilers, we are installing hydronic solar systems to heat that domestic hot water for around $7,000 – 8,000 (after rebates and tax write-offs). With the amount of oil the systems save the homeowners annually, the systems pay themselves off in 3 to 7 years. Our customers are not ‘the rich’. They are average families… middle America. And every gallon of oil not burned in someone’s home boiler is a little more available for other needs.

    This in a country run by Big Oil. Again, I keep wondering how and why small solar isn’t yet commonplace in every country on earth not beholden to and controlled by Oil? “Its complicated” Sure.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  50. balthazar says:

    Only that you get 3x the amount of mercury from Ahi Tuna as you do Coal ash.

    .2+ ppm for fly ash. .6+ ppm for Ahi Tuna. And you actually EAT the fish, you may or may not be exposed to the fly ash.

    Thanks try again.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  51. loserlame says:

    Radioactivity from the Fukushima death plant is reaching Hawaiian = Ahi waters. This is why its imperative the US fund green energies, now, to …

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  52. Kimpost says:

    - Solution to mercury in fish: Don’t eat fish with mercury in it too often.
    - Solution to mercury released from old coal power plants (newer plants don’t have that problem): Don’t breath too much.

    One is easier than the other, don’t you think? And who’s suggesting that we don’t stop polluting our waters with mercury, anyway?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  53. balthazar says:

    Dont live in that area.

    See i can play this game too!!!

    Thanks for the useless comment Kim! Ill call your useless comment with this one.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  54. loserlame says:

    You make it sound like its virtually impossible to not inhale mercury in the air, and that it would be the evil amount.
    Ergo, if I ate some tuna, ingesting 6+ ppm, then inhaled 2+ ppm fly ash, the latter, smaller amount would scientifically be the cancer-causer, as its wholly 110% avoidable, but due to the US iron-fisted Oil Lobby… etc

    Now that I mention it, those tuna are likely sauced with crude oil spilled into the once-pristine seas by American for-profits…. by the time they die from acid rain and CO2 boiling the oceans….

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  55. Kimpost says:

    How about if we skip the useless comments, both of us? I just didn’t see your point. I still don’t, since I don’t think that you really believe that we shouldn’t regulate pollutants at all. Nobody wants mercury in fish. Coal powered plants add to that too, you know.

    Are you saying that old power plants do not release harmful amounts of mercury, therefore making (further) regulations unnecessary and business unfriendly? If you are, I would be curious to see how you’ve come to that conclusion.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  56. balthazar says:

    The point is that you have to deal with some pollution, regardless.
    CM’s post is crap. I was pointing out that anyone can put together irrelevant facts and say OH NOESSSSSS!!! BIG BAD X CORP SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN!!!

    Its stupid.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  57. loserlame says:

    I’m curious as to why the world outside the US doesn’t have solar yet Europe, China, etc where health and science come first and profit comes a distant second.

    If some guy in Maine USA can (haha) “cell” solar for $7-8k Europe and China can do it, too, worldwide, and for $4-5k

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  58. Kimpost says:

    It is difficult to avoid mercury, either by inhaling it, or for the many people who are dependant on fish. Mercury isn’t a natural ingredient in any fish, though, so it is avoidable in the long run (less pollution leads to lower levels of mercury in tuna). Meanwhile (in the short run), we can recommend people not to eat too much tuna. And/or as balthazar just did, recommend people to avoid living in places where wind brings mercury.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  59. balthazar says:

    This is not true, mercury has been in fish for eons.

    http://www.fishscam.com/mercuryMyths.cfm

    source reports are listed at the bottom of the page so look them up.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  60. Kimpost says:

    I see you loserlame, but I’m not willing to play your game. I have not suggested that health and science comes first in Europe and China, or that it comes second in US.

    I live in a capitalistic society, where profit normally comes first. This is true for all of western Europe. The differences between say Sweden and America are best measured in nuances. IKEA makes money here as it does there.

    Now, why solar is not coming more and faster? Presumably because of normal capitalistic drivers, or lack thereof. Supply, demand, cost, profitability.

    There are many interesting projects, though. Like solar panels in Sahara, or estimates from China. Who knows how much is fantasy, and how much is real?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  61. loserlame says:

    The longer fish (=large) live the more they’ll accumulate. And rain/water carry mercury all over the place, allowing it to concentrate in sediment, etc.

    However science once posited that the more evil methylmercury fish collect appears to be naturally created by deep ocean vents……..
    … which in turn must be becoming more active as… global warming soars?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  62. loserlame says:

    You keep telling us to make it affordable, I say you lead the way. Money/profit is no issue in China, so get with them to mass produce solar and everyone will buy. and the US will be forced to follow.
    Euros say the earth is proven to be cooking, thanks mostly to USA, yet they need time to crunch the numbers, to see if its affordable and profitable to save the planet? I say fix it. Now.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  63. Kimpost says:

    Yes, volcanos release mercury too. And no I wouldn’t blame that on Global Warming, America or even the evil Jews.

