Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Economy

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-24-2011, 09:08 AM
merrylander's Avatar
merrylander merrylander is offline
Resident octogenarian
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
OK, here is a green idea, let's have the state government take over all the power plants. In Quebec and Ontario we paid half as much for electricity as we do here where all power is run by those ever so efficient private industries.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-24-2011, 09:42 AM
Oerets's Avatar
Oerets Oerets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Derby City U.S.A.
Posts: 5,108
I'm afraid that countries who miss the "green" economy band wagon will be left behind by those that do. The real or actual cost of fossil fuel is not seen or felt IMHO.

Was a time when countries and companies for that matter would invest their tax dollars or profits back in. Building for the future in hopes of a stronger country or business to pass on. Doing this is lieu of short term profits, something not heard of now a days.

Lack of support all around it seems to me.





Barney
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-24-2011, 01:16 PM
BlueStreak's Avatar
BlueStreak BlueStreak is offline
Area Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 26,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerets View Post
I'm afraid that countries who miss the "green" economy band wagon will be left behind by those that do. The real or actual cost of fossil fuel is not seen or felt IMHO.

Was a time when countries and companies for that matter would invest their tax dollars or profits back in. Building for the future in hopes of a stronger country or business to pass on. Doing this is lieu of short term profits, something not heard of now a days.

Lack of support all around it seems to me.





Barney
It'll be okay, Barney. You see global warming is another one of those trees in the forest that the right has labeled "BS". They know it's really all just part of the plot steal their NASCAR memorabilia collections and force their children into a life of moral turpitude.

Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-24-2011, 01:55 PM
bhunter's Avatar
bhunter bhunter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego California
Posts: 3,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak View Post
It'll be okay, Barney. You see global warming is another one of those trees in the forest that the right has labeled "BS". They know it's really all just part of the plot steal their NASCAR memorabilia collections and force their children into a life of moral turpitude.

Dave
I've yet to see a demonstrable green substitute for fossil fuels. The only viable choice is nuclear and that is on the back burner thanks to the environmental left. Solar panels, wind turbines, wave machines, geothermal all have limits and that's not even considering their cost effectiveness at delivering energy. The environmental costs of some of these supposed green technologies is perhaps worse than fossil fuel use. Big oil and large corporations would probably be the innovators in any change to energy alternatives, thus the environmentalists will still have ExxonMobil to bash.

Global Warming, Global Change was overly hyped by those that sought monetary advantage from its acceptance. Al Gore, green companies, Third World countries, and even the supposed objective scientists all had an interest to spread the gospel of global warming. Regardless of whether or not global warming is a long term threat, these groups sought to, and did, benefit in the short term. Global Warming morphed into a movement with almost religious overtones in its zeal and purported solutions to evil man's destruction of the environment.
__________________
Dear Optimist: Unless life gives you water and sugar too, your lemonade will suck.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-24-2011, 03:44 PM
merrylander's Avatar
merrylander merrylander is offline
Resident octogenarian
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
Right, there is no such thing as climate change, the Texas drought and the Mississippi floding are just normal, as is the fact that the jet stream is running far south of where it should be. The northwest passage is now a reality, pity the poor polar bears.

Hey at 400 feet above sea level wonder how long it will be before ours is ocean front property.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-24-2011, 04:01 PM
Oerets's Avatar
Oerets Oerets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Derby City U.S.A.
Posts: 5,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhunter View Post
I've yet to see a demonstrable green substitute for fossil fuels. The only viable choice is nuclear and that is on the back burner thanks to the environmental left. Solar panels, wind turbines, wave machines, geothermal all have limits and that's not even considering their cost effectiveness at delivering energy. The environmental costs of some of these supposed green technologies is perhaps worse than fossil fuel use. Big oil and large corporations would probably be the innovators in any change to energy alternatives, thus the environmentalists will still have ExxonMobil to bash.

Global Warming, Global Change was overly hyped by those that sought monetary advantage from its acceptance. Al Gore, green companies, Third World countries, and even the supposed objective scientists all had an interest to spread the gospel of global warming. Regardless of whether or not global warming is a long term threat, these groups sought to, and did, benefit in the short term. Global Warming morphed into a movement with almost religious overtones in its zeal and purported solutions to evil man's destruction of the environment.


I'm afraid that our future decedents will be looking back at these time with great discuss. Instead of looking ahead we are only looking to the right now. Or at least the next election cycle.

I still can't see where anybody can say the climate is not warmer then just a few years ago. But then again I have lived in this area as an adult and can remember what it was like in the 60's through now. No one can truly say man has not been an influence. But why take a chance right or wrong when we can do something now. If I'm wrong then we have just invented new technologies that could improve our lives. But if I'm right and nothing is done it might be to late by the time we realize it!

I'm a believer in if given a choice between the two options of going green or not. Then go with the one with the least amount of negative outcomes to the environment if at all possible. How could getting away from the oil/ natural gas dependency be really a bad thing anyway? It is normally cheaper to fix a problem if known about before it breaks. Some of the time when you wait till it is broken to fix it will take out other unforeseen items.

I mean even now we are messing up ground water across the nation "Fraking" for natural gas. Clean air and water two basic needs to sustain life we'all need to remember.




Barney
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-24-2011, 04:46 PM
bhunter's Avatar
bhunter bhunter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego California
Posts: 3,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerets View Post
I'm afraid that our future decedents will be looking back at these time with great discuss. Instead of looking ahead we are only looking to the right now. Or at least the next election cycle.

I still can't see where anybody can say the climate is not warmer then just a few years ago. But then again I have lived in this area as an adult and can remember what it was like in the 60's through now. No one can truly say man has not been an influence.
That period is far too short to make sweeping conclusions on climate change. Remember the scare stories of the coming ice age in the sixties and early seventies. Those folks were just as sure and just as convinced as the global warming folks are today. Man has had an influence but the significance is in question.

Quote:
But why take a chance right or wrong when we can do something now. If I'm wrong then we have just invented new technologies that could improve our lives. But if I'm right and nothing is done it might be to late by the time we realize it!
Why take a chance? Because it is economically costly. It is simply not feasible to move to green using any method other than nuclear. The nuclear industry was killed by the environmentalists years ago. Remember all the pablum that Jane Fonda spewed in the late seventies. That, together with the recent Japanese nuclear plant, has put a dagger into nuclear. So what's left? Solar? Solar panel production is not environmentally friendly and is costly. Hydrogen? Again too costly. Batteries? Too dangerous and limited by resource availability. A viable alternative does not exist. If and when a viable alternative exists it will not need subsidies to garner acceptance in the marketplace.

Quote:
I'm a believer in if given a choice between the two options of going green or not. Then go with the one with the least amount of negative outcomes to the environment if at all possible. How could getting away from the oil/ natural gas dependency be really a bad thing anyway? It is normally cheaper to fix a problem if known about before it breaks. Some of the time when you wait till it is broken to fix it will take out other unforeseen items.
Sure. As long as it's feasible and cost effective to do so. It's bad because oil and energy produces all the modern necessities that make life more tolerable for people on this planet. Consider how many more people would not be able to eat without modern agriculture or the number that would die without modern medicine. Energy production underlies all because its use has allowed people to have leisure. Leisure means that people have the necessary time to develop and innovate.

Quote:
I mean even now we are messing up ground water across the nation "Fraking" for natural gas. Clean air and water two basic needs to sustain life we'all need to remember.
Producing solar cells and batteries in vast quantities is also very environmentally unfriendly. Perhaps a simpler way would be to eliminate, say 4 or 5 billion people. That would help our environmental problem and, ironically, would probably be where we'd be without the modern convenience of cheap energy.
__________________
Dear Optimist: Unless life gives you water and sugar too, your lemonade will suck.

Last edited by bhunter; 08-24-2011 at 04:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-24-2011, 08:26 PM
Charles Charles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhunter View Post
That period is far too short to make sweeping conclusions on climate change. Remember the scare stories of the coming ice age in the sixties and early seventies. Those folks were just as sure and just as convinced as the global warming folks are today. Man has had an influence but the significance is in question.



Why take a chance? Because it is economically costly. It is simply not feasible to move to green using any method other than nuclear. The nuclear industry was killed by the environmentalists years ago. Remember all the pablum that Jane Fonda spewed in the late seventies. That, together with the recent Japanese nuclear plant, has put a dagger into nuclear. So what's left? Solar? Solar panel production is not environmentally friendly and is costly. Hydrogen? Again too costly. Batteries? Too dangerous and limited by resource availability. A viable alternative does not exist. If and when a viable alternative exists it will not need subsidies to garner acceptance in the marketplace.



Sure. As long as it's feasible and cost effective to do so. It's bad because oil and energy produces all the modern necessities that make life more tolerable for people on this planet. Consider how many more people would not be able to eat without modern agriculture or the number that would die without modern medicine. Energy production underlies all because its use has allowed people to have leisure. Leisure means that people have the necessary time to develop and innovate.



Producing solar cells and batteries in vast quantities is also very environmentally unfriendly. Perhaps a simpler way would be to eliminate, say 4 or 5 billion people. That would help our environmental problem and, ironically, would probably be where we'd be without the modern convenience of cheap energy.
I think you're onto something.

Chas
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-24-2011, 08:54 PM
djv8ga djv8ga is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Open Border
Posts: 5,126
Wind turbines should be banned because they kill birds. The greedy Left doesn't give a damn about all of the dead Birds Of Prey these things produce. I remember when they (the left) did and tried to stop the use of wind power. That was when the ranchers and other SELF SUFFICIENT types were using it.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-24-2011, 09:05 PM
mezz mezz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 543
There have now been four major scares in either direction within the past 100 years. Two prophesising a massive warming and two a massive cooling.

Among the few things we do know for sure about it, the climate has been changing quite dramatically since the rise of mammals. We aren't sure what causes ice ages or warmer periods (like the one we are in now) to occur but it certainly isn't us because we've only been contributing to the emission of gases into the atmosphere in any noticeable quantity within the last 150 years or so.

In any event and without getting into any GW science (which is extremely and embarrassingly flawed) an ice event is going to be 1000 times more devasting to human life on the planet than warming (which might actually be quite beneficial to us despite all the absolute B.S. that the moronic Al Gore and his fanatical supporters would like you to believe). Since we are statistically overdue for an ice age now perhaps we should be preparing for that instead (maybe figuring out how we can warm the planet if that is even possible instead of wasting cycles on a huge heap global warming lies).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.