Okay, You Don't Believe in Global Warming (wisdom, myth, cost)
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.
1. Did we tax wood and subsidise coal to promote its use?
Actually, we have and still subsidize coal today. And lumber is also subsidized.
Quote:
2. Well then, be sure to get back to us when they aren't so expensive.
That's fine - their rapid development and integration will drive down the price. I agree with analyzing this with a cost-benefit perspective, but that doesn't mean we should give up on them now. Or fund their research. At one time, producing some commonplace drugs we use today was expensive and scarce. Would you have suggested we not invest, as a nation, in medical research and funding to promote their use and increase accessibility? Would the "free market" have made it better?
Quote:
3. Fine, no more special taxes on oil company's products like gasoline.
Huh? We tax lots of commodities. I don't see the issue and don't see them as "special."
Quote:
4. You don't see a problem with subsidising children born to the poor?
I can see a problem with that, but not just for the poor. My point to the OP is that subsidies run rampant throughout the tax code. Targeting the hybrid and electric tax breaks as some special mechanism to transfer wealth is simply inaccurate. We could argue any tax break is a "transfer of wealth." If that is the case, then no tax breaks should be had. Period.
Quote:
5. Ethanol requires more energy to produce it than it contains and uses vast amount of fresh water. It drives up the cost of food in the US and causes food shortages in the poorer nations which depend on our grain exports.
I suggest you read up on cellulosic ethanol, which is what I mentioned. Not all ethanol is created equally. Here, I'll get you started:
Cellulosic ethanol is a biofuel produced from wood, grasses, or the non-edible parts of plants....Since cellulose cannot be digested by humans, the production of cellulose does not compete with the production of food, other than conversion of land from food production to cellulose production (which has recently started to become an issue, due to rising wheat prices.) The price per ton of the raw material is thus much cheaper than grains or fruits. Moreover, since cellulose is the main component of plants, the whole plant can be harvested. This results in much better yields — up to 10 short tons per acre (22 t/ha), instead of 4 or 5 short tons per acre (9–11 t/ha) for the best crops of grain...
I am serious - please read up on it. I think that people need to understand the difference between this and corn/sugar ethanol.
I am serious - please read up on it. I think that people need to understand the difference between this and corn/sugar ethanol.
Hot diggety damn! Cellulosic ethanol has such compelling advantages, according to your sources, that there can be no stopping it.
Therefore, it does not need one thin dime of subsidy. Whoever figures out how to scale it up for commercial use will end up wealthier than Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
Or, perhaps it is just a boondoggle, draining our wealth for the benefit of politically-connected greenies?
i fully agree with alternative forms of energy, and we should have been developing them 40 years ago instead of waiting for so long to develop them now. in fact carter created the department of energy for that very reason.
Carter also took strong actions towards that, only to have Reagan undo everything. With 12 years of unending spending and no concern for the longterm health of the country we were left in the same condition. Now we need to make a stand and accept nothing less, otherwise enjoy the thought of $10-15 / gallon
Carter also took strong actions towards that, only to have Reagan undo everything. With 12 years of unending spending and no concern for the longterm health of the country we were left in the same condition. Now we need to make a stand and accept nothing less, otherwise enjoy the thought of $10-15 / gallon
More likely was the fact that the price of oil plummeted thus ending the biggest incentive to develop something.
But you inadvertantly make a good case for why the government should butt out. The government is fickle, full of bureacrats, and blows with the political wind.
Clusters of Industrial Excellence- Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, etc are not midwifed by Presidents, liberal or otherwise.
We all want the same thing and it will happen. But not because a President you likes waves a magic wand or one you dislike morphs into a uncaring Balrog.
The day for me is already here. I could jump in now, but would rather wait until mortgage payments are done with. And for countries like Germany, it has been as practical as 12 TWh worth of electricity and growing (solar power is estimated to contribute 25% of Germany's energy generation by 2050).
I've been in my house for seven years and my electric rates have not gone up any at all.
I did the math on solar. Even with 50% government subsidies the payback is at least 15 years.
Solar is years, if not decades, away from being a cost effective solution.
The market won't bring us the most efficient energy sources, it will bring us the most profitable ones. If a less profitable source is developed, its developers will be killed and the technology hidden. You have far too much faith in the oxymoron known as capitalist largesse.
You really believe that myth? For years we had people running around telling us that there was an automobile carburator that would deliver 100 MPG but the oil companies were hiding it.
Your myth is the same. The truth is that if anyone has a more cost effect source for energy that nobody else has, investors would beat a path to their door and funding would be huge.
Hot diggety damn! Cellulosic ethanol has such compelling advantages, according to your sources, that there can be no stopping it.
Silly, of course they is something "stopping it" - big lobbies from the coal, natural gas, and oil companies.
Quote:
Therefore, it does not need one thin dime of subsidy. Whoever figures out how to scale it up for commercial use will end up wealthier than Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
I really would be interested to know what major industry or "revolution" in this country got started, ramped up, and exploded without a single dime of government money. Please provide an example.
Quote:
Or, perhaps it is just a boondoggle, draining our wealth for the benefit of politically-connected greenies?
Are there disadvantages to it? Sure. Does that mean it is not worth exploring? Nope. And if your mentality was used for the past 6 centuries, the world as we know it would never have existed.
Correct. It's a myth that is funding a lot of careers and putting millions into the pockets of guys like Al Gore.
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.
Okay, You Don't Believe in Global Warming
