[aldoctc]

Yeah, every ‘solution’ to this problem always seems to lead to 90+% of the human race having to die. 
 
I keep wondering how expensive oil will have to become before nuclear loses its political-third-rail image.  

[Unknown Member]

The problem is difficult but only gets more difficult when we procrastinate, blame and argue.

I believe the in the future

–  We will need to be energy independent in order to stay an economic and military power.
–  We will need multiple sources to become energy independent.
–  Energy independence will actually be very (long term of course)cost-effecive and create jobs, here at home

What we need first and foremost is a coherent National energy Plan to get us from Point A to point B.  And a short term stop gap to fill the time.

Drill, drill drill and blaming the evil people on each side is not going to accomplish anything.

A leader in either party needs to step forward and forge a workable compromise for us to attain our goals.

Personally I believe energy is the biggest National security issue of this sentury.

[Unknown Member]

Energy is not really such a big problem.  Windmills are already profitable to install in many locations.  Moderate increases in electrical prices will make them much more profitable.  There is enough potential energy from high grade wind sites in the Rockies alone to provide enough power for the entire world.  Mountain ranges and windy offshore sites around the world are becoming the new oil reserves.

Existing prototype batteries already have the power density to support competitive electric cars.  Large scale production of electric cars is already planned.  Large car companies are already tooling up.  I think that in five years the majority of cars sold will be electric (or at least hybrid).

There is and will always be plenty of high-grade energy.  It will just cost a little more than it does now to access it.

[Unknown Member]

resolving the energy problem.  simple.  the oldest axiom of economics, both macro and micro, is that “people respond to incentives” 
 
we need a leader who is willing to be JFKesque and say,”we will attain energy independance in the next ten years, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.” 
 
then put incentives into play.  such as…
 
1- major tax breaks for any of the big three automakers who have compact cars that average 50+mpg, sedans that average 40+ and SUV’s that average 30+
2- major tax breaks or a windfall to ANY corporation that makes an affordable, practical electrical car, one capable of traveling 65-70 on the freeway and able to go 12 hours on a single charge.
3-major tax breaks or a windfall to any entity, be it private or corporate that is willing to install “wind farms” such as they now have in california and central Montana.
4-reinstate legislation that power companies and the public utilities commission that govern them HAVE to buy excess electricity that is produced by wind energy and put it on the grid.  several states used to have this- the state i live in used to, but does not anymore.
5-aggressively build nuclear power plants- the NIMBY people have had their say.  nuclear power was proven to be safe and effective two generations ago.
6- extremely generous tax breaks on any new home construction that utilizes solar panels for 25 percent of its energy needs.
7-incentives at the microeconomic level.  make energy consumption like cell phone minutes.  give everybody a base price, say x amount of dollars for the basic amount of energy they consume.  if they want to use more make it an increasing algorithm, ergo, the more you use the more you pay.  i realize that this would be intricate and complicated, but it some kind of tax rebate or tax incentive or price of sku incentive might be doable.

[Unknown Member]

Ala JFK we need a coherent plan with a goal measured in years–IE decade of energy independence with goal to be 50% free of oil in ten years–get  a panel of scientists to agree on least environmentally destructive most promising technology and green line it with huge federal infusion of cash.  Make it a goal of all federal agencies–Make it a requirement that all cars be hybrids or gas free by 2020–Huge winfall and tax rebates to first fuel company who switches infrastructure to hydrogen production and fuel cell usage–greenline nuclear reactors and clean coal technology

[Unknown Member]

Limit cars per household to 2!   Make conservation mandatory with electronic controls decreasing electricity useage at off peak times by connecting evryone to a grid–requiring all new homes to have percent of electricity supplied by wind or solar and connect excess power to grid for use elsewhere–If we make laws requiring this it can be done!  Most of the south should be using solar power–no excuse–

[jquinones8812_854]

How does limiting a household to 2 cars help?  If two people are driving 13 cars, they are still only driving 2 cars at a time. 

I agree totally with solar panels.  I have them in my house, but they are expensive.  It is unlikely anyone lower than upper middle class could afford them reasonably at this time.

I agree in large part to stir22.  Incentives are the fastest way to get private corps to push innovation.  Especially the car companies.  We could give them huge tax breaks for increasing their gas standards.  That would do two things:  reduce our dependence on oil, and also support our domestic workforce.  I think that kills two birds with one stone.

That said, if we don’t start drilling and building refineries, as well as nuclear power plants, we are going to have a growing energy problem for the next decade. 

[Unknown Member]

Like the Space Race—>  Convert to Energy race… Scrap NASA budget and put it into NRG budget.  Put space budget into military/intelligence budget where it really belongs…  Place huge solar systems in our deserts, increase wind energy.  There is an entire military base that installed super solar system in CA… it suplies all energy needs to the base (per the recent solar salesman visit)…  Make it a priority like space exploration, offer a prize to top University working experiment, from all over the world…  Make it our global goal and tie into Global Warming… big kudos to all…  That would get OPEC slightly nervous, wonder if production would increase?
 
Have all people run on treadmills or stationary bikes 1 hour a day hooked to generators! 🙂

[Unknown Member]

ORIGINAL: OutpatientRadRules

Limit cars per household to 2!   Make conservation mandatory with electronic controls decreasing electricity useage at off peak times by connecting evryone to a grid–requiring all new homes to have percent of electricity supplied by wind or solar and connect excess power to grid for use elsewhere–If we make laws requiring this it can be done!  Most of the south should be using solar power–no excuse–

Such policies would not take into account geographical and economic variations from one home to another.  Some places are well suited to harvest renewable energy, others are not.  Otherwise buildable land could be left barren because it does not have enough sun and wind, whereas a sunny windy mountain top would be habitated by homes away from civilization because it would be the only place one could legally build a  new home.  Irrational land development would result.  The site of energy production need not and often should not occur at the same location.

High energy prices, with added pollution taxes that reflect the externalities of fossil fuel energy production, should be incentive enough to motivate a shift to cheap renewable energy sources.  It already is to a limited extent.

[srinella]

So two cars for two people living together. 
 
two cars for 10 people living together.
 
sounds fair. 

[suyanebenevides_151]

Western leaders selling their own people out to third world invasions
 
Renewable energy means nothing when you commit civilizational suicide.

[kayla.meyer_144]

The Catskill water system provides fresh water for millions of residents in New York City. It is the most extensive in the world and provides such clean water that only a very simple process of water treatment is required. Several States have reported water well and aquifer contamination from fracking. That would be a disaster compared to saving a few pennies on gas. Who would and should pay for a cleanup of this water supply if it happened? The companies? Never happen. The Feds? The response would be a redux response of the 1970’s, “Drop Dead!, New York.”
 
Besides, as noted, there is a glut right now & prices are still falling & no one knows when they will rise again. The shale is not going away.

[suyanebenevides_151]

Haha, what a day, I agree with you here Frumious. But there is a contingency, and that is that you show me the evidence for contamination. Otherwise, it is just another chance for political opportunism, sadly (not saying that, just saying I don’t know)./
 
I’ve always said the gas discussions regarding supply and price are overdone. But I also understand why, and that’s mainly because we have a huge country and people have to pay a good amount in transportation to get to work (if they have it) regardless of if they are someone else is doing the driving.

[jquinones8812_854]

ORIGINAL: OculusPyramidis

Energy is not really such a big problem.  Windmills are already profitable to install in many locations.  Moderate increases in electrical prices will make them much more profitable.  There is enough potential energy from high grade wind sites in the Rockies alone to provide enough power for the entire world.  Mountain ranges and windy offshore sites around the world are becoming the new oil reserves.

