Not really a scientific study this, more an anecdotal personal story.

Last year i bought 3 200w solar panels and a 600W inverter for £300.
They're mounted on a framework above the shed. They're not on the house roof because i don't have a south-facing roof and i'd have to hire contractors to install things up there anyway.
The wooden framework above the shed does face south and i built it myself. Total materials cost £50.
20 yards of armoured cable to connect the shed to the house £20.
Total install cost £370.

I don't get the feed-in tariff of 21p/unit or whatever it is these days, to qualify for that i need installation certificates and other paperwork, which would probably have doubled my cost of installation.
I'm on simple net metering, the meter turns one way (it's a digital smart meter but you know what i mean) when i'm drawing electricity out of the grid and turns the other way when any surplus is flowing back in. At the end of the month, i am charged for the net amount removed from the grid, currently at 13.19 p/kWh.

From June '12 to May '13, i spent £212.13 on electricity (not including standing charge)
System became operational 3rd June 2013.
From June '13 to March '14, i have spent £104.33 on electricity (not including standing charge.
Extrapolating to the end of May, (104.33/10*12) that's £125.20.
Net saving (212.13-125.20) £86.93.
Payback time (370/86.93) 4.26 years.
Guarantee on panels 25 years.
Profitable lifespan (25-4.26) 20.74 years.
Total saving (20.74*86.93) £1802.93, and that's if prices stay stable, which they won't.

Now, who said solar power isn't profitable?

I second this post wholeheartedly. Those are the calculations we make every day.

:) I like the calculations too.

Agricultural subsidies exist to keep food prices HIGH, not to lower them.

Shows what you know about economics 101. Look, subsidies mean the government pays a certain price to farmers for all their products, meaning that farmers are going to produce more than what would normally be acceptable on the free market. Now if you remember your supply and demand curves, what happens when there is more supply? Right, prices go down.

Of course, people still pay for it, just not in the supermarket.

Look, I think it is YOU that doesn't understand introductory economics.

The subsidy scheme you mention is about price supports on agricultural goods.

You left out another entire class of subsidies. One where the government PAYS farmers to NOT grow their crops (or at least scale back and leave a certain amount of their land fallow). This directly leads to higher food prices.

The US Government makes use of both schemes. The scheme you mentioned leads to higher food prices because as you say 'the people still pay for it, just not at the supermarket'. You have to pay the salaries of all the Government Bureaucrats and other employees needed to administer the program, a non-trivial cost. Then, the Government has to pay to STORE all the agricultural goods it has bought until such time as they are distributed. And, Government being Government, a LOT of this food ROTS in the warehouse due to incompetence, before the Government can distribute it.

You beginning to see? Agricultural subsidies invariably lead to higher food prices.

The recent financial crisis... The US Government CAUSED it. They mandated that banks and other financial institutions make home mortgage loans to people that had no reasonable way to pay the loans back. This caused a 'housing bubble', as the influx of money caused an inflation in housing prices. The bubble finally popped. Financial institutions and investors had a LOT of toxic assets on their hands. Liquidity dried up. The economy went to crap. We are still not out of it.

Oh yes, the US government caused it, though not in the way you are suggesting. They caused it because they deregulated the financial markets. There used to be laws regulating the financial sector and those laws made it pretty clear what you could and could not do. Those laws were scrapped because the free market could supposedly regulate itself, and as a result banks started doing this.

There was no law that mandated banks to loan money to people that couldn't afford to pay it back. Banks did that because it was profitable. They were betting on those loans to fail because they had insured them. If those loans failed, they got a massive insurance check. Basically what they did was basic insurance fraud. Except that thanks to deregulation, insurance fraud was turned into a financial product to be traded.

You are incorrect in this assumption. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 as amended in 1995 required banks to make a sufficient number of loans to Low and Moderate Income borrowers to keep the Federal regulators happy. The ONLY way banks could do this was by disregarding standards of safe lending, and to start making home loans to people without sufficient (and in many cases ANY) down payment and insufficient ratio of debt and income. You know, people that shouldn't have HAD the home loans because they were not likely to be able to pay them back.