    I’m not sure how much of the methylmercury that originates from which. If human influence truly is minuscule, as balthazar suggests, then it’s seemingly a minor problem. If FDA and EPA are right we shouldn’t over eat large pray fish.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  64. AlexInCT says:

    Primary, and far ahead of anything else, is the first reason I gave. I never said or implied that rich oil companies can afford to buy people off. But it’s not even arguable that they’ve fought long and hard to protect the status quo.

    And again you ignore the elephant in the china shop: the fact that the western governments and the UN, which all stand to gain drastically from pushing this nonsense and their ideological/political solutions, have resources that completely dwarf anything their opposition could ever muster. But then again, I expected exactly that from you.

    I think you don’t mind misrepresenting whenever you get the chance.

    I have yet to get you to show me even ONE instance of where I actually misrepresented anything. Your comeback was that I was to then claim I was not providing facts, when I was and you simply chose to disregard them, as you just did here again, but just stating my opinion. You on the other hand keep consistently and constantly ignoring anything I bring up that basically destroys your arguments.

    and unable to grasp that their opposition – the many collectivist western governments & the UN, which stand to rip off people to the tune of trillions of dollars in faux energy taxes, and also get the biggest expansion of power and control over the serf’s lives through the ability to control their access to energy – are not well funded?

    Straw man argument.

    Really CM? Then you should have no trouble at all backing up your weak and spurious comeback with something to dismiss my points, short of that lame attempt?

    Is your quick dismissal perchance based on some facts I don’t know about which would invalidate my claim and prove that neither these governments nor the UN have the financial or political resources I mentioned? Or is it that you have proof that can contest that these governments or the UN don’t push, and push hard, that AGW agenda? Maybe you have proof that would indicate neither these governments nor the UN stand to gain an immense influx of cash from all this taxation they believe will somehow magically clean up CO2? Or is it your contention that I am totally wrong in pointing out that once they control access to energy through price and limited resources, people will have their freedoms curtailed?

    Please elaborate. I would love to see this play out.

    By my estimation they outnumber the funds available to their opposition by orders of magnitude.

    Apples/oranges. And a straw man argument.

    Fruit! Oh, how grand! Why is that comparison not a fair one, CM? I see a heavy dose of bullshit biased and weak opinion of a reply, that basically hopes to deflect from the obviously indefensible. I repeat the above questions I posed. Educate us why this is a straw man argument, please!

    Well you’ve misrepresented what I said.

    How? By pointing out what you say and then tearing a giant hole in the bullshit you spout? You made a bullshit claim that any and al analysis from those that do not worship at the altar of AGW is to be treated as suspect because it is somehow financed or supportive of the agenda of the oil lobby, and I point out that for all its financial and political power, the oil lobby is dwarfed by the power of these collectivist states and the UN, both financially and in political power, and pointed out that using your own fucking logic would then mean we shouldn’t take anything the AGW cult puts out seriously, only to have you dismiss it as an apple to oranges straw man argument, without anything to prove that’s the case. Me, I think you have no defense, hence this bullshit and obviously desperate claim of a straw man.

    People who think it’s probably a good idea to move towards sustainable energy sources as part of climate change mitigation and adapation are usually just following the science.

    Ah really? Here is a revelation for you CM: I am ALL FOR sustainable energy production. Where we differ is in the fact that as an engineer I see that the only truly sustainable energy option available to us at this time is nuclear power, something the AGW cult has been vehemently against, and that any other technologies are so immature or non-viable that they don’t make sense, either economically or engineering wise. And I wants viable sustainable energy that is NOT prohibitively costly and destructive to the modern western democracy. Especially not when those calling for it are collectivist scumbags that have invented a world ending crisis to straddle humanity with their evil ideology.

    It all makes sense. No implausibly large conspiracy required.

    No, it doesn’t make any fucking sense unless you are a collectivist watermelon asshole that doesn’t even have the decency to come clean on that. But, then again, that’s obvious about you.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  65. AlexInCT says:

    Yes Kimpost, I read the Spanish language version of the report and the focus is on the deficits, which they somehow think will go away because they passed a law, the last graph in the whole presentation too, which clearly shows that the real numbers, the ones already actualized, show massive deficits – to the tune of several millions – which, while not shown directly anywhere in the report as a percentage of expenditures by government, is trending deep red. In simple talk and to use an euphemism: the Spanish are buying high, and selling low. And we all know that doesn’t work because eventually you run out of money.

    BTW, these numbers were reported by the Spanish government, a bunch of pro AGW cultists collectivists, and I am inclined to think that if there was any fudging, they did so to make the effect look less damaging than it actually is.