Existing prototype batteries already have the power density to support competitive electric cars.  Large scale production of electric cars is already planned.  Large car companies are already tooling up.  I think that in five years the majority of cars sold will be electric (or at least hybrid).

There is and will always be plenty of high-grade energy.  It will just cost a little more than it does now to access it.

Here is the problem.  To meet our energy needs, based on an Energy Dept report cited by Tom Friedman, we will need:

1. 120 million new windmills, or 1 for every three people,
2. A new nuclear powerplant EVERY WEEK FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS.

The numbers are staggering.

As for battery technology, that is all well and good; but  you still need powerplants to make the power to charge the batteries, don’t you?

[Unknown Member]

Here is the problem.  To meet our energy needs, based on an Energy Dept report cited by Tom Friedman, we will need:

1. 120 million new windmills, or 1 for every three people,
2. A new nuclear powerplant EVERY WEEK FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS.

The numbers are staggering.

As for battery technology, that is all well and good; but  you still need powerplants to make the power to charge the batteries, don’t you?
[/quote]

A typical mid-sized windmill has a peak power output on the order of 100 kilowatts.  Granted, the average output might be a third of that or so.  How is it that 3 average Americans are expected to consume an average of 10 extra kilowatts night and day?  That is the power needed for example by 10 mid-sized window air conditioners running day and night on maximum setting.  Therefore, I think there is something screwy with that figure.  120 million new windmills might be needed for the projected increase in [i]worldwide[/i] energy needs, but not for projected increase in American demands.

One has to make the electricity in some way.  Increasingly, wind power is the cheapest method, especially if externalities are factored in.   If you order a windmill, it can be installed and running within a month or so.  A nuclear power plant, on the other hand, takes decades to become operational.  This is why I predict that the electrical energy shortage that will occur in a few years (when many people switch to electric cars) will be quickly met with windmills, not nuclear power.  Decades from now, some nuclear plants will finally be built.  But since windmills will have already largely satisified the need for cheap clean power, there will not be much of a need left to build that many nuclear plants in the US.

Yes, you need to generate more electricity if you are going to use batteries for cars.  However, most of the charging occurs at night.  This means better utilization of existing facilities, in particular windmills and nuclear power plants, both of which are optimally operated around the clock.  Less total pollution is made by power plants to provide power for electric cars than is made by refining and combusting gasoline in cars.  Furthermore, the pollution that is produced is away from population centers and is, because of economies of scale, more well suited to scrubbing and CO2 sequestration than the pollution from gas cars.

On a worldwide basis, a nuclear power plant every week is not ridiculous.  France was pumping out identical nuclear plants on practically an assembly-line basis for awhile.  China is curently building coal-burning plants at about one per week.  Building 50 nuclear facilities per year is the same as building one per year.  The only difference is you do the same thing at 50 different building sites.  Actually, economies of scale can be had by building a large number of facilities rapidly, one after the other.  The real issue, however, is how to allow countries to join the nuclear power club without risking diversion of nuclear fuel.  It probably cannot be done.  To a lesser extent, the costs of storing the waste and the huge time lag for construction make nuclear less than optimal.  Nuclear is not the best option for world electrical power production.  Windmills are the way to go.

I don’t think there is or will be a true “energy crisis”, in the sense of not having energy.  Rather, the price will go up moderately so as to cause a shift to less expensive non-fossil fuel means of power generation (e.g. wind and nuclear).

[Unknown Member]

ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

I agree totally with solar panels.  I have them in my house, but they are expensive.  It is unlikely anyone lower than upper middle class could afford them reasonably at this time.

Current photovoltaic technology cannot currently compete with wind power on a cost per delivered watt hour basis.  It could be useful in some applications, for example a home off the grid in a sunny area that doesn’t have too much wind.  Or someplace where the noise is objectional.  But even then, as you say, many people couldn’t afford it.  Furthermore, even those who can afford it would often chose less expensive renewable energy options.  Actually, thermal solar tower plants in such areas deliver electricity at a much lower cost than photovoltaics.

[jquinones8812_854]

It isn’t that I don’t agree with you oculus.  It is just that I think people should understand the ENORMITY of the problem.

I am all for windmills (though, I just recently saw a new environmental organization formed to stop windmills because apparently they are killing birds; I don’t even know how to comment).  But windmills are not ideal everywhere.  Other sources will be needed.  Some that we like, others (like nuclear) that we don’t like.  But to me, again, we need to meet our goals of energy independence and decrease pollution; at those goals should be met all costs.

[Unknown Member]

ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

It isn’t that I don’t agree with you oculus.  It is just that I think people should understand the ENORMITY of the problem.

I am all for windmills (though, I just recently saw a new environmental organization formed to stop windmills because apparently they are killing birds; I don’t even know how to comment).  But windmills are not ideal everywhere.  Other sources will be needed.  Some that we like, others (like nuclear) that we don’t like.  But to me, again, we need to meet our goals of energy independence and decrease pollution; at those goals should be met all costs.

The best way to incentivize alternate energy is through accurate pollution taxes and eliminating unreasonable local NIMBY barriers to use of technology via federal laws.  Once the market has accurate information in the form of the price of energy and is unfettered in using the many options currently available, it will be able to provide energy in the most optimal fashion without minimal government fiat.

[Unknown Member]

You are right Mistrad that some places are not well suited for wind power.  Similarly, some places are not suited for solar.  Other places are not well suited for any kind of energy generation.  Ultimately, what mix of energy is used should be determined economically.  But the economy cannot do its job of deciding the optimal mix when NIMBY laws stop people from building the windmill that they want to, putting a solar array on their roof, installing a small hydroelectic generator.  It also can’t do its job when fuel prices do not reflect the true environmental cost of consuming the fuel.

[jquinones8812_854]

See, we basically agree. 

Except for the pollution tax.  This is the most regressive tax imaginable.  There are better ways.  For example, if you give huge credits for fuel efficient vehicles, that would push people toward them.  Additionally, have huge credits for alternative fuels, like ethanol.  If ethanol gas was 3 bucks a gallon, and regular is 4, what do you think will happen?

Taxes are a blunt instrument for the gov’t.  I would prefer to have people make rational choices on their own.  The government should push the preferred choice, without making wholesale bans.  People may not make decisions for the good of the earth, but they will for the good of their pocketbook.

[Unknown Member]

By internalizing externalities via a pollution tax, people, pursuing their own selfish interests, end up pursuing the interests of the world.  Without such a tax, decisions are generally rational (within the limits of people’s knowledge) but selfish.  With such a tax, decisions are generally rational, but rational for the whole world instead of rational for only that individual.  The money raised, if it represents the true cost of cleaning up the pollution, should be adequate to cure the harm caused by the pollution that was taxed.

If you have a problem with sticking the poor with too much tax, why not couple a pollution tax with counterbalancing grants?  Then the poor are motivated by the tax to cut down where they can, but they have the money to afford what they need.  The more energy stingy among the poor make money off the deal.  Those who are energy hogs pay a penalty.  But as a class, the poor are not stung anymore than the rich.  There are simple things the poor can do, such as take the bus instead of driving an old gas guzzling smoke belching car, that can help the environment and reduce the demand for gasoline considerably.  A grant to the poor coupled with a pollution tax is a great way to enlist the aid of the poor.  It is also a great way for the poor to make money.  A poor person who, for example, decides to takes the bus instead of drive, would in effect be paid to do so, because the grant money he receives would exceed the fuel taxes he would have to pay if he drove his car.

