Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You just defended billions in subsidies to an established and polluting industry whose profits are in the hundreds of billions, yet here you are whining about far lower subsidies to a new technology that is not yet profitable (exactly what subsidies are for).
What I have pointed out is the tax breaks available to the fossil fuel industry are irrelevant to the solvency of those industries.
If it were up to me corporate and business taxes would go bye bye whether it's Exxon or Elon Musk. Exxon does not pay those taxes and neither does Elon Musk, you the consumer of their product pay them.
I would also eliminate any direct subsidies and mandates across the board, case in point consider ethanol. This industry has proliferated with the subsidies and only continues to operate because they have a guaranteed market with the mandate. If a company like Exoon with their six gazillion engineers, chemists and dollars decides it may want to invest in the R&D for alternative fuel they cannot compete against a mandate.
What I would do is shift those direct subsidies to a prize. If we are spending 5 billion dollars on the renewable industry each year we will add 5 billion to this prize each and every year. The stipulations to win this prize is you will need to produce something that can reliably produce electric cheaper than fossil fuels. Any patents associated with the technology would be placed into the public domain.
Quote:
All of those can easily provide the majority of electrical demands, and then not gas (not coal) only needs to provide the filler.
Again you are failing to understand the capacity and storage requirements, they are staggering.
"Filler" as you put it is not economically viable either. A very large part of what you pay for electric is because of capital expense. A base load plant is expected to run almost continuously for decades, the longer it runs the cheaper the electric becomes over it's lifespan. If you are ramping it up and down caused by the intermittent nature of renewable energy production the cost for the electric from that plant necessarily rises.
Quote:
It is amusing that you are trying to label us, so you can make up imaginary positions when you literally named yourself after your bias.
I'm a fourth generation "Coal Man", the name is because I delivered coal for residential heating. My personal financial interests in the coal industry entirely consist of one web site that provides information for people that want to burn coal for home heating. The policies you are advocating that will cause energy prices to rise will put money into my pocket, thanks.
Quote:
Only the short sighted make generalizations like "coal=good"" or "hydroelectric=bad".
You used Seattle as example that gets their power from hydroelectric. What I said was if hydroelectric is cost effective let the good times roll, that would imply I would support building hydroelectric dams if they are cost effective because they can provide base power like fossil fuel. What I'm asking you as a person concerned about the environment is would you support them as well after consideration of the environmental issues associated with them?
Last edited by thecoalman; 11-15-2016 at 05:37 AM..
Its really not a matter of "believing" it. Its simply understanding it exists.
That's like "believing" America exists. It does exist, regardless of "beliefs".
As to the OP, unfortunately it will become harder. Unlike their forerunners, modern conservatives, as a group, are not interested in.... conservation. Corporate interests come prior to conservation. At some point, conservation and environmental protection unfortunately became a political issue. There was no reason this was necessarily so, but that's they way it went. And also unfortunately, religious leaders, who one might think would be a bit more vocal about abuses of God's creation, have remained largely silent on the matter.
Unfortunately, the environmental movement has abandoned conservation also, in favor of preservation. Their version of responsible resource use is to not use the resources at all. They have demonized anyone who makes a profit off of natural resources. Their response has been similar to urban planners who deal with housing shortages by making sure landlords can't do business.
I doubt very much that Republicans are interested in rational land use laws. The Democrats certainly never were. Instead, I expect them to repeal the ESA and virtually eliminate the EPA. The first 9 months of the next congress and presidency will see more bombs dropped than we dropped on Hanoi.
Now that the Republicans have taken power and have control of Congress, the presidency, and soon probably also the Supreme Court how do we protect our environment? I assume they will now attack clean air and water regulations and allow companies to pollute all they want to . What can we who care about the environment do to continue to protect it when those who make the rules do not?
I do think we need some consideration of risk management and reward. These regulations may be great. But is it good that children of America who are not college material no longer have a factory gate at which to seek employment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tominftl
Kiss the EPA goodbye. Republicans are anti science. They don't believe in climate change. The green light to large polluters now. They are free to pollute our air and water without consequences. Everybody knows Republicans are shills to big business.
Is believing in a fraud such as man-made "climate change" mandatory? Do you really think that if Paris is adhered to the temperature at any time or place in the future will be lowered for a single day by a single degree?
Now that the Republicans have taken power and have control of Congress, the presidency, and soon probably also the Supreme Court how do we protect our environment?
Start with the cities. Don't blame me for the environment when Los Angeles has massive 6 lane (one way) highways where people typically spend 2 hours in order to drive 15 miles. I love mass transit, why not act the way you preach and start using it?
Farmers in Nebraska or Arkansas are not causing your pollution problems.
Now that the Republicans have taken power and have control of Congress, the presidency, and soon probably also the Supreme Court how do we protect our environment? I assume they will now attack clean air and water regulations and allow companies to pollute all they want to . What can we who care about the environment do to continue to protect it when those who make the rules do not?
I imagine not much you can do other than:
1) protest
2) make contributions to any Democrats running for Congress next time around
Nothing is 100% safe however if you want modern conveniences and what modern society provides you need energy. What I can tell you is this. If you got rid of every environmental regulation that exists protecting the groundwater in these wells would be a priority. The reason for that is pretty simple, it's within their best economic interests.
People have been burning their well water in Oklahoma long before fracking. I was astonished 50 years ago when I saw someone either flaring off their drinking water well or using it to heat their house, depending on the season.
I agree with this. 100%. My aptitude for math and science is poor, but at least I know the purpose of science isn't to prove anything. It's to disprove other things.
The likelihood that the collective understanding of anthropogenic climate change will change is very high, but it doesn't mean that it will be disproved. I think that's where you and I will begin to disagree.
Look at the bright side. Anthropogenic Global Warming solves the thorny problem of what to do about Florida. It will also promote a huge urban renewal industry on the whole Gulf Coast and a big part of the Atlantic seacoast. Whole cities will have to be relocated, which will be a boon to the construction industry. We complain about ageing infrastructure, and will have the opportunity to build entirely new cities from the basement up. Tourism will get a boost too, with submarine tours of New Orleans, Charleston and Manhattan Island.
Now that the Republicans have taken power and have control of Congress, the presidency, and soon probably also the Supreme Court how do we protect our environment? I assume they will now attack clean air and water regulations and allow companies to pollute all they want to . What can we who care about the environment do to continue to protect it when those who make the rules do not?
Bring your own bags for shopping
Install Solar Panels at your home
Walk around your block with gloves and pick up litter
Try composting and gardening
Setup your water runoff to be collected and use it during dry months for your lawn/garden
Avoid eating products or at establishments with significant packaging.
Bring a reusable cup to work for your drinks
Buy energy efficient/water efficient appliances
Recycle
Use bicycles, mass transit or electric/hybrid vehicles for transportation
Help others to do the same.
At the end of the day, it would be nice if the government would force us to save the world, but if they're not, we still need to try.
Look at the bright side. Anthropogenic Global Warming solves the thorny problem of what to do about Florida. It will also promote a huge urban renewal industry on the whole Gulf Coast and a big part of the Atlantic seacoast. Whole cities will have to be relocated, which will be a boon to the construction industry. We complain about ageing infrastructure, and will have the opportunity to build entirely new cities from the basement up. Tourism will get a boost too, with submarine tours of New Orleans, Charleston and Manhattan Island.
Yeah, but think about the loss.. the value of property and infrastructure... I think about my ONE condo.. it's valued at $600k... just ONE. Now imagine whole cities relocating... many Americans have most of their net worth in their primary residence.. are they going to lose all that equity? I have 100% ownership of my condo and I fully intend for it to help cover my expenses later on down the road.. I need my condo!
I'm sure that a lot of people feel this way about their homes.. maybe even you...
It's really scary. I'm glad I don't live in those areas.
Now that the Republicans have taken power and have control of Congress, the presidency, and soon probably also the Supreme Court how do we protect our environment? I assume they will now attack clean air and water regulations and allow companies to pollute all they want to . What can we who care about the environment do to continue to protect it when those who make the rules do not?
It was a Republican who started the EPA...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