    That’s an absolute classic considering the ‘sources’ you frequently seem to not only quote from, but rely on entirely (read that corrective action notice yet, you know – the SOURCE DOCUMENT of your conspiracy?). “The Hill” is a business and lobbying newspaper. You know that right?

    So CM, you are pissed because I told you I do not take anything that comes from the church of AGW, or any of it’s various branches, as reliable or believable? Maybe the cult should be more open, scientific, and less politically and ideologically driven, and I will give them a second chance, but when they just dismiss the revelation they have been cheating, and then, to top it all off, have a circle jerk committee of believers claim they ran an “inquisition” and found nothing wrong despite the fact that there were some seriously questionable (that’s their words, I consider it scientific fraud of the worst kind) behaviors, I tend to stop believing anything they say, period

    And just maybe you can score a win against me here, for a change, by “exposing” one of those faux links I gave to some bullshit site run by people with an agenda, without first disclosing that agenda, huh?

    Blab away. Pretend that up is won, left is right, green is blue, and the bullshit “green economy” makes money all you want. In fact, let them do it to your country’s economy. Keep your stupid ideas and bullshit out of mine.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  66. AlexInCT says:

    So Kimpost, since we now know that it was organic vegtables – specifically brussel sprouts – that carried thatr deadly strain of E Coli that killed quiete a few, permanently damaged the kidneys of several hundred, and made thousands sick, are you, by this logical genius displayed, ready to call for the banning of/not eating of all organic foods? After all, people GOT to eat, right?

    Too easy…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  67. Kimpost says:

    Amazing leap of logic on your part. No, organic foods should net be banned, but nor have I suggested a ban on eating fish.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  68. loserlame says:

    Germany is the most sterile country on earth, and one of the healthiest; it offers a balanced diet, the best beer, a superior social net and free health care. The cause for this deadlier strain (more to come, surely) will be found beyond its borders. In the air and rain…

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  69. Kimpost says:

    Whatever, loserlame. If you fucking say so…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  70. loserlame says:

    I don’t say so, Germans say so.

    I’m going to look up how much mercury is really bad for people. Reading the stats CM posted above, I can’t even believe the EPA has any valid metric of how much mercury etc. is truly and proven harmful to humans. I’ll trust the numbers from a neutral source only

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  71. AlexInCT says:

    He has said that he believes global warming is real and that humans are contributing to it.

    He is at least half right. Global Warming is real. It’s been going on since long before this chunk of rock cooled off enough some 4 billion years ago to allow water vapor to condense and become liquid. It’s caused by the sun and the energy our oceans trap from it primarily. Even then, earth is not a closed system and the notion of a median/average, or threshold temperature that if crossed is going to be disastrous and will kill the planet, is a god damned joke. Earth will not be destroyed until a billion years from now when the sun goes supernova. Man can’t destroy the planet. Even an all out nuclear war will not destroy the planet. It likely won’t even destroy all life.

    The problem is with the second part. If humans are actually contributing to it, and I will grant that for now, they certainly do so at nothing more than a noise level. That gets proven every time a volcano blows up or the sun gets hyper active. And even if human contribution can finally be measurably proven, with real science and not this consensus bullshit, to be higher than that, please explain to me how restrictive totalitarian wealth redistribution measures that make the elites imposing them on us – but ignoring it for themselves – which go hand in hand with massive government power schemes, designed to increase their power to control their citizen’s access to energy, is going to do anything to solve any of that? People that think like you might feel going back to living at a 14th century standard of living – as well an eugenic movement to return us to a world population of that time – are worth saving Gaia, but me, I don’t want to go there. Especially since it is very clear to me that you kind always wants others to do the sacrificing.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  72. loserlame says:

    Here we go: check out the pic in this article from 3 years ago and behold how humans (Euros) can live in perfect harmony with coal burners so long as they have mercury filters. End of story

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/europe/23coal.html

    CIVITAVECCHIA, Italy — At a time when the world’s top climate experts agree that carbon emissions must be rapidly reduced to hold down global warming, Italy’s major electricity producer, Enel, is converting its massive power plant here from oil to coal, generally he dirtiest fuel on earth.

    Italy’s Civitavecchia power plant is converting from oil to coal. Over the next five years, Italy will increase its reliance on coal to 33 percent from 14 percent. Power generated by Enel from coal will rise to 50 percent.

    I expect there are daily bloody protests over eastern Europe, too, where environmental concerns in Russian poets’ hands were almost as lax as Reagan and Bushs 1+2?

    If Euros say coal is acceptable – done, finished. over.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  73. AlexInCT says:

    Amazing leap of logic on your part. No, organic foods should net be banned, but nor have I suggested a ban on eating fish.

    You got me there Kimpost. So then the answer to the question I should have asked then is not to eat organic vegtables too often, by your logic,? What pray tell do you eat otherwise? Not the fish I asume?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  74. CM says:

    And again you ignore the elephant in the china shop: the fact that the western governments and the UN, which all stand to gain drastically from pushing this nonsense and their ideological/political solutions, have resources that completely dwarf anything their opposition could ever muster. But then again, I expected exactly that from you.