Because the poor can not afford efficient equipment, they tend to cause a lot of pollution per unit of economic activity.  It is important to provide incentives to reduce this pollution.  Taxation in proportion to the extent they pollute via energy sales taxes is the best way to do this.

A pollution tax is much simpler than hundreds of different incentive programs for various types of energy efficiency technology.  There are no forms to fill out.  You don’t have to be savvy about the latest governmental grants.  You don’t have to meet strict guidelines to qualify.  You don’t have to wait for  rebate check.  You don’t have to use the government’s obsolete preferred technology.  If you are a provider of technology, you don’t need to get “approved” for rebates.  There is no lag while the government is educated regarding the latest technology.  There is no argument about how much one technology should be favored over another.  All these kinds of decisions are efficiently handled by the marketplace.

All a person needs to do is take the current price of different forms of energy in his purchasing decisions.  This is what people do anyway.  The only difference is that the price would include the marginal cost of cleaning up the environmental damage related to use of that particular energy.  In a particular locale, only a dozen or less entities would have to calculate, collect and pay the various taxes.  Most of these entities already collect some form of sales tax.  The extra manhours required to administer the program is therefore almost nothing.  Some of the entities that would collect the tax would include: the electric company, gasoline stations, natural gas suppliers, bottled gas suppliers, coal suppliers, firewood suppliers.

The net effect on the free market is that there is efficient allocation of energy resources.  Alternate energy systems are installed where it is most economical.  Energy economies are achieved where there is the greatest pay off.  And all this is done without corrupt government bureaucracy.  All the federal government needs to do is impose acurate pollution taxes and enact anti-NIMBY legislation.

[Unknown Member]

ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

See, we basically agree. 

People may not make decisions for the good of the earth, but they will for the good of their pocketbook.

I agree we basically agree.  But if we agree that people will make decisions only for the good of their wallet, then we should agree that the price of things has to include the FULL cost of that thing, including the damage to the planet.  Then, in pursuing the good of their wallet, they will automatically pursue the good of the planet.  Various incentives might work to some extent for companies or tech-savvy rich and middle-class people, but they don’t work very well in the real world of the poor regarding whether or not to turn on the air conditioner or whether or not to drive the smoke belching car across town.  A pollution tax, however, very directly influences these decisions, and the amount of influence is calibrated to be exactly what it should be:  the cost to the world of the decision that is made.  A pollution tax may be simple, but it is not blunt.

Would you agree that a pollution tax, if coupled with a counterbalancing grant, would efficiently achieve the aims of reduced pollution, energy conservation, and a shift to renewable energy without significantly economically adversely affecting the poor?

[jquinones8812_854]

[b]Would you agree that a pollution tax, if coupled with a counterbalancing grant, would efficiently achieve the aims of reduced pollution, energy conservation, and a shift to renewable energy without significantly economically adversely affecting the poor?
[/b]
No, i don’t agree with that.

People have not judged the full repercussions of a pollution tax. 

First off, the tax on pollution will increase the cost of EVERYTHING.  Food, clothes, etc.  Everything has a hand in the pollution tax.  So, inflationary pressures would be huge.  There are not enough federal grants to match that at any level.

Second, there will be loss of a lot of jobs, generally lower paying jobs.  I think, in turn, there may be increase in number of higher paying jobs in technology fields.  But again, this will leave the lower classes behind.

I would prefer no pollution tax, and the following:

1.  Tax credits for buying high mpg vehicles.
2.  Like car registration costs to the weight and efficiency of vehicles.  That will promote smaller, and more efficient vehicles.
3.  Remove all taxes on fuels like ethanol.  That will even further increase their economic benefits.
4.  Remove all federal taxes for 20 years on companies that produce new fuels, fuel cells, etc.

By increasing the costs of using a traditional gas vehicle, and decreasing the costs of alternative fueled vehicles, you let the market do its natural thing.  The market, instead of the government, will decide what is in its best interest.  You won’t have global inflationary pressures because of pollution tax, because corporations are the first to jump on money saving ventures. 

[Unknown Member]

If money is collected with pollution taxes, then money does not need to be collected from other taxes.  The government has to get its money some way.  Why not save the planet in the process?  Some of the money can go to the poor, or whatever else you want.

Your measures would help, but they are not as fine-tuned as pollution taxes.  For example, subsidizing efficent cars only indirectly decreases fuel consumption.  The marginal cost to the driver of driving that extra mile is still less than the true cost of producing, delivering, and cleaning up the mess from the fuel that was burned.  He would have an efficient car, but he would drive it unnecessarily.  If there were pollution taxes, he would buy an efficient car AND cut down on his miles. 

Also, such an incentive encourages the production of ultra-efficient cars, for example those made with carbon fiber.  You would think that that would decrease carbon emissions, but paradoxically  it can INCREASE carbon emissions.  This is because the energy required to make ultra-efficient cars can easily exceed the small reductions from the added efficiency.  It takes a lot of energy and requires a lot of pollution to make carbon fibers and other ultralightweight materials.  Much more energy than good old steel.  Overall, it is often less polluting to maintain existing cars in good condition but use them less.  The goal is decreased carbon emissions, not more efficient cars per se.  There is a difference.  It is better to incentivize carbon emissions directly via a gas tax rather than indirectly.

If fuel taxes increase the cost of everything, then that is because everything has a role in destroying the planet.  The cost rises in proportion to the harm that accrues to the planet from the item whose price has increased from the pollution tax.  Consumption of items is precisely inhibited in proportion to the item’s harm to the planet.  Production of the most harmful products is substantially curtailed.  Isn’t that what you want?

You could give every poor person $4000, but create pollution taxes that raise the average cost that a poor person pays by $3000.  The average poor person benefits, the polluting poor person breaks even, the ecological poor person profits greatly, and the world ends up a cleaner place.  Why wouldn’t you want that?

Do you still not want pollution taxes?  Not even a little bit?

Probably not.

Well, I tried.

[jquinones8812_854]

I would consider them if I thought they would work.  It isn’t the ‘tax’ part that bothers me.

Giving tax credits to the poor is fine, but more often than not what happens is the gov’t doesn’t take into account all of the true costs involved.  In this tax scenario, food, clothing, housing will all increase in cost. 

For example, i would assume that the poor live in older, less efficient housing; that would increase in cost as well.  The rich live, in general, in newer housing.  (I know some of these are gross exaggerations, but stick with me here).  A similar argument could be made with cars.  Giving a family 4 grand isn’t going to allow them to buy a new house, or buy a new car.  They will likely have to stick with the same old clunker, and still pay the tax.  Does this really help the environment?  The same for the house; no matter how much the gov’t will reimburse, are they going to buy people new houses?  New furnaces and water heaters?  4 grand is nothing.

As for your argument about ultraefficient cars, that actually works against you.  BAsically, then, whether you choose a highly polluting car or an ultraefficient one, you are polluting heavily; in which case, the tax will hit you, no matter what you do.  Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.  And I have no idea how you would make sure that cars are maintained; yearly inspections have not been shown to be effective in this manner, that is why many states have given up on them.  Ironcially, the two best ways to maintain high mileage are air pressure and air filters, both very economical/free.  But again, how does assure that this will happen?

On top of all that, pollution taxes will basically allow the rich to pollute as much as they want.  There is no curtailing of their spending, is there?  So what if their luxury car costs an extra couple grand a year?  Most don’t care.  Same with planes, etc.  Not to mention, I have no idea how you would regulate foreigners…

Again, it isn’t specifically the tax part of this I am against.  This is going to cost a lot of money, no matter how you do it.  I just am not convinced that this is going to work.