There is a bit more to this, such as the Government agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac repackaging these loans to sell to investors, and the use of Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) to give these people low introductory interest rates to help them qualify... but I have hit the high points. The important points.

It was US Government interference in business (the banking industry) that directly CAUSED the 2008 economic crash and the ongoing Great Recession.

I repeat, the US Government CAUSED it. Without the Government interference in the housing loan market, there would have been NO housing bubble to pop, therefore NO world-wide financial crisis. I repeat, Government interference in business is BAD. Without that law, there is no way in heck that the banks and other financial institutions would have made the loans that turned toxic and almost cratered the world-wide economy.

It was the lack of regulation that did it. And it was the lack of any law saying that they couldn't loan money to people who couldn't afford it and then insure that loan and cash in the insurance money once those people failed to pay back.

As far as lobbying goes, you condemn it (and rightly so) on the more right-wing causes... but applaud it on the more left wing causes... Excuse me, but I think your bias may be showing...

Yep, I'm biased because I prioritize breahtable air, water that doesn't contain toxins and civil rights over corporations ability to make money.

What is wrong with citizens asking their government to make laws protecting their environment and civil rights?

As far as the 'experts' helping to draft legislation, you are SERIOUSLY telling me that it is a good idea to let these highly-paid experts draft legislation affecting the industries that paid them? That is just begging for corruption.

That depends. If you want to make a law about environmental protection, wouldn't it be better to have an expert on the environment tell you what he needs for the best kind of protection? Or would you leave it to a bunch of lawyers who spend their whole lives in DC and don't have a clue about the environment come up with measures to protect it?

The same is true for any policy field. Sure, those experts are paid for by those industries, which is why the process needs to be open and transparent, so people know who is arguing for what and give people a chance to come up with counter arguments or policy alternatives to what the industry paid experts come up with. The problem right now is that it happens way to much behind closed doors with only experts from an affected industry and thus stuff gets written into the legislation without anyone knowing whats in there until its put to the vote.

Perhaps Government should just not pass so many laws... As Tacitus said:

The more corrupt the Government, the more numerous are its laws

Yeah, sorry but reality won't allow for that. We live in a complex society, and it is growing ever more complex. Complexity means more things that require regulations to properly function.

Are you familiar with just who Tacitus was? He was a Roman policitian and historian. His public career spanned the time period between about 80CE and 116CE. The Roman empire at the time was a highly complex society, perhaps the most complex society that had yet existed. After all, it ruled the bulk of the 'known-world' of the time. Perhaps even as complex as ours. Sorry, but your 'complexity' objection falls flat.

'Transparency into the process'... Most all lobbying is nothing more than thinly disguised BRIBERY. Everything from

let me buy you dinner

to

how would you and your wife (or husband... or whatever) like a week's vacation on our dime in some exotic far away place? Lets just call it a 'fact finding trip'.

Do you seriously think that as the lobbyists commit felonies, they are going to openly ADVERTISE it?? I think not.

Its never entirely possible to prevent bribery, but sure, politicians should declare any gifts, donations or trips they receive from industry officials. And let lobbyists register themselves or else deny them all access to the Capitol or White house. There are ways to regulate it.

Uhh.. All that already *IS* the law. It *IS* regulated. It doesn't work, you admit it yourself. We are, after all, talking about the highest level politicians in the USA, and HUGE piles of money. You really think that more regulations will fix it, when the regulations in place now get routinely ignored?

Major Corporations EXIST due to Government interference. A little thing called 'corporate personhood'.

So? Being a large corporation is not bad by itself. They have their benefits. And even without corporate personhood you would get big corporations or cartels. Again, without government regulation of the market, the free market would become an unfree market in a couple of years. That is inevitable.

OK, then let me rephrase... Corporations EXIST due to Government interference. After all, they are a Government creation.

And perhaps you don't understand what a 'free market' means. It means a market FREE of Government interference. The way markets become 'unfree' is when Government interference enters the picture.

NOT letting a business fail comes at an unacceptable price.

In some cases it is indeed best to let the business fail. Still, in other cases it is not. Letting system banks fail is little more than nuking your own economy and possible the global economy. Saving those banks is expensive, letting them fail...well, the cost of that is almost impossible to quantify.

Well, in the case of the Government bank bailouts of the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, perhaps I might not object too strongly, since it was the Government that screwed the banks to begin with and forced them to make bad loans via the CRA law. But so much of the money that Congress allocated to rescuing the banks got spent on other items (insurance companies {AIG}, non-bank companies {GM}... the list goes ON and ON).

I don't believe there should be such a thing as TOO Big to Fail. Not the mom&pop corner store... and not even the biggest 'corporation' of them all, the US Government.

Oops, forgot a point...

That depends. If you want to make a law about environmental protection, wouldn't it be better to have an expert on the environment tell you what he needs for the best kind of protection? Or would you leave it to a bunch of lawyers who spend their whole lives in DC and don't have a clue about the environment come up with measures to protect it?

The same is true for any policy field. Sure, those experts are paid for by those industries, which is why the process needs to be open and transparent, so people know who is arguing for what and give people a chance to come up with counter arguments or policy alternatives to what the industry paid experts come up with. The problem right now is that it happens way to much behind closed doors with only experts from an affected industry and thus stuff gets written into the legislation without anyone knowing whats in there until its put to the vote.

Or, in some cases, (such as the ACA or 'Obamacare') until AFTER its put to the vote.

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/video-podcast-media/video-speaker-nancy-pelosi-we-have-pass-health-care-bill-so-you-can-find-out-whats-it

“Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty.”
― Tacitus

What would be so wrong with doing things a little differently. You say you want openness and transparency. How about doing away with the lobbyists altogether, and having congress hold open, public hearings on various important matters, while getting 'expert testamony' from various people involved with the subject through its power of subpena if they are unwilling to appear. The hearings would, of course, be a matter of public record (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?n=Record) not to mention being broadcast on CSPAN. And any proposed legislation be published in its final form for a period of at least 30 days before any vote (to give time for the public to weigh in and inform their Congressmen).

Open. Transparent. Deliberative instead of hasty. Not to mention that the people that have the responsibility to write the legislation would actually have to do it. Better accountability. Less of a chance for corruption.

This idea have any merit?

But, regardless, this is getting quite a bit off-topic for this thread. Perhaps starting a new one for this discussion might be in order.

Not really a scientific study this, more an anecdotal personal story.

enough said right there..and you had the nerve to present it HERE?

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

No idea where you get those figures from, I'm still skeptical

I work in the energy business. I see the figures everyday. Solar panels in general are a good way to save money for your energy and they're proven to be quite effective. Of course it depends which country you live in. The more sun, the more your solar panels produce.

and AGAIN you dodge the Actual Question.

'trust me, I'm a pro' doesn't cut it with people like us.

Ok man, don't eat me. I know we have them 'highly intellectual' people here, but I deal with reality, real figures and 'regular' people who need their elektricity. By the way, I don't think I was addressing myself to you, now was I?

You should REALLY avoid places like this where the people specialize in critical thinking.

I would really like you not to tell me what I have to or should do, if you don't mind.

That's your disconnect. WE deal with reality, you deal with 'the way you'd like things to be'
But thanks for the 'i wasn't talking to you so you can't refute my statement and I can't tell the difference between a suggestion and a command' post.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

Oops, forgot a point...

That depends. If you want to make a law about environmental protection, wouldn't it be better to have an expert on the environment tell you what he needs for the best kind of protection? Or would you leave it to a bunch of lawyers who spend their whole lives in DC and don't have a clue about the environment come up with measures to protect it?

The same is true for any policy field. Sure, those experts are paid for by those industries, which is why the process needs to be open and transparent, so people know who is arguing for what and give people a chance to come up with counter arguments or policy alternatives to what the industry paid experts come up with. The problem right now is that it happens way to much behind closed doors with only experts from an affected industry and thus stuff gets written into the legislation without anyone knowing whats in there until its put to the vote.

Or, in some cases, (such as the ACA or 'Obamacare') until AFTER its put to the vote.

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/video-podcast-media/video-speaker-nancy-pelosi-we-have-pass-health-care-bill-so-you-can-find-out-whats-it

“Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty.”
― Tacitus

What would be so wrong with doing things a little differently. You say you want openness and transparency. How about doing away with the lobbyists altogether, and having congress hold open, public hearings on various important matters, while getting 'expert testamony' from various people involved with the subject through its power of subpena if they are unwilling to appear. The hearings would, of course, be a matter of public record (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?n=Record) not to mention being broadcast on CSPAN. And any proposed legislation be published in its final form for a period of at least 30 days before any vote (to give time for the public to weigh in and inform their Congressmen).

Open. Transparent. Deliberative instead of hasty. Not to mention that the people that have the responsibility to write the legislation would actually have to do it. Better accountability. Less of a chance for corruption.

This idea have any merit?

But, regardless, this is getting quite a bit off-topic for this thread. Perhaps starting a new one for this discussion might be in order.

Never happen. It's impossible to steal a country's treasure and turn proud free citizens back into wage slaves if we run it YOUR way.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

IF that 400 billion dollars were spread across those gallons of gasoline and removed, it'd raise the price less than 1 USD/US gallon

I ask why should a profitable industry have a subsidy?

It doesn't compute in my head either

That's another question and subject.
One well worth discussion, too.

Why should ANY industry have a subsidy?

Ask the farmers.
Ask the green energy startups.
Ask big companys who pay into PACS.
Ask the oil industry.
Ask any state trying to woo a company to expand in said state.
Ask- well you know dont you?

Add in the fact that after 30 years of 'Reaganomics' and tax cuts, so much wealth has been concentrated in so few hands it has actually become possible to blackmail your own country by withholding local investments till your demands are met.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

Look, I think it is YOU that doesn't understand introductory economics.

The subsidy scheme you mention is about price supports on agricultural goods.

You left out another entire class of subsidies. One where the government PAYS farmers to NOT grow their crops (or at least scale back and leave a certain amount of their land fallow). This directly leads to higher food prices.

The US Government makes use of both schemes. The scheme you mentioned leads to higher food prices because as you say 'the people still pay for it, just not at the supermarket'. You have to pay the salaries of all the Government Bureaucrats and other employees needed to administer the program, a non-trivial cost. Then, the Government has to pay to STORE all the agricultural goods it has bought until such time as they are distributed. And, Government being Government, a LOT of this food ROTS in the warehouse due to incompetence, before the Government can distribute it.

You beginning to see? Agricultural subsidies invariably lead to higher food prices.

It rots in the stores because frankly there is just no demand for it, not because of government incompetence.

But you will see, these subsidies will become necessary to achieve food security. The EU has done it for years, it is in fact one of their most successful policies. Sure, lakes of wine and mountains of butter and all that. But also much lower costs at the supermarket. And ever since they stopped doing it and left it to the free markets, prices have only gone up.

You are incorrect in this assumption. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 as amended in 1995 required banks to make a sufficient number of loans to Low and Moderate Income borrowers to keep the Federal regulators happy. The ONLY way banks could do this was by disregarding standards of safe lending, and to start making home loans to people without sufficient (and in many cases ANY) down payment and insufficient ratio of debt and income. You know, people that shouldn't have HAD the home loans because they were not likely to be able to pay them back.

Eh no, the 1995 revision was aimed at streamlining the process and prevent banks from not loaning you any money because you came from a specific part of town or the country. You still had to be able to pay back the money. Then in 1999 they came up with the Financial Services Modernization Act, which repealed things like the Glass-Steagall act and completely changed the financial services landscape. As a result, it was simply to hard for the regulators to check whether banks where sticking to the rules.

In any case, there was no law that actually mandated banks to loan money to everyone who walked in and asked for a loan. Banks loaned the money themselves to people who couldn't afford it because those loans were profitable, not because they would be paid back, but because banks got money for everyone who defaulted on their loans.

It was US Government interference in business (the banking industry) that directly CAUSED the 2008 economic crash and the ongoing Great Recession.

Yeah, that government interference was nothing more than the repeal of a lot of safety measures that used to prevent the financial sector from going nuts. It was deregulation that led to the crisis, or in other words, the government retreating from the market.

Are you familiar with just who Tacitus was? He was a Roman policitian and historian. His public career spanned the time period between about 80CE and 116CE. The Roman empire at the time was a highly complex society, perhaps the most complex society that had yet existed. After all, it ruled the bulk of the 'known-world' of the time. Perhaps even as complex as ours. Sorry, but your 'complexity' objection falls flat.

Oh right, because I forgot the Romans also had the internet, a globally intertwined financial system, overfishing, environmental degradation, modern industries that pollute, cars, planes, and every aspect of all of those things that requires regulation if its not going to end up causing tons of damage and deaths.

I'm sorry but the Romans had it comparatively easy.

Uhh.. All that already *IS* the law. It *IS* regulated. It doesn't work, you admit it yourself. We are, after all, talking about the highest level politicians in the USA, and HUGE piles of money. You really think that more regulations will fix it, when the regulations in place now get routinely ignored?

Almost all lobby laws are jokes. The registers aren't mandatory or the rules around it are so full of loopholes no one ends up using them. And sure, politicians have to tell every time they get presents and trips. But that kind of lobbying happens relatively little. Lobbyists have tons of other, legal ways of getting in bed with the politicians. Promises of campaign donations, of future jobs, lending their expertise to a certain lawmaker, etc.

The regulations in place get ignored because they lack teeth, they aren't tight enough and as a result, no one has to take notice of them. But improving the regulation can work. The only problem is that the people who need to approve of such a law are not being pushed enough to approve it. There is no huge voter backlash if they don't push for it, and for now they only benefit from having lax regulations. After all, they benefit from all the lobbyists.

And perhaps you don't understand what a 'free market' means. It means a market FREE of Government interference. The way markets become 'unfree' is when Government interference enters the picture.

A free market run by cartels is not free either. A free market means there is healthy competition between everyone operating on it and that it is free for anyone to enter. A market run by cartels and monopolies is by definition non of that. But who is the one that does all the cartel busting and who prevents from any corporation from getting so big they become monopolies? Right...the government.


EDIT: you are right, it is getting completely off topic. Lets leave this for another topic.

Those are not 'studies' they're polls and opinion pieces.
I recommend you actually READ what you google up to try and support your argument. I did.

If by supporting your argument you mean 'made a claim without providing any kind of evidence to support it while dodging any requests for where you got your data' then indeed.

However, that is not my definition of supporting an argument.

This is supporting an argument

Your claim that no one invests in sustainability is an utter lie. Its a 250 billion dollar industry. Sure, perhaps not as much as the traditional established and dominant unclean technologies, but the difference is small. Your claim that the only reason companies invest in sustainability is because they get fat government subsidies to do it is also total nonsense. Sadly, in the West investments in sustainability is down, thanks to government non commitment to setting up policies regarding sustainability. Meanwhile in developing economies, investments are up. Also, investments were down simply because sustainable technology is getting better developed and therefor cheaper.

Oh and to some others here complaining about China, China is by now the biggest investor in sustainable technology.

How neatly you dodge the basic point in my post that the 'evidence' presented is of NO SUBSTANCE. Exactly like your post.
Well done. But not for a forum of critical thinkers.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

Look, I think it is YOU that doesn't understand introductory economics.






EDIT: you are right, it is getting completely off topic. Lets leave this for another topic.

always the best tactic when you're being thoroughly drubbed.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

How neatly you dodge the basic point in my post that the 'evidence' presented is of NO SUBSTANCE. Exactly like your post.
Well done. But not for a forum of critical thinkers.

Oh right, a study that goes directly into how much is invested in sustainable energy is of no substance in an argument where the other party claims that no one invests in it. And pray tell, what is wrong with this study?

And hey, again no sources, studies, reports or anything else that even looks remotely like evidence. Because all real critical thinkers just think, they don't need anything as bothersome as evidence or facts, especially if that goes against their deeply held critical thoughts.

I've presented 51 reports by now which all indicate you are wrong on almost every count. You have presented nothing, all you did was claim that anything I presented had no substance, even though you have given no reason for why that is the case.

So last time, show me evidence that supports your argument that no one invests in sustainable energy, that my sources are all wrong and that the only reason companies think they are doing better is because their sustainable programs rack in government subsidy cash.

always the best tactic when you're being thoroughly drubbed.

It just seems to me that a thread about climate change denial is not exactly the best place to discuss the cause of the 2008 financial crisis, lobbying, government subsidies for agriculture and the US government in general. I'll be happy to continue opposing Major Kwong's views in another thread if he so desires to continue this little verbal sparring match.

How neatly you dodge the basic point in my post that the 'evidence' presented is of NO SUBSTANCE. Exactly like your post.
Well done. But not for a forum of critical thinkers.

Oh right, a study that goes directly into how much is invested in sustainable energy is of no substance in an argument where the other party claims that no one invests in it. And pray tell, what is wrong with this study?

And hey, again no sources, studies, reports or anything else that even looks remotely like evidence. Because all real critical thinkers just think, they don't need anything as bothersome as evidence or facts, especially if that goes against their deeply held critical thoughts.

I've presented 51 reports by now which all indicate you are wrong on almost every count. You have presented nothing, all you did was claim that anything I presented had no substance, even though you have given no reason for why that is the case.

So last time, show me evidence that supports your argument that no one invests in sustainable energy, that my sources are all wrong and that the only reason companies think they are doing better is because their sustainable programs rack in government subsidy cash.

always the best tactic when you're being thoroughly drubbed.

It just seems to me that a thread about climate change denial is not exactly the best place to discuss the cause of the 2008 financial crisis, lobbying, government subsidies for agriculture and the US government in general. I'll be happy to continue opposing Major Kwong's views in another thread if he so desires to continue this little verbal sparring match.

again, unlike you, i actually READ some of it. they're not 'studies' they're polls and opinion pieces.
you sure do need to ignore a whole lot of what other people say to keep this up.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

Not really a scientific study this, more an anecdotal personal story.

enough said right there..and you had the nerve to present it HERE?

What is your problem man??

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

How neatly you dodge the basic point in my post that the 'evidence' presented is of NO SUBSTANCE. Exactly like your post.
Well done. But not for a forum of critical thinkers.

Oh right, a study that goes directly into how much is invested in sustainable energy is of no substance in an argument where the other party claims that no one invests in it. And pray tell, what is wrong with this study?

And hey, again no sources, studies, reports or anything else that even looks remotely like evidence. Because all real critical thinkers just think, they don't need anything as bothersome as evidence or facts, especially if that goes against their deeply held critical thoughts.

I've presented 51 reports by now which all indicate you are wrong on almost every count. You have presented nothing, all you did was claim that anything I presented had no substance, even though you have given no reason for why that is the case.

So last time, show me evidence that supports your argument that no one invests in sustainable energy, that my sources are all wrong and that the only reason companies think they are doing better is because their sustainable programs rack in government subsidy cash.

always the best tactic when you're being thoroughly drubbed.

It just seems to me that a thread about climate change denial is not exactly the best place to discuss the cause of the 2008 financial crisis, lobbying, government subsidies for agriculture and the US government in general. I'll be happy to continue opposing Major Kwong's views in another thread if he so desires to continue this little verbal sparring match.

again, unlike you, i actually READ some of it. they're not 'studies' they're polls and opinion pieces.
you sure do need to ignore a whole lot of what other people say to keep this up.

You sure need to ignore bad energy.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Not really a scientific study this, more an anecdotal personal story.

enough said right there..and you had the nerve to present it HERE?

What is your problem man??

My problem? LOL that I refuse to take your word for it and hold you to some standard of proof rather than sitting around the campfire with you singing Kumbaya.
The whole internet is feelings..nothing more than feelings..HERE we have a concentration of people who think clearly for a living and I'm making a stand.

I'll add, the only reason a solar install (which i've already said) can pay off for an individual is the fact government regulations force the power company to buy your production for far more than it's worth and you let your neighbors without solar cut you that check.
The had to get rid of the 'house battery' in these installs in favor of selling production directly to the power company to get these things to pay off at all.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

Not really a scientific study this, more an anecdotal personal story.

enough said right there..and you had the nerve to present it HERE?

What is your problem man??

My problem? LOL that I refuse to take your word for it and hold you to some standard of proof rather than sitting around the campfire with you singing Kumbaya.
The whole internet is feelings..nothing more than feelings..HERE we have a concentration of people who think clearly for a living and I'm making a stand.

Standpoint taken, but everyone here is open to hear that standpoint, if it's brought in a correct manner imo

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

May I make a quick point before we move on (if we do :))

Major Kong, you said:

You left out another entire class of subsidies. One where the government PAYS farmers to NOT grow their crops (or at least scale back and leave a certain amount of their land fallow). This directly leads to higher food prices.

Some of the subsidy to farmers in the uk has gone to encouraging farmers to return some of their land back to nature, and replacing hedgerows between fields etc. It's actually a very sound environmental policy as it provides oasis' for our natural fauna and flora, and has helped put the brakes on a disturbing decline in butterflies, bees and small insectivores which are in fact helpful to crop yield. It's also encouraged the return of smaller birds of prey. Whether that's enough remains an open question. The weird thing about britain's pollinating insects is that they may be doing better in our towns and cities because they have a greater variety of flowering plants available to them which might be providing them with better disease resistance.

Not really a scientific study this, more an anecdotal personal story.

enough said right there..and you had the nerve to present it HERE?

What is your problem man??

My problem? LOL that I refuse to take your word for it and hold you to some standard of proof rather than sitting around the campfire with you singing Kumbaya.
The whole internet is feelings..nothing more than feelings..HERE we have a concentration of people who think clearly for a living and I'm making a stand.

Standpoint taken, but everyone here is open to hear that standpoint, if it's brought in a correct manner imo

Well then. Address all my points instead of the ones you want to. Civility falls off when people debate like grammar school children.
When I make the same point 2 or 3 times and it's consistently ignored in favor of repeating what you already posted, I do tend to get irritated. call it a character flaw.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

May I make a quick point before we move on (if we do :))

Major Kong, you said:

You left out another entire class of subsidies. One where the government PAYS farmers to NOT grow their crops (or at least scale back and leave a certain amount of their land fallow). This directly leads to higher food prices.

Some of the subsidy to farmers in the uk has gone to encouraging farmers to return some of their land back to nature, and replacing hedgerows between fields etc. It's actually a very sound environmental policy as it provides oasis' for our natural fauna and flora, and has helped put the brakes on a disturbing decline in butterflies, bees and small insectivores which are in fact helpful to crop yield. It's also encouraged the retutn of smaller birds of prey. Whether that's enough remains an open question. The weird thing about britain's pollinating insects is that they may be doing better in our towns and cities because they have a greater variety of flowering plants available to them which might be providing them with better disease resistance.

I hope it's actually working that way for you. In the USA it's turned into massive gentleman farmer estates with millions of fallow acres.. usually land it wouldn't profit anybody to try and farm.

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

Not really a scientific study this, more an anecdotal personal story.

enough said right there..and you had the nerve to present it HERE?

What is your problem man??

My problem? LOL that I refuse to take your word for it and hold you to some standard of proof rather than sitting around the campfire with you singing Kumbaya.
The whole internet is feelings..nothing more than feelings..HERE we have a concentration of people who think clearly for a living and I'm making a stand.

Standpoint taken, but everyone here is open to hear that standpoint, if it's brought in a correct manner imo

Well then. Address all my points instead of the ones you want to. Civility falls off when people debate like grammar school children.
When I make the same point 2 or 3 times and it's consistently ignored in favor of repeating what you already posted, I do tend to get irritated. call it a character flaw.

I haven't addressed any point to you yet, but I'm open to have a civilized conversation with you. We all have character flaws, we learn to live with it, as we do with Mother Earth.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures