Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 32 · Next
Author Message
Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1759
Credit: 3,651,391
RAC: 8,098
United States
Message 1335008 - Posted: 6 Feb 2013, 0:15:11 UTC - in response to Message 1335007.

Gary, if the warmers are correct, and I think they are, the problem will solve it's self and neither of us will be around to see the results. We will deindustialize as we know it or become Venus like.

Are you saying there is no possibility of an economically feasible and politically feasible solution? That does leave open dictatorially imposed solutions or the actions of insane mad men, absent some natural global epidemic.


IMO the only thing which could work democratically is when clean energy is more cost effective than what most of the world's population is doing.


the same "cradle to the grave" responsibility applied to asbestos could be extended to fossil fuels. The new clean alternatives would instantly be far superior.LINK

And capitalism could continue unabated.

I doubt India or China for example have serious hazmat controls or liabilities. A difference is that the people who are poisoned are mostly domestic for them, the dirty energy is shared with the planet. I don't see mandates working for them.
____________

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,216,786
RAC: 128
United States
Message 1335010 - Posted: 6 Feb 2013, 0:26:08 UTC - in response to Message 1335008.

Gary, if the warmers are correct, and I think they are, the problem will solve it's self and neither of us will be around to see the results. We will deindustialize as we know it or become Venus like.

Are you saying there is no possibility of an economically feasible and politically feasible solution? That does leave open dictatorially imposed solutions or the actions of insane mad men, absent some natural global epidemic.


IMO the only thing which could work democratically is when clean energy is more cost effective than what most of the world's population is doing.


the same "cradle to the grave" responsibility applied to asbestos could be extended to fossil fuels. The new clean alternatives would instantly be far superior.LINK

And capitalism could continue unabated.

I doubt India or China for example have serious hazmat controls or liabilities. A difference is that the people who are poisoned are mostly domestic for them, the dirty energy is shared with the planet. I don't see mandates working for them.

It does not matter. As always, someone leads, others follow. And the last one to the party gets leftovers. Mandating India and China is not required. If they wish to continue gearing up using outdated technologies while the rest of the industrialized world moves forward... they would be left behind. And they are smart enough not to let that happen. Moving beyond fossils is not a handicap. Especially if costs were associated to all goods/services sold that added their costs back in. Let the market speak for itself.

You might notice that China and India do not USUALLY attempt to sell asbestos into the united states. The damages get charged back to the point of origin, or as close as it gets.

Progress starts somewhere. When we get up and start moving.

Inertia is the enemy.
____________

Janice

Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1759
Credit: 3,651,391
RAC: 8,098
United States
Message 1335047 - Posted: 6 Feb 2013, 3:04:48 UTC - in response to Message 1335010.

Soft, good thoughts, probably the best possible outcome and I am skeptical I will live long enough to see any results other than what have already been cast in stone.
____________

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1335060 - Posted: 6 Feb 2013, 4:07:28 UTC

Left behind? Are you sure that is how you want to describe it? If by being left behind they are more profitable than going green it may be the greens that are left behind.

It will all depend on price. As long as fossil is significantly less expensive world wide then it will be used. Obviously if green is less expensive, then it gets used.

____________

Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1759
Credit: 3,651,391
RAC: 8,098
United States
Message 1335064 - Posted: 6 Feb 2013, 4:33:12 UTC - in response to Message 1335060.

Left behind? Are you sure that is how you want to describe it? If by being left behind they are more profitable than going green it may be the greens that are left behind.

It will all depend on price. As long as fossil is significantly less expensive world wide then it will be used. Obviously if green is less expensive, then it gets used.

Gary, so you agree with me, when green energy is more cost effective then the market will choose to stop fouling the planet. A question is why would you choose not to do the right thing when it costs less? Of course in our modern economies we only look at short term profits.
____________

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1335115 - Posted: 6 Feb 2013, 7:25:38 UTC - in response to Message 1335064.

Gary, so you agree with me, when green energy is more cost effective then the market will choose to stop fouling the planet. A question is why would you choose not to do the right thing when it costs less? Of course in our modern economies we only look at short term profits.

The world of the public company is totally focused on the profits of the next quarter. Long term is an illusion. But that is O/T here.


____________

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8220
Credit: 21,849,755
RAC: 11,076
United Kingdom
Message 1335122 - Posted: 6 Feb 2013, 8:00:04 UTC - in response to Message 1335115.

Gary, so you agree with me, when green energy is more cost effective then the market will choose to stop fouling the planet. A question is why would you choose not to do the right thing when it costs less? Of course in our modern economies we only look at short term profits.

The world of the public company is totally focused on the profits of the next quarter. Long term is an illusion. But that is O/T here.


What you mean next qtr. Don't you mean this qtr.

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1335160 - Posted: 6 Feb 2013, 14:43:45 UTC - in response to Message 1335122.

Gary, so you agree with me, when green energy is more cost effective then the market will choose to stop fouling the planet. A question is why would you choose not to do the right thing when it costs less? Of course in our modern economies we only look at short term profits.

The world of the public company is totally focused on the profits of the next quarter. Long term is an illusion. But that is O/T here.


What you mean next qtr. Don't you mean this qtr.

The quarter is always over by the time of the report. So for management this quarter is next quarter to shareholders.


____________

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8220
Credit: 21,849,755
RAC: 11,076
United Kingdom
Message 1335162 - Posted: 6 Feb 2013, 15:00:13 UTC - in response to Message 1335160.

Gary, so you agree with me, when green energy is more cost effective then the market will choose to stop fouling the planet. A question is why would you choose not to do the right thing when it costs less? Of course in our modern economies we only look at short term profits.

The world of the public company is totally focused on the profits of the next quarter. Long term is an illusion. But that is O/T here.


What you mean next qtr. Don't you mean this qtr.

The quarter is always over by the time of the report. So for management this quarter is next quarter to shareholders.


But usually there is enough info from last report and the analysts to make a decision whether to sell, hold or buy this qtr.

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1335259 - Posted: 6 Feb 2013, 21:28:01 UTC - in response to Message 1335162.

But usually there is enough info from last report and the analysts to make a decision whether to sell, hold or buy this qtr.

http://www.whispernumber.com/
____________

Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1759
Credit: 3,651,391
RAC: 8,098
United States
Message 1335325 - Posted: 7 Feb 2013, 1:10:27 UTC - in response to Message 1335115.

Gary, so you agree with me, when green energy is more cost effective then the market will choose to stop fouling the planet. A question is why would you choose not to do the right thing when it costs less? Of course in our modern economies we only look at short term profits.

The world of the public company is totally focused on the profits of the next quarter. Long term is an illusion. But that is O/T here.


Eating your young is probably not a long term survival tactic for mammals.
____________

Message 1335328 - Posted: 7 Feb 2013, 1:17:46 UTC

Eating your young is probably not a long term survival tactic for mammals.


But It Is. The Sickly, deformed, otherwise Weak Of The Litter Get Eaten By Mom, for The Strong Ones Survival.

Thus Tens Of Millions Of Mammalian Species Survival. Then Man Mammal Came Along.

And Now The Decline and Eventual Extinction.

Due To The Mom/Pops Not "Eating Their Young" So To Speak.

IGNORE Say: No IGNORING Evolution. Humans Have Disrupted The Natural Flow. Goodbye HumanKind. Unless You Get Hungry.
____________


Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1759
Credit: 3,651,391
RAC: 8,098
United States
Message 1335338 - Posted: 7 Feb 2013, 1:57:08 UTC - in response to Message 1335328.

Nice argument, but not true.
Well spoken from one who was once a worm.
____________

Terror Australis
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1627
Credit: 200,987,234
RAC: 49,025
Australia
Message 1335386 - Posted: 7 Feb 2013, 6:47:56 UTC - in response to Message 1335328.

Eating your young is probably not a long term survival tactic for mammals.


But It Is. The Sickly, deformed, otherwise Weak Of The Litter Get Eaten By Mom, for The Strong Ones Survival.

Thus Tens Of Millions Of Mammalian Species Survival. Then Man Mammal Came Along.

And Now The Decline and Eventual Extinction.

Due To The Mom/Pops Not "Eating Their Young" So To Speak.

IGNORE Say: No IGNORING Evolution. Humans Have Disrupted The Natural Flow. Goodbye HumanKind. Unless You Get Hungry.

The Angel is right. Humanity is the only species which has made sterility an inheritable trait.

T.A.

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1335393 - Posted: 7 Feb 2013, 6:54:34 UTC
Last modified: 7 Feb 2013, 6:57:29 UTC

What a tangled web we weave when we practice deception via tax code ...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/06/cutbacks-in-subsidies-indicate-future-solar-may-be-dimming/
Solar Power

"The fundamental problem is it's not economically sustainable," said Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center, a think tank in Washington state.
...
At the heart of this dilemma are what's known as net metering customers. These homeowners and businesses produce solar power which they use, but then they're able to sell power they don't use back into the grid. They're compensated at retail rates and can currently receive a check at the end of the year.
...
She and her husband put solar panels on their house last year and anticipate breaking even in 14 years, but if the Idaho Power changes go through, they may never recoup the $25,000 solar panel investment they made.
...
"Everywhere you go, solar energy requires massive subsidies, which eventually blow a hole in the federal or state budget, and then are dropped," said Myers. "Solar is a bad way to go."

____________

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,216,786
RAC: 128
United States
Message 1335410 - Posted: 7 Feb 2013, 8:18:02 UTC - in response to Message 1335393.

Gary, quoting slanted articles for Faux news is certainly not a solution. To say it depends on subsidies is false. To say someone overpaid for a system and might not get as much as they expected back is possible.

But this is not part of the solution. It is part of the problem. Cheer coal and petroleum, slam wind/solar. Even with weak arguments from slanted sources.


____________

Janice

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1335450 - Posted: 7 Feb 2013, 14:49:42 UTC - in response to Message 1335410.

Gary, quoting slanted articles for Faux news is certainly not a solution. To say it depends on subsidies is false. To say someone overpaid for a system and might not get as much as they expected back is possible.

But this is not part of the solution. It is part of the problem. Cheer coal and petroleum, slam wind/solar. Even with weak arguments from slanted sources.

Ah, you don't see the real issue behind. As long as someone has to pay in cash the difference in price between PV solar and coal/natural gas that someone will eventually go broke. To make PV solar work is has to cost less without any trickery by tax code or otherwise than coal/natural gas. Until that happens PV solar is not part of the solution and we need to look elsewhere for the solution. That is the real issue.

The same applies to any technology that is proposed. It has to cost less than what is presently in use. It is a reality that the arm waving "make it so" crowd ignores.

____________

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 7936
Credit: 26,971,744
RAC: 32,326
United States
Message 1335464 - Posted: 7 Feb 2013, 15:41:37 UTC

Ok here is a question for all of you. The oil companys get a tax break and or a subsidy. If the Government took that away how much would Gas and heating fuel be?
Also, then how would wind, and PV solar stack up?
____________

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,432,515
RAC: 121
Korea, North
Message 1335475 - Posted: 7 Feb 2013, 16:12:58 UTC - in response to Message 1335464.

no difference. considering they just add the "gubment" handout to their profits. The last I checked some of the "oil" companies are raking in about $400 billion a year. taking $20 billion away is not going to substantially hurt their bottom line. BTW those handouts are to encourage them to explore for oil. Of note, Big Oil already explores for oil. its not like they weren't already going to do it.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 7936
Credit: 26,971,744
RAC: 32,326
United States
Message 1335478 - Posted: 7 Feb 2013, 16:16:31 UTC - in response to Message 1335475.

no difference. considering they just add the "gubment" handout to their profits. The last I checked some of the "oil" companies are raking in about $400 billion a year. taking $20 billion away is not going to substantially hurt their bottom line. BTW those handouts are to encourage them to explore for oil. Of note, Big Oil already explores for oil. its not like they weren't already going to do it.

And how much have we paid to them to uncap a well they capped when oil was to cheap?
____________

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 32 · Next
Post to thread

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions

Copyright © 2014 University of California