[Unknown Member]

[i]I would consider them if I thought they would work.  It isn’t the ‘tax’ part that bothers me.

Giving tax credits to the poor is fine, but more often than not what happens is the gov’t doesn’t take into account all of the true costs involved.  In this tax scenario, food, clothing, housing will all increase in cost.  [/i]

Many items would indeed go up in price.  But income taxes would go down, offset by the money collected from a pollution tax.  The net effect on average would be the same after tax income.  The more polluting items would go up more.  And the less polluting items would comparitively go down in price.  As they should.  A price should reflect the true cost of producing something.  There is no free lunch.  It is irresponsible to give away free pollution absorbing capacity.  The world’s ability to absorb CO2 for example is limited.  Arguably, it has already been used up.  If highly polluting items cost more, then less of them will be made, and more ecological items will replace them.  That is what you want, isn’t it?
[i]
For example, i would assume that the poor live in older, less efficient housing; that would increase in cost as well.  The rich live, in general, in newer housing.  (I know some of these are gross exaggerations, but stick with me here).  A similar argument could be made with cars.  Giving a family 4 grand isn’t going to[/i][i] allow them to buy a new house, or buy a new car.  They will likely have to stick with the same old clunker, and still pay the tax.  Does this really help the environment?  The same for the house; no matter how much the gov’t will reimburse, are they going to buy people new houses?  New furnaces and water heaters?  4 grand is nothing.[/i]

The rich tend to live in large expensive new energy efficient houses that they keep overcooled and overheated because they can afford it.  The poor tend to live in smaller energy inefficient houses or apartments that they undercool and underheat in order to save money.  The net effect is the rich actually spend more per capita per month on utilities than the poor (although the rich get a lot more for their money).

As far as the cost of housing is concerned, with pollution taxes the rich would pay much more than the poor.  The rich will still want their new McMansions, but said McMansions, which require vast amounts of energy to construct, will go up tremendously in price.  Powering the hot tub, the lights on the tennis court and so on will also go up considerably.  Meanwhile, the poor will seal up their small houses and apartments, consume rather little energy, and not pay much more. 

It is throwing away existing infrastructure and building new buildings from the ground up that uses huge amounts of energy.  More generally, spending money is highly correlated with spending energy (some items more than others).  Since the rich buy more, they will pay more.

You are right, the poor will stick with older less efficient capital equipment.  However, they will use it less.  They might finally sell their car and use the bus.  Or keep the car but combine trips.  Just because you have an old junker car does not mean you will waste a lot of gas.  If you drive it 5 miles a week just to go grocery shopping, you will create far less carbon emisssions than if you buy a new car, even if the new car gets 200 miles per gallon.

There is a difference between energy efficiency and energy usage.  It is reduction in usage that we are after, not energy efficiency per se.  You seem to equate reduction in carbon emissions with energy efficient capital.  But that is a rich man’s solution.  That is how you personally like to solve the energy crisis.  You like to have all your high tech super energy efficient gadgets.  But you ignore the huge energy cost of setting up all that equipment.  In the long run you will save energy, but that barely compensates for the initial energy cost.  Furthermore, as you know, the technique of  investment in energy-efficient capital is not a technique suited to everyone.  Most people are not smart enough and/or not wealthy enough to do that.  For other people, it works just as well to use existing capital more wisely.  It takes a lot of energy and a lot of carbon emissions to build new houses and new cars.  Making billions of new houses and cars will not save the world.  It is much more ecological and economical to insulate existing housing and use exisiting vehicles more efficiently.

[i] As for your argument about ultraefficient cars, that actually works against you.  BAsically, then, whether you choose a highly polluting car or an ultraefficient one, you are polluting heavily; in which case, the tax will hit you, no matter what you do.  [/i]

If you buy a new car, you immediately cause a huge amount of pollution because it takes a lot of pollution to make a new car.  That is true.  But isn’t it fair that those who pollute by buying a new car pay for the pollution required to make that car?  After your initial purchase of a new car, you will continue to pollute, although rather little per mile driven.  If you buy or keep an old car, however, the initial pollution you create is small, although the amount of pollution per mile will be higher.  However, if you don’t drive much, you won’t create much pollution.  And thus you will not pay much in pollution tax.

So, to minimize pollution (and cost), one should buy a new highly efficient car if one plans on driving a lot, but one should get a cheaper used car if one does not plan on driving that much.  As far as overall pollution, unless one is driving very large distances, it is almost always more economical and ecological to buy a used car, even if it gets poorer gas mileage.

It is not true that the tax will hit you no matter what you do.  If you buy a used car with decent mileage and don’t drive it very much, then you will not be hit very hard.  If you buy the latest brand new SUV and use it for joyriding, you will pay dearly.  If it is worth it for you to pay all those taxes for cleaning up the pollution for your joyriding, then go for it.  Enjoy.  You are paying for the pollution, so no one should fault you.  You decided that it was worth it for you.

[i] Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.  And I have no idea how you would make sure that cars are maintained; yearly inspections have not been shown to be effective in this manner, that is why many states have given up on them.  Ironcially, the two best ways to maintain high mileage are air pressure and air filters, both very economical/free.  But again, how does assure that this will happen?[/i]

There is no need for the government to require and administrate and pay for yearly inspections or any other means of enforcing energy efficiency unless things are as they are now, where the pollution cost of polluters is paid for by other people.  If pollution taxes add the real cost of pollution to the price of fuel, then gas will be so expensive that people will be very motivated to use every trick in the book to cut their consumption.  If not, then the people who do not take care of their car will pay a penalty that is very close to the cost to the environment.  The fine ithen will be commensurate with the crime.
 [i]
On top of all that, pollution taxes will basically allow the rich to pollute as much as they want.  There is no curtailing of their spending, is there?  So what if their luxury car costs an extra couple grand a year?  Most don’t care.  Same with planes, etc.  Not to mention, I have no idea how you would regulate foreigners…

[/i]Yes, as always, the rich will be allowed to consume and pollute as much as they want.  The difference is, with pollution taxes, they will pay the true cost of this pollution.  This cost would otherwise be born, for example, by hurricane and flooding victims half way around the world.  Or the cost would be paid by those who die of starvation from drought.  With pollution taxes, those who pollute pay the price.  And the taxes thus collected can be used to save the planet.

Foreigners purchasing US goods would pay pollution taxes, which are essentially in the form of explicit or implicit national sales taxes. The taxes are on only a few fossil fuels and other raw products, but these costs are passed on in the form of higher prices on items made from these raw materials.  Hopefully other countries would also impose pollution taxes, preferably as part of an international treaty (actually, many countries in the world already have national sales taxes).  This would prevent, for example, industrial manufacturing and other production from migrating to countries with lax pollution laws.  Ideally a worldwide pollution tax would be negotiated that would provide no safe haven for polluters.  Ideally, no one can dump their pollution onto the planet without paying for its cleanup.

[i] Again, it isn’t specifically the tax part of this I am against.  This is going to cost a lot of money, no matter how you do it.  I just am not convinced that this is going to work.[/i]

It is not going to cost money.  It is merely going to redistribute money from polluters to non-polluters.  All the tax money that is collected does not vanish.  A pollution tax will be passed on up the production chain.  However, the total cost in the form of increased prices will be very close to the amount of tax collected.  So there is no net cost.  Only a redistribution of money from polluting activities to the government.  The US government may continue to allow the environment to be destroyed, using the money to reduce income taxes for example.  The extent to which the government pays for pollution mitigation is another issue.  Some or all of the pollution taxes may be earmarked for pollution mitigation.