    I’ll take your lack of denial as an admission that you misrepresented what I said.
    No, I don’t believe your narrative is an “elephant in the room”. I think it’s just an ideological narrative. How do they stand to gain?

    I have yet to get you to show me even ONE instance of where I actually misrepresented anything.

    Off the top of my head:
    (1) You claimed I was making an argument that rich oil companies can afford to buy off people when I said no such thing. Companies and industries protect their interests – that’s all I was saying. AND that point was secondary.
    (2) You misrepresented the corrective action notice by saying they had to carry out metulargic testing on the whole line, when they didn’t.
    (3) You continually infer that I and Kimpost are communists or socialists (“you people” etc).

    As you misrepresent me (or something), I’ll point it out. You’ll then see the obvious pattern.

    Your comeback was that I was to then claim I was not providing facts, when I was and you simply chose to disregard them, as you just did here again, but just stating my opinion. You on the other hand keep consistently and constantly ignoring anything I bring up that basically destroys your arguments.

    The only arguments you keep destroying are your own by doubling down on your inability to make a case. Again, which facts have I disregarded?

    Really CM?

    Of course it is – I never made an argument that money isn’t spent on research into climate change, or that money isn’t spent coming up with discussing public policy approaches.

    Then you should have no trouble at all backing up your weak and spurious comeback with something to dismiss my points, short of that lame attempt?

    Which points? You’ve just set out another narrative. There is nothing of substance to counter.

    Is your quick dismissal perchance based on some facts I don’t know about which would invalidate my claim and prove that neither these governments nor the UN have the financial or political resources I mentioned?

    You’re continuing with this straw man argument?! Really? WTF?! Why on earth would you do that when it’s already been pointed out that I never made that argument? Good grief.

    Or is it that you have proof that can contest that these governments or the UN don’t push, and push hard, that AGW agenda?

    Leaving aside the straw man aspect of this, you mean that money is spent on science? Yeah, I don’t think I need to prove that. It’s obvious. The problem you have with your narrative is evidence (let alone proof) that it’s unjustified, or part of some greater ideological plan.

    Maybe you have proof that would indicate neither these governments nor the UN stand to gain an immense influx of cash from all this taxation they believe will somehow magically clean up CO2?

    I’m not sure how the UN gains tax money? How does that happen?
    And who claimed taxation will somehow magically clean up CO2? There’s another case of misrepresentation.

    Or is it your contention that I am totally wrong in pointing out that once they control access to energy through price and limited resources, people will have their freedoms curtailed?

    Your entire narrative is inherently unsupported. It’s difficult to know where to begin. But then that’s your style – you avoid detail at all costs and just repeat the same narrative in response.

    Fruit! Oh, how grand! Why is that comparison not a fair one, CM?

    Because those in opposition to climate science research and determining public policy responses don’t spend very much at all on science, and none on public policy responses. They spent almost all of it on trying to confuse people and muddying the waters.

    I see a heavy dose of bullshit biased and weak opinion of a reply, that basically hopes to deflect from the obviously indefensible. I repeat the above questions I posed. Educate us why this is a straw man argument, please!

    Done. Again, I never made the argument that: “This trite defense of the “rich oil companies can afford to buy off people” again”. I said was that there is considerable opposition (and that opposition is very very well funded). Nobody (and I assume you mean scientists) needs to be ‘bought off’ by oil companies. Unless it can be proven, I assume all scientists are acting professionally (in good faith). I’m not in making unfounded accusations, particularly accusing professionals of fraud. I don’t need to.

    How? By pointing out what you say and then tearing a giant hole in the bullshit you spout?

    Explained. Didn’t happen.

    You made a bullshit claim that any and al analysis from those that do not worship at the altar of AGW is to be treated as suspect because it is somehow financed or supportive of the agenda of the oil lobby,

    Where did I claim anything of the sort? Please stop making shit up.

    and I point out that for all its financial and political power, the oil lobby is dwarfed by the power of these collectivist states and the UN, both financially and in political power, and pointed out that using your own fucking logic would then mean we shouldn’t take anything the AGW cult puts out seriously, only to have you dismiss it as an apple to oranges straw man argument, without anything to prove that’s the case. Me, I think you have no defense, hence this bullshit and obviously desperate claim of a straw man.

    The point isn’t how much money is available to scientists and those involved in public policy. My point is that those who don’t accept the science, or the need to take action, are well funded, and know how to use that funding to create confusion. And remember, they don’t need to act professionally. There are no rules for them. However there are strict rules (professional and otherwise) for the vast numbers of those working in the field.

    Ah really? Here is a revelation for you CM: I am ALL FOR sustainable energy production.

    Cool.

    Where we differ is in the fact that as an engineer I see that the only truly sustainable energy option available to us at this time is nuclear power,

    You’ve discounted micro systems – particularly solar, and heat pump systems, (for heating and cooling or air, and heating of water)? Why?

    something the AGW cult has been vehemently against,

    It’s difficult to discuss this with you when you talk in such vague abstracts (again, you’re allergic to detail because that inevitably trips you up). Which people make up this ‘AGW cult’? I’ve already linked elsewhere to green groups supporting the greater use of nuclear.

    and that any other technologies are so immature or non-viable that they don’t make sense, either economically or engineering wise.

    Such as?
    The whole point of providing funding to the sector is to improve their viability.

    And I wants viable sustainable energy that is NOT prohibitively costly and destructive to the modern western democracy.

    So how does that happen without incentives? Destructive to democracy? How?

    Especially not when those calling for it are collectivist scumbags that have invented a world ending crisis to straddle humanity with their evil ideology.

    Invented a crisis? But there are many many right-wingers who accept the science, and agree that we should probably do something. How does that happen?
    You’ve completely insulated yourself from all detail with your conspiracy nutbaggery. Which makes it impossible to dicuss this with you honestly and objectively.

    No, it doesn’t make any fucking sense unless you are a collectivist watermelon asshole that doesn’t even have the decency to come clean on that. But, then again, that’s obvious about you.

    Asshole?
    Ok then.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  75. CM says:

    …. the last graph in the whole presentation too, which clearly shows that the real numbers, the ones already actualized, show massive deficits – to the tune of several millions – which, while not shown directly anywhere in the report as a percentage of expenditures by government, is trending deep red….

    The last graph (on page 15) is trending away from deep red (from a peak in 2008). Are you referring to a different graph?

    So CM, you are pissed because I told you I do not take anything that comes from the church of AGW, or any of it’s various branches, as reliable or believable?

    I’m not ‘pissed’ about anything. Merely pointing out the absurdity of your position (dismissing anything that doesn’t conclude what you want it to conclude).
    Again, what is wrong with that analysis? Come on. You’ve said that while it’s clever, it’s “nevertheless wrong” So you’ve analysed it and come to some specific conclusions – now set them out so we can see your logic. Here is your chance to provide some detail instead of vague conspiracy nonsense.

    Maybe the cult should be more open, scientific, and less politically and ideologically driven, and I will give them a second chance,

    As the science IS already open, and scientific, and has not been shown to be politically or ideoligically driven, who are you kidding when you claim you’ll give it a second chance?

    but when they just dismiss the revelation they have been cheating, and then, to top it all off, have a circle jerk committee of believers claim they ran an “inquisition” and found nothing wrong despite the fact that there were some seriously questionable (that’s their words, I consider it scientific fraud of the worst kind) behaviors, I tend to stop believing anything they say, period

    That’s the narrative. Where is the detail? Who are “they”?Come on, be a man and put your argument where your narrative is. For crying out loud, just this once. if you’re so certain (and you clearly are) it should be very easy.

    And just maybe you can score a win against me here, for a change, by “exposing” one of those faux links I gave to some bullshit site run by people with an agenda, without first disclosing that agenda, huh?

    Not interesting in ‘scoring wins’. That’s your aim apparently. But it sure was hilarious to see your lecture about sourcing, only for you to then immediately provide a link within which someone is explcitly selling their book. Surely you can see how that was funny.

    Blab away. Pretend that up is won, left is right, green is blue, and the bullshit “green economy” makes money all you want. In fact, let them do it to your country’s economy. Keep your stupid ideas and bullshit out of mine.

    Up is won? Yeah, I’ll keep believing that. Maybe I’ll put it on a bumper-sticker too.
    I never claimed the ‘green economy’ makes money. That’s more of your ongoing misrepresentation. In the long term, it’s very obvious that it will cost less than the alternative of doing nothing though.

    Keep your stupid ideas and bullshit out of mine.

    Sorry, I have no influence over scientists or those involved in public policy in the United States. I apologise if I gave you the impression that I did.

    You might want to start working on getting Romney back on the ‘right’ side of the equation. For some reason he’s drifted over to the cultists.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  76. CM says:

    But Gates is no expert on solar so his opinion should be completely irrelevant. Why mention Gates?

    His quote is an angle into the story. The substantive part of the story isn’t about Gates at all.
    And if he’s no expert on solar then why is he coming out with definitive statements about it?

    You yourself said: “Because [solar is] far from simple or easy. And there is considerable opposition (and that opposition is very very well funded).”

    Wow, mispresentation much?
    You’ve inserted the word ‘solar’ into what I said, which changes the entire meaning. I mean the overall package of solutions, and the way they are implemented, is very complex.

    Ordinary thinking folks start connecting the dots and find that Bill Gates hates solar for some lame reason, not science, thats for sure, and, hey, hes rich, too. He can afford any electricity. His way of thinking built 17 dangerous nuclear power plants we don’t need. Screw him. Solar is the way!”

    I don’t see how the piece misrepresented what he said. But I think you’re misrepresenting the piece.

    Well, I get to thinking and theres nary a reason I can find that honestly explains why businesses and homes outside the US aren’t yet solar-equipped for their “mundane” electricity needs.

    What a strange thing to say. Many of them are, and the numbers are increasing all the time. Many people are looking at other ways of increasing energy efficiency (e.g. I’m looking at reducing the energy required to hear hot water by 70%).

    I’m told that installation costs a bit, but it creates jobs, and solar is virtually free after that. And that lot of small, mundane savings add up to large savings that the incumbent industry and its lobby would eventually notice and be forced to act upon?

    Huh? Not sure what you mean? How/why would they be “forced to act upon”?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  77. CM says:

    The point is that you have to deal with some pollution, regardless.
    CM’s post is crap. I was pointing out that anyone can put together irrelevant facts and say OH NOESSSSSS!!! BIG BAD X CORP SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN!!!

    Kimpost has pointed out clearly that your comparison is illogical. We don’t have to deal with mercury in tuna. Only those who eat it have to worry, and then they just need to make sure they don’t eat more than the recommended amount.

    Why is my post “crap”? Which post? Which facts are irrelevant? Where did I say (or imply) that because a business is privately run, it should therefore be shut down? Come on, man up and answer the questions.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  78. CM says:

    You keep telling us to make it affordable, I say you lead the way. Money/profit is no issue in China, so get with them to mass produce solar and everyone will buy. and the US will be forced to follow.

    In many respects China ARE leading the way.

    …. China has made large-scale investments in clean energy manufacturing and infrastructure, and that these signal China’s clear desire to lead the world in clean energy technology production, deployment, and eventually innovation.

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/06/22/206271/china%e2%80%99s-clean-energy-push/

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/01/12/205328/china-csp-concentrated-solar-thermal-power-esolar/

    Unfortunately, at the same time, they’re also burning a crazy amount of coal

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/03/02/207615/china%e2%80%99s-coal-policy-is-breathtakingly-self-destructive/

    But the point made my the article I posted is that solar is ALREADY affordable in the US, and will be increasingly so.

    Euros say the earth is proven to be cooking, thanks mostly to USA,

    A majority of climate scientists are Americans. (Athough I suspect because of their science, you consider them ‘Euros’).

    yet they need time to crunch the numbers, to see if its affordable and profitable to save the planet? I say fix it. Now.

    Ah, I see this is the new stategy. “If it was such a big problem you would have fixed it already. Since you haven’t, it can’t be that big a problem, if a problem at all”.
    Sorry, it’s as lame and transparent as the previous tactics.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  79. CM says:

    He is at least half right. Global Warming is real. It’s been going on since long before this chunk of rock cooled off enough some 4 billion years ago to allow water vapor to condense and become liquid. It’s caused by the sun and the energy our oceans trap from it primarily. Even then, earth is not a closed system and the notion of a median/average, or threshold temperature that if crossed is going to be disastrous and will kill the planet, is a god damned joke. Earth will not be destroyed until a billion years from now when the sun goes supernova. Man can’t destroy the planet. Even an all out nuclear war will not destroy the planet. It likely won’t even destroy all life.

    Who is claiming that the earth will be destroyed? We don’t even have to get remotely close to that point before we’re greatly affected (we’re already being affected). Another straw man argument. As is an argument that there is some sort of ‘threshold’ that if we cross will be disastrous.
    The point is that man can destroy his way of life.

    The problem is with the second part. If humans are actually contributing to it, and I will grant that for now, they certainly do so at nothing more than a noise level.

    The scientific evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

    That gets proven every time a volcano blows up or the sun gets hyper active.

    How does volcanic activity or the intensity of the sun disprove that greenhouse gas emissions are not having a significant effect on the planet’s climate?

    And even if human contribution can finally be measurably proven, with real science and not this consensus bullshit, to be higher than that,

    Our contribution is able to be measured. The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any. Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

    The science is explained here:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

    please explain to me how restrictive totalitarian wealth redistribution measures that make the elites imposing them on us – but ignoring it for themselves – which go hand in hand with massive government power schemes, designed to increase their power to control their citizen’s access to energy, is going to do anything to solve any of that?

    Your premise is flawed.

    People that think like you might feel going back to living at a 14th century standard of living – as well an eugenic movement to return us to a world population of that time – are worth saving Gaia, but me, I don’t want to go there. Especially since it is very clear to me that you kind always wants others to do the sacrificing.

    Actually, we want to avoid going back to a 14th century standard of living. That’s kind of the point. We haven’t constructed our systems sustainably. We’ve now figured that out. We want to preserve a liveable planet so we can live on it (purely selfish means). That’s a good enough argument on it’s own. And it can be done pretty much entirely through the free market (via correcting a market failure).

    As for costs: Economic assessments of proposed policies to put a price on carbon emissions are in widespread agreement that the net economic impact will be minor. The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per person per week, and a GDP reduction of less than 1%. Moreover, the benefits outweigh the costs several times over, as real-world examples illustrate.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm

    As for eugenics – nobody here has advocated eugenics, so I have no clue how that is relevant to anything.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  80. AlexInCT says:

    Who is claiming that the earth will be destroyed?

    Did you seriously just pretend this is not what the cultists are constantly telling everyone? I Googled Global Warming end of the world and got 14.7 million fucking hits. And it’s not just blogs: it’s even the freaking leftoid news organizations saying this bullshit. You sir have no shame pretending this isn’t the argument that’s constantly used to push economy, job, and freedom killing legislation intended to massively enhance government power and control of our lives. Not just me saying so. In fact, this is an awesome post on the subject saying much the same as I have been.

    We don’t even have to get remotely close to that point before we’re greatly affected (we’re already being affected).

    Moving the goalposts again CM? Here is a prediction for you: if we don’t stop your death cult and you people get to do what you want, it won’t do anything of significance to affect this problem if there is even a remote chance that it is for real. All this agenda will do is destroy most of the world’s economies, in a way that will make sure that if this problem is real, we won’t have the financial resources to actually do anything to save the human race. As with everything else the left has done, when it is all set & done, it will cause far, far more damage and do nothing about what it portended to try and fix.

    Another straw man argument. As is an argument that there is some sort of ‘threshold’ that if we cross will be disastrous.

    Another? Seriously, you really think anyone is falling for this shit tactic of yours? And if there is no threshold, then what’s with the rush? Why not encourage real scientific research to get to the bottom of the problem – that’s because nothing done so far is trust worthy – if it exists at all? Why the freaking urgency? Why the bullshit about how in a few decades the oceans will rise and swallow up civilization? Man, you are too easy.

    The point is that man can destroy his way of life.

    That’s exactly what the green movement will achieve CM: it will destroy modern & free society because of the power government will have to ration energy and control us all. We are already seeing the effects of all this leftist bullshit writ large across the western world, and this “green” shit is the nail in the coffin. But you can pretend that nature is where it will come from all you want.

    The scientific evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

    What scientific evidence? Do you mean all that falsified or cherry picked data, the faux models that produce the same results regardless of input, and the rigged peer review system that black listed anything and everything that wasn’t pro their agenda? That evidence? The one we get told has a consensus and that anyone not buying the consensus is a denier? Yeah, sure. Whatever!

    Faith baby, that’s what this is: pure and unadulterated faith. Because, there isn’t much else there. That of course, and the agenda – what you want to pretend is a conspiracy – where the solutions to the problem are all social changes, and not any real technology or engineering ones.

    Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

    Actually this thing called the sun IS still the dominant force, and that’s followed by nature, if you will allow me to use that term to describe the natural planetary balance, and if man is really doing anything, I have already pointed out it is dwarfed by either of these two, let alone them combined. More importantly, the agent blamed, CO2, is nothing but a bit player, a trace element, in the grand scheme of things. Water vapor is the dominant green gas. Of course, man doesn’t make much water vapor from burning fossil fuels, but more importantly, nobody in their right mind is going to take anyone trying to then tell us we need to stop burning fossil fuels serious then.

    How does volcanic activity or the intensity of the sun disprove that greenhouse gas emissions are not having a significant effect on the planet’s climate?

    Well CM, I am glad you asked. The problem is that your question is incorrectly phrased, likely on purpose, but I am going to school you. First off, volcanoes. You are aware that volcanic activity, the explosive event where the caldera rips open and the earth vents gasses, affecting the ozone layer, the haze effect, and also those greenhouse gasses you ask about? In fact, most eruptions produce CO2 emissions that virtually dwarf what man does over decades. Even more importantly, volcanic eruptions can produce so much particulate that they can actually cause massive cooling effects. And that’s despite the CO2. Still these events aren’t close to the amount of energy generated by the sun, so now lets talk about the sun.

    Solar energy, the vast majority of it, is trapped in the oceans in the form of thermal energy. Find out what a real & distinguished scientist, Stephen Wilde, and whom has ripped up the whole CO2 bullshit argument of the watermelons, and that is kind enough to explain in his piece titled The Real Link Between Solar Energy, Ocean Cycles and Global Temperature. WARNING! You might actually be exposed to some real scientific methodology and thinking though, if you read this mans brilliant work, CM. In fact, just to get you from your own angle, here are some of your fellow travelers looking at oceanic thermal energy as an alternate source of energy because it is so freaking huge.

    Anyway, explained so even you can grasp the concept, the point is that the sun radiates a beastly amount of energy at us. That energy is primarily trapped in the oceans in form of thermal energy (that’s a fancy word for heat). But because there is so much of it – heat that is – it causes quite a lot of that surface water to evaporate. That evaporated water, you know the biggest component of greenhouse gasses by something north of 97%, contains the other energy that helps trap heat and affects temperatures. CO2? CO2 is at best noise. And since nature puts out more CO2 than man does with one good volcanic explosion – I am using this to show you how man’s contribution to CO2 in an open system basically makes it all meaningless – again, blaming man for any kind of warming is like blaming a couple of conventional bombs for the destruction caused by the Hiroshima nuke for example.

    Our contribution is able to be measured.

    Did I say anything other wise? I do however not trust the numbers if they are unwilling to share the data – the underlying stuff, not their manipulated/massaged shit – and methodology so they can be properly reviewed as is too often the case with the greenies.

    The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.

    So your base assumption is that the natural cycle isn’t bale to compensate for that? There in lies the problem with your watermelons: the assumption that the system is both close and unable to adjust. Here is some news for you: scientists have proof that the system has handled far, far higher concentrations of CO2 – orders of magnitudes – than we have today, and it never collapsed. In fact, it adjusted quite nicely to it, even causing cooling.

    Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity.

    So what? The quantities still are dwarfed by the most predominant greenhouse gas: water vapor. And again, where are the observations claiming nature doesn’t have the ability to handle this increase? Please don’t link me some green site. I don’t read them for anything other than a humor factor.

    Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths.

    These wouldn’t be those “satellite observations” by that NASA hack that falsified, cherry picked, and ignored anything that didn’t help push the agenda named Hansen, would they? Because I am going to laugh at you if they are.

    Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat.

    Read that article about the role of the sun and the oceans on this.

    This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

    No it doesn’t. All you have presented is more of the same debunked bogus unscientific shit. Besides, if this evidence was so fool proof and convincing, why the need for the “consensus science” claims and the inquisition that accuses those that ask for real proof of being heretical deniers? I have never in my experience had anyone deny any of Newton’s laws or demanded they be accept them as consensus science, because any skeptic could basically go do the work to reproduce the results, the exact same results, no mater how complicated their experiment was. And yet, I have never, ever, seen the “green science freaks” that claim this is all settled, use that same brilliant defense to win their argument. In fact, they have done quite the opposite. Here are countless links to some real science that take all that nonsense you link to apart.

    Actually, we want to avoid going back to a 14th century standard of living. That’s kind of the point. We haven’t constructed our systems sustainably. We’ve now figured that out. We want to preserve a liveable planet so we can live on it (purely selfish means). That’s a good enough argument on it’s own. And it can be done pretty much entirely through the free market (via correcting a market failure).

    OH CM, I hope you are a comedian in real life because you sure as hell know how to make us all laugh! So your plan is to give us all a bright future by destroying the economies of every modern western society? Seriously, this shit is priceless. You guys are either so dumb or so invested in your bullshit that you even convince yourselves with your lies. How pathetic.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  81. loserlame says:

    Ah, I see this is the new strategy. “If it was such a big problem you would have fixed it already. Since you haven’t, it can’t be that big a problem, if a problem at all”.
    Sorry, it’s as lame and transparent as the previous tactics.

    Nowhere have I ever said mass pollution in any form isn’t a problem. (and therefore humans themselves are major pollutants, but thats mean, eh)

    You yourself cop out with “these technologies are doable but all so expensive I can’t afford them, so I’ll hange around online and pester those I just know have all the money in the world but won’t spend it on green because they’re selfish. i’ve done alI I can”

    The hell you have. Since you haven’t fixed it, I call you lazy, money-loving hypocrites

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  82. loserlame says:

    His quote is an angle into the story. The substantive part of the story isn’t about Gates at all.
    And if he’s no expert on solar then why is he coming out with definitive statements about it?

    Gates is, arguably, an expert on computers. He once said something about leaders don’t want to lead with a wimpy mouse click, they want to issue bold commands. He also signed his name under Vista.

    My point is that instead of the US issuing the bold command to fill the desert with solar panels, all you millions of greens could instead install quiet lil mice atop your homes for all your minimal needs and make it the tool for everyone have. But no… it costs money.

    I mean the overall package of solutions, and the way they are implemented, is very complex.

    Not what I’ve heard or seen.

    Huh? Not sure what you mean? How/why would they be “forced to act upon”?

    You yourself keep saying our government and its massive lobby is always sniffing for the greenback. If tey smelled it going simply green, they’d have to lighten up on cramming oil down every throat.
    If rhe masses finally went out and bought solar for their homes, prices would go down, and theres not much the lobby could do to stop it. They too would have to offer green tech and somehow slyly tax it via tax incentives. eh.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.