To summarize, the way a pollution tax would work is through a national sales tax on relevant raw materials.  It would be phased in to avoid shocks to the economy.  Eventually, the price of all goods and services would include the actual environmental cost.  Consumers would shift their consumption patterns to favor more ecological products.  Billions would be raised from such a tax, reducing the need for income taxes.  The overall tax the average individual would pay would not change much.  Sales tax increase would be offset by income tax decrease.

[jquinones8812_854]

[b]Many items would indeed go up in price.[/b]

No, EVERY ITEM would go up in price.  Name me an item that wouldn’t.  Clothing?  No, shipping costs would go up.  Food?  The same, not to mention corn would increse just because of ethanol.  Housing?  Very likely would go up, in one way or another.

[b]But income taxes would go down, offset by the money collected from a pollution tax.[/b]

Please name me a time in the history of the federal gov’t where the addition of a new tax brought other taxes down?  No, very likely they would add this tax, and keep all others at the same level. Bet your bottom dollar on it.  That actually is exactly what Al Gore has proposed, by the way.

[b]The rich tend to live in large expensive new energy efficient houses that they keep overcooled and overheated because they can afford it.  The poor tend to live in smaller energy inefficient houses or apartments that they undercool and underheat in order to save money.  The net effect is the rich actually spend more per capita per month on utilities than the poor (although the rich get a lot more for their money).[/b]

The net effect is that pollution won’t be decreased.  Yes, you will collect more dollars, and if that is your goal, great.  But the poor, even with things like closing up windows, can do only so much to make themselves more efficient.  You are talking 5, maybe 10% more efficient if they are [i]really[/i] lucky.  The rich won’t change.  So overall, no change in pollution.  So is your goal to raise taxes, or to lower pollution?

As for public transportation, without major capital expenditures for the gov’t, understand that most of the country today doesn’t have realistic access.  you leave the northeast, and most cities do not have a viable public transportation system.   Actually some cities are already breaking down now, because of the little increase that has occurred recently.

[b]There is a difference between energy efficiency and energy usage.  [/b]

No, I understand the difference.  The problem is this:  Say you reduce overall usage 10% over the next 10 years.  Well, with the overall growth of the economy, assuming no increased efficiency, our pollution amount will increase by [b]25%  [/b]over today’s amount.  While, it is always good to reduce usage, if you are talking about longterm global warming, this solution will only make the bad problem a little better.  I guess that is an accomplishment in and of itself, but it doesn’t solve the whole problem.

[b]If you buy a new car, you immediately cause a huge amount of pollution because it takes a lot of pollution to make a new car.  That is true.  But isn’t it fair that those who pollute by buying a new car pay for the pollution required to make that car? [/b]

And again, this is my point.  The dichotomy in this plan may make things worse.  I understand your point, but also undertand that current SUV owners, in your plan, may be better off keeping their old useless polluting SUV than pay more tax on a more efficient new car.  And thus, people may keep cars longer, which always is bad because older cars pollute more

Additionally, we have not even discussed the effects this would have on the auto industry, which still employs millions of people in this country.

[b]Foreigners purchasing US goods would pay pollution taxes…[/b]

I am assuming you are talking about foreigners living here.  I am talking about foreigners from abroad, like say Canada.  When they drive across the border and pollute, how are you going to recoup that? 

[b]It is not true that the tax will hit you no matter what you do. [/b]

And you go on to say your solutions won’t people [i]as much,  [/i]which implies they will still [i]get hit.[/i]

[b]It is not going to cost money.  It is merely going to redistribute money from polluters to non-polluters.[/b]

This is the biggest fallacy of all.  Understand, virtually all americans are polluters.  Period.  And the poor in some ways are worse than the rich.  Even farmers in this country are overall polluters. 

And if you look at even enviromental group studies, they said that the overall cost, for the average citizen, will be [i][b]$1200 in additional taxes[/b][/i], which they propose to funnel into new technologies.  That is all weel and good.  But don’t tell me taxes overall for the population won’t increase, because that is what every proposal I have seen today plans to do, from McCain to Obama to Gore.  

[i][b]national sales tax…[/b][/i]

It is interesting you bring this up.  For decades Dems have been against this concept because they said it could work.  Now, they are trying to use the same thing to solve pollution.  I don’t know what the truth is, but you are dreaming if you think this tax will replace the income tax…it will just be added on like every other tax.

[esas]

address the problem at the source:  population (birth) control. 

[jquinones8812_854]

I am personally for nuking whole continents.  that would solve the problem.

[mario.mtz30_447]

Quote from nalgenep

address the problem at the source:  population (birth) control. 

 
Pay women $1500 for every IUD inserted.  

[Unknown Member]

[i][b]Many items would indeed go up in price.[/b]

No, EVERY ITEM would go up in price.  Name me an item that wouldn’t.  Clothing?  No, shipping costs would go up.  Food?  The same, not to mention corn would increse just because of ethanol.  Housing?  Very likely would go up, in one way or another. [/i]

Used cars, especially those without great gas mileage, would go down in price, because a lot of people would sell them after finding that with gas prices as high as they are they don’t use them enough to continue using them.  Used recreational vehicles would be dirt cheap.  Used vehicle prices would decrease as soon as it is annnounced how much gas prices will increase. 

Health care costs would go down very quickly due to reduced pollution after implementation of a pollution tax. There would be fewer asthma cases for example.  Because of fewer vehicles on the road, there would be fewer car accidents.  Insurance rates would go down.

Within a few years, the costs related to weather damage would go down due to decreased global warming.  Less hurricane damage, less flooding damage.  Air conditioning usage might go down a bit for some people that live in areas of thermal pollution.  The air conditioning cost might not go down much however, because the tax would make electricity costlier.  Road maintenance expenses would fall due to less utilization of the roads.  New roadway construction could be deferred due to decreased demand. 

Within a few decades, trillions of dollars of expenses would be avoided due to avoidance of worldwide flooding of major population centers.  Trillions of dollars spent on warring over scarce resources might be avoided, and the cost of defense would decrease compared with life with no pollution tax.

I agree that many prices would go up.  That is the whole idea.  Prices need to reflect the true cost of items for people to make correct decisions as to what to buy.  Currently, prices are “subsidized” by people offloading the cost of their pollution on others: those with asthma, people in poor countries that can’t feed its people, and so on.  When people have to pay the true cost of their purchases, they buy less.

Gross national product would probably decrease, although a decrease from increased prices would be offset by new green industries.  A lower GNP is not necessarily a bad thing.  There is a difference between quantity and quality.  Prices will be higher, less will be bought, less will be consumed, but what is consumed will be of high quality and will be environmentally friendly.

[i][b]But income taxes would go down, offset by the money collected from a pollution tax.[/b]

Please name me a time in the history of the federal gov’t where the addition of a new tax brought other taxes down?  No, very likely they would add this tax, and keep all others at the same level. Bet your bottom dollar on it.  That actually is exactly what Al Gore has proposed, by the way.

[/i]Actually, the only practical way a pollution tax could be accepted by the public is if it is linked with a reduction in income taxes.  Or the pollution tax would be added on as a means to fund some new program, such as environmental mitigation.[i]  [/i]

[i][b]The rich tend to live in large expensive new energy efficient houses that they keep overcooled and overheated because they can afford it.  The poor tend to live in smaller energy inefficient houses or apartments that they undercool and underheat in order to save money.  The net effect is the rich actually spend more per capita per month on utilities than the poor (although the rich get a lot more for their money).[/b]

The net effect is that pollution won’t be decreased.  Yes, you will collect more dollars, and if that is your goal, great.  But the poor, even with things like closing up windows, can do only so much to make themselves more efficient.  You are talking 5, maybe 10% more efficient if they are [/i] [i]really lucky.  The rich won’t change.  So overall, no change in pollution.  So is your goal to raise taxes, or to lower pollution?

[/i]Are you saying that when prices go up, people don’t change the amount that they buy?  The recent ~$1 per gallon increase in gasoline has already reduced consumption by several percentage points, and consumption is expected to continue to fall as people continue to adjust their habits to use less.  There is a time lag for people to change their vehicles, learn about public transit, carpool, and so on. 

The effect of price on demand is a well known economic principle.  Are you denying that demand is not sensitive to price?  Even the rich cut their most extravagant waste when costs rise.  For those that don’t, so be it.  At least a tax was collected to pay for the damage to the environment that they caused.

A 10% reduction in heating or cooling is very pessimistic.  The energy consumption of a drafty old building can easily be cut in half by sealing it up and controlling the timing of heating and cooling.  Poor people will adjust their thermostats to use less power if their utility bills start to become unaffordable.

[i] As for public transportation, without major capital expenditures for the gov’t, understand that most of the country today doesn’t have realistic access.  you leave the northeast, and most cities do not have a viable public transportation system.   Actually some cities are already breaking down now, because of the little increase that has occurred recently.

[/i]I have lived all over the country, and can say from personal experience that almost every town over 50,000 people has a public transportation system.  You might have to wait one or two hours for a bus, but there are buses.  There is certainly carpooling wherever you go.  Check out craigslist.  One can get a ride anywhere from craigslist if one plans ahead. 

It is not a lack of capital expenditure that limits the extent of public transit.  It is a lack of DEMAND.  If people rode the bus more often, rest assured the local government would gladly invest in more buses.  Obviously, if gasoline is $15 per gallon, many people are going to take the bus or carpool.  With the increased demand for public transit, there will be the political support and economic viability that will allow substantial expansion of public transportation.

[i][b]There is a difference between energy efficiency and energy usage.  [/b]

No, I understand the difference.  The problem is this:  Say you reduce overall usage 10% over the next 10 years.  Well, with the overall growth of the economy, assuming no increased efficiency, our pollution amount will increase by [b]25%  [/b]over today’s amount.  While, it is always good to reduce usage, if you are talking about longterm global warming, this solution will only make the bad problem a little better.  I guess that is an accomplishment in and of itself, but it doesn’t solve the whole problem.

[/i]The growth of the economy needs to be in a greener direction.  There is no reason to believe that pollution will increase 25%.  If anything, pollution should decrease.  Pollution will certainly decrease if people have to start paying every time they create pollution.  A 10% reduction over the next 10 years is extremely pessimistic.  10% reduction per year is more realistic.  If there is no reduction in pollution, then at least the funds will be raised to clean up the pollution.

Cleaning up the pollution is not an optional thing.  Global warming is real.  Greenhouse gases must be reduced.  There is considerable controversy regarding the best way to clean up the gases after they are already produced.  But there is little controversy regarding about how much damage each ton of Co2 causes.  Hence we can at least internalize the externality of pollution so the polluters pay the cost of their polluting.  Carbon credits, disaster relief funding, or other means can then be used as necessary to manage the effects of global warming.

If the polluters are not going to pay for their pollution, who do you propose should pay for it?  If you charge the polluters, then they will reduce their pollution.  With reduced production of CO2 and other pollutants, the problem is already partially solved.

[i][b]If you buy a new car, you immediately cause a huge amount of pollution because it takes a lot of pollution to make a new car.  That is true.  But isn’t it fair that those who pollute by buying a new car pay for the pollution required to make that car? [/b]

And again, this is my point.  The dichotomy in this plan may make things worse.  I understand your point, but also undertand that current SUV owners, in your plan, may be better off keeping their old useless polluting SUV than pay more tax on a more efficient new car.  And thus, people may keep cars longer, which always is bad because older cars pollute more

[/i]No, it is not ALWAYS bad.  It depends on how much someone drives the SUV.  Keeping a car longer, even one with low mpg, can create far less carbon emissions that destroying the SUV and building a new high mpg car, as long as the SUV is not driven very much. 

Older cars pollute more PER MILE DRIVEN.  However, if they are not driven very many miles, the amount of pollution is minimal.  What do you want to do with old low-mpg cars?  I say, let the market motivate those who do not drive much to take advantage of the low prices of these cars.  Let these low-mileage drivers then avoid the purchase of a new car which has a huge pollution penalty.  Let those who drive a lot be motivated by the market to invest in an expensive new car with great mileage.  The way to facilitate the economic correctness of these decisions is to add the cost of pollution to the cost of fuel, and add the cost of pollution of making a car be added to the price of the car.  Which will go up more, the cost of the car, or the cost of the gasoline?  It depends on how much someone drives.  Most people, when given the true cost of the car and the true cost of the fuel, will make a reasonable decision regarding what they drive and how much they drive it.

If pollution taxes are accurate, the cost of pollution will automatically be included in the price of everything.  Someone with an SUV will look at how much he drives, how much that costs, and whether or not buying an expensive but fuel efficient car will save money.  The net effect is that those who rarely drive or really need a big SUV will tend to have them, whereas those who drive a lot or don’t need the extra space will sell their SUV’s to buy a smaller more economical car.  Some poeple who only need occasional use of a car will gobble up the heavily discounted SUV’s.  So all the energy put into building those SUV’s will not go to waste.

[i] Additionally, we have not even discussed the effects this would have on the auto industry, which still employs millions of people in this country.

[/i]It would accelerate what is already happening.  The auto industry is shifting away from stupid gas guzzlers and it is making efficient cars.  Certainly, fewer cars would be made, and many people currently employed making cars that are not fuel efficient would be layed off.  This is a GOOD thing.  Why should these autoworkers be wasting their time making gas guzzlers that destroy the planet?  Why are we ruining perfectly good steel by using it to make big SUV’s that soon almost nobody will want?  We need most of these people and we need that steel to make buses, high efficiency cars, and new subway trains.   We need others to change jobs making something that is more useful.

Maybe the bus plant is in another city.  Sure, there will be dislocation of autoworkers.  But that is what a dynamic economy is about.  The cost of someone moving to another city is far less than subsidizing the production of retarded equipment.

These kinds of changes will be made in response to recognition of the true cost of pollution.
[i]
[b]Foreigners purchasing US goods would pay pollution taxes…[/b]

I am assuming you are talking about foreigners living here.  I am talking about foreigners from abroad, like say Canada.  When they drive across the border and pollute, how are you going to recoup that? 

[/i]Well, you’ve got me there.  If gas is cheaper in Canada than in the US, then people living on the border would tend to fill up their tanks in Canada and dump the pollution in the US without paying for the cost of the cleanup.  However, border-crossing trips are a drop in the bucket as far as total US gasoline consumption is concerned. 

Furthermore, Canada is already further along the learning curve than we are as far as pollution taxes are concerned.  Our politicians are barely considering it, whereas Canada already has concrete proposals:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080619/sc_afp/canadapoliticsenvironment_080619184001

The Canadians, as usual, are way ahead of us.  They will probably have a pollution tax in place five years before we do.  During that time, ugly Amercians will cross the border with our SUV’s filled with cheap gasoline.  We’ll dump the car exhaust on the Canadians, just like we already dump our acid rain on them. 

We’ll let them pay the cost of cleanining up the damage.  Let them pay increased healthcare costs and maintenance costs from corrosion.  Let their crops be destroyed by the acid.  Let their waterways be poisoned.  We don’t care.  It is their problem now, not ours.  We are happy tooling around in our retarded SUV’s, letting the rest of the world handle the mess it causes. 

Am I the only one ashamed of our behavior toward the Canadians and the rest of the world?  We are lousy neighbors, especially considering our superpower status. 
[i]
[b]It is not true that the tax will hit you no matter what you do. [/b]

And you go on to say your solutions won’t people [/i] [i]as much,  which implies they will still [/i][i]get hit. [/i]

Of course people will get hit with the cost of pollution, some more than others.  You can pay a little bit now, or pay a lot later.  It is better to recognize the cost NOW, instead of after the polar ice caps are melted and half the world’s largest cities are underwater.  By that time it will be too late.

[i][b]It is not going to cost money.  It is merely going to redistribute money from polluters to non-polluters.[/b]

This is the biggest fallacy of all.  Understand, virtually all americans are polluters.  Period.  And the poor in some ways are worse than the rich.  Even farmers in this country are overall polluters.  [/i]

Yes, every human that is alive does emit carbon dioxide.  But it is not a question of whether or not everyone pollutes.  It is a question of the extent to which someone pollutes.  It is a question of making people responsible for the pollution that they do create.  And it is a question of making prices reflect the true cost of pollution so that people change their behavior to reflect that very real cost.

The biggest fallacy of all is denying the inconvenient truth.  You can pretend that there is no cost to pollution.  You can pretend that we all do not pay for this pollution one way or another.  Or you can recognize the cost and allocate it to those who create the cost instead of subsidizing polluters.

[i] And if you look at even enviromental group studies, they said that the overall cost, for the average citizen, will be [b]$1200 in additional taxes

[/b][/i]Is that all?  $1200 per person is a very small price to pay compared to the trillions of dollars that  is being paid and will be paid in the future if we do not do anything.  However, that $1200 would be for various governmental programs to clean up pollution, not the cost of a pollution tax.  I think an accurate pollution tax might be even more expensive than $1200 per person.  If so, it would be money well spent.

[i]But don’t tell me taxes overall for the population won’t increase, because that is what every proposal I have seen today plans to do, from McCain to Obama to Gore.   [/i]

You are right, overall taxes will increase.  But it is not because of the imposition of a pollution tax  [i]per se[/i].  It is because people want the government to  do more, and the new programs are going to cost money. 

That extra money may be raised by increased income taxes, an “inflation tax”, deficit spending, windfall profits taxes, or a national pollution sales tax.  Personally, I favor the pollution sales tax over the other alternatives.  But probably all of them are going to increase.  Hopefully pollution taxes will be increased more than the other options, which are not as good.

[i][b]national sales tax…[/b]

It is interesting you bring this up.  For decades Dems have been against this concept because they said it could work.  Now, they are trying to use the same thing to solve pollution.

[/i]Maybe the democrats have demonstrated hypocrisy, maybe not.  I don’t care.  The fact is that a national sales tax, in the form of a pollution tax, makes a lot of sense, especially in light of recent global warming.

[i] I don’t know what the truth is, but you are dreaming if you think this tax will replace the income tax…it will just be added on like every other tax.

[/i]Oh, I do not think it will totally replace an income tax.  You can’t raise that much money solely from sales tax without severely distorting the economy.  Black markets would develop, for example.  However, a national sales tax on key polluting raw materials could avoid an increase in income taxes.  It might even reduce income taxes if a reduction in income taxes is politically coupled with a sales tax in order to get it through congress.

[jquinones8812_854]

You might be right on used cars.  However, a lot of people would be ‘upside-down’ on new cars, wouldn’t they?  RVs, for example.  I wonder how many would default.  Also, remember that RVs are a major employer, like in Indiana.  Bye-bye about 10,000 jobs.

Health care?  You realize CT and MRIs use TONS of energy; they would likely cost more, because they cause tons of pollutions.  As for fewer cars, good luck with that.  I don’t think any tax is going to signficantly decrease the number of cars.  Owning cars is so built into the dynamic of society in america; I just don’t see it happening.

The links of global warming to weather changes are almost nil right now.  There is no proof that anything we will do will effect the weather in the short term.  A recent UN study showed that there has been LESS flooding over the last 30 years on average than the century before.  So I don’t know how you can make that leap of faith without any evidence to back it up.  Not to mention, realize that China is by and far the largest polluter now; India is third.  Neither is going to anything as extreme as you are suggesting.  So even if you are right with the weather changes, it is not likely the weather will get better just by our doing the things you ask.

Road costs as parts of taxes would go up if you are right about decreased utilization, because many states depend on tolls for maintaining the roads; less cars, less toll money.  The money will have to come from somewhere.

As for GNP decreasing, if that is true, that would be catastrophic.  Why?  Because these new alternatives are going to be very costly; by decreasing wealth, you will make it more difficult to switch to new technologies.  Also, a decreasing GNP means that you are not EVEN KEEPING UP WITH INFLATION.  This means that in true value, you are really losing out.  I agree about quantity vs. quality, but tell that to the 50% of the population that make less than 40 grand a year.

As for taxes, despite what you suggest, that is now what is being proposed by any major player.  Obama, McCain and Gore all propose these taxes without any decrease in income taxes.

As for prices effecting action, of course they do.  But it depends what you are talking about.  Surely, people will trend toward more efficient vehicles if given an incentive.  But, as you have stated, are not giving an incentive.  In fact, you are incentivizing old cars.  Then why should the rich switch from the SUV they have now, to an even older car?  I don’t see a BMW driver all of sudden deciding to drive a 2004 Prius because it is going to cost him an extra $1000 a year.  These are people that get new cars every three years; that want the new shiny model.  If you aren’t going to give them incentives to buy more efficient new vehicles, then they are going to pay the hefty tax no matter what; in which case they probably aren’t going to change their habits, because you are making them choose between paying a lot of taxes and have a new car, or paying a lot of taxes and have an old car.

[i][b]A 10% reduction in heating or cooling is very pessimistic.  The energy consumption of a drafty old building can easily be cut in half by sealing it up and controlling the timing of heating and cooling.  Poor people will adjust their thermostats to use less power if their utility bills start to become unaffordable.[/b][/i][b]

[/b]Everything I have read on this doesn’t agree with what you are saying.  If you have some proof for it, I would really be interested in reading it.

[b]10% reduction per year is more realistic.[/b]

Actually, that isn’t realistic at all.  With our current birth rates, as well as legal and illegal immigration, we are going to need about 4% more energy a year as far as the eye can see.  10% decrease annually?  The numbers don’t work.  You can either a)stop immigration or b) put in a china-like 1 baby policy.  But less than that, your plan won’t work.  Period.  There is no argument here.

[b]$1200 dollars in new taxes.[/b]

Understand, for someone making $40,000, that is a hefty increase in overall taxes, considering most of these people don’t pay any tax today.  This would be, by many multiples, the largest tax increase in history, and it would not be placed on the rich alone.  In fact, in overall dollars the middle class would pay much more of it than the rich. On top of which, as you have stated, GNP would decrease while inflation would decrease, which would further devalue what money they do have.

If that is your proposal, I have no fear, because even liberals will be against it.

[Unknown Member]

[i]You might be right on used cars.  However, a lot of people would be ‘upside-down’ on new cars, wouldn’t they?  RVs, for example.  I wonder how many would default.  Also, remember that RVs are a major employer, like in Indiana.  Bye-bye about 10,000 jobs. [/i]

Even before the current increase in fuel prices, many people were routinely upside down as soon as they bought a new RV or an expensive car, because a slightly-used RV or luxury car is way cheaper than a new one.  I would support a five year or so phase in of the taxes, so as to avoid undue shock to the economy.

RV’s will no longer be used very much for long distance travel.  Rather, they will increasingly be used for nearby camping or housing in trailer parks.  So there will be a downward limit to the decrease in RV values.

In any case, it doesn’t make sense to be making as many RV’s as before.  If that means 10,000 lose their jobs, so be it.  Why employ people making something that, when the cost of pollution is factored in, few people want?  Those unemployed workers can find other useful work easily enough.
[i]
Health care?  You realize CT and MRIs use TONS of energy; they would likely cost more, because they cause tons of pollutions. 

[/i]Again, you are only looking at the energy efficiency of capital, rather than the total energy consumption.  They are totally different things.  With decreased pollution, there will be fewer health problems.  Notably, respiratory disease and cancer should decline.  Thus there will be a need for fewer magnets.

I am not sure what proportion of an MRI read is the power required.  But I do know that MRI’s consume power regardless of how many studies are done.  There is a problem in the US with excess MRI capacity.  A typical city only really needs one or two MRI machines, but numerous hospitals and clinics want their own machine.  The result is a lot of electricity being used to keep helium cool for machines that spend most of a 24 hour day idle.  Usually, no scans are done at night (barring an emergency).  However, the machine still consumes power.

Perhaps higher electric bills will finally make hospitals consolidate their magnets for more cost effective health care.  If a town gets rid of half of its magnets, that represents a 50% savings in MRI electricity consumption.

Do you want an exemption from pollution taxes for CT’s and MRI’s?  Then who will pay the environmental cost?  In order to diagnose your patient’s illness, you may inflict illnesses on other people on the other side of the planet.  That is not fair.  The cost of the pollution needs to be paid, just like any other cost such as the rental of the facility or the radiologist that reads the study.

[i]As for fewer cars, good luck with that.  I don’t think any tax is going to signficantly decrease the number of cars.  Owning cars is so built into the dynamic of society in america; I just don’t see it happening.

[/i]Individuals will decide for themselves if they want to give up their car.  A pollution tax would not dramatically reduce the number of cars, but it would decrease the number of cars on the road.  This is because people would use their car less.  If everyone drove half as much, that would have the same effect as taking 1/2 of the cars off the road.  With higher fuel prices, more people would carpool.  Some would take the bus to work.  People would combine their shopping trips.  Per capita utilization of roadways would decrease, even if per capita car ownership would not decrease very much.
[i]
The links of global warming to weather changes are almost nil right now.  There is no proof that anything we will do will effect the weather in the short term.  A recent UN study showed that there has been LESS flooding over the last 30 years on average than the century before.  So I don’t know how you can make that leap of faith without any evidence to back it up.

[/i]Do you deny that global warming has increased the level of the oceans and will continue to do so?
Do you deny that global warming increases the severity of hurricanes?  Do you deny that global warming has contributed to drought and will increasingly do so in the future?

Among scientists, there is virtually no doubt that global warming is occuring and will continue into the future, with trillions of dollars of damage if it is not stopped.

If what we do does not affect the weather for another 10 years, does that mean that we should ignore what we do?  We need to think more in advance than the next few years.

[i] Not to mention, realize that China is by and far the largest polluter now; India is third.  Neither is going to anything as extreme as you are suggesting.  So even if you are right with the weather changes, it is not likely the weather will get better just by our doing the things you ask.

[/i]The US is a close number two polluter, and our per capita pollution is way above other countries, so we can do quite a bit to stopping pollution.  As I said, we would ideally impose pollution taxes in the context of a worldwide agreement wherein all countries impose such taxes. 

Even if other countries do not agree to pollution taxes, the fact we ourselves do it will help convince other countries to do likewise.  Countries that do not impose pollution taxes would tend to attract dirty industries, because it would be cheaper to do business in such countries.   So much of the world’s pollution will tend to be dumped in countries that do not have pollution controls.  The costs that such dirty countries incur might help motivate them to cut back their pollution with their own pollution tax or other measures.
[i]
Road costs as parts of taxes would go up if you are right about decreased utilization, because many states depend on tolls for maintaining the roads; less cars, less toll money.  The money will have to come from somewhere.

[/i]Roadway maintenance is paid for almost completely with gasoline taxes, property taxes and income taxes.  Most states do not even have toll roads.  Tolls are generally used to pay back investors who provided funds for the roadway or bridge that has a toll.  Tolls are not generally used to fund the maintenance of the entire roadway system.

Road damage largely depends on roadway traffic.  Cars (actually mostly large trucks) tear up roadways.  Less traffic means less cost to maintain roads.  Yes toll collection might go down a bit, but most of the revenue for road maintenance does not come from tolls.  Less toll collection from less crowded roadways is a good problem.

[i] As for GNP decreasing, if that is true, that would be catastrophic.  Why?  Because these new alternatives are going to be very costly; by decreasing wealth, you will make it more difficult to switch to new technologies.  Also, a decreasing GNP means that you are not EVEN KEEPING UP WITH INFLATION.  This means that in true value, you are really losing out.  I agree about quantity vs. quality, but tell that to the 50% of the population that make less than 40 grand a year.

[/i]Those people will feel a lot better than if their home is flooded by the rising ocean, food prices have gone through the roof because of drought, and millions of hungry refugees are wandering through their town.
[i]
As for taxes, despite what you suggest, that is now what is being proposed by any major player.  Obama, McCain and Gore all propose these taxes without any decrease in income taxes.

[/i]Both Obama and McCain want pollution taxes?  Well, then it looks like it is going to happen.  As it should.  It is about time.  It should have been done 50 years ago.  I am just surprised that a smart guy like you doesn’t also realize that it makes total sense. 
[i]
As for prices effecting action, of course they do.  But it depends what you are talking about.  Surely, people will trend toward more efficient vehicles if given an incentive. 

[/i]Yes, they will tend toward more efficient vehicles, but more importantly, they will tend toward DECREASED POLLUTION[i].[/i]  There is a major difference between efficient equipment and energy conservation.  One can save a lot of energy using very old technology.  Efficiency does not equal reduced pollution.  It helps, but it is not the same thing.[i]

But, as you have stated, are not giving an incentive.  In fact, you are incentivizing old cars. 

[/i]My proposal only incentivizes the purchase of old cars for people who do not drive very much.  For these people, buying and using an old car produces less cost and pollution than buying a new energy efficient car, because the cost and pollution from making a new car greatly exceeds the cost and pollution generated from the limited use of the old car.

It is the EXISTING SYSTEM that incentivizes old and even new inefficient cars.  This is because the true cost of gasoline to people that use cars is subsidized by the those who suffer and will suffer from the pollution generated by those cars.  Why get an efficient car or significantly cut down on your driving when you can buy gasoline for only about $4 per gallon?  Now, if gas were $15 per gallon and a new economy car were $30,000, people would think completely differently.  They would tend to buy used cars with decent efficiency, and they would drive their car much less.
[i]
Then why should the rich switch from the SUV they have now, to an even older car?  I don’t see a BMW driver all of sudden deciding to drive a 2004 Prius because it is going to cost him an extra $1000 a year.  These are people that get new cars every three years; that want the new shiny model.  If you aren’t going to give them incentives to buy more efficient new vehicles, then they are going to pay the hefty tax no matter what; in which case they probably aren’t going to change their habits, because you are making them choose between paying a lot of taxes and have a new car, or paying a lot of taxes and have an old car.

[/i]Again, energy conservation is not all about selection of equipment.  It is also about utilization of equipment.  If people do not want to drive less in face of prices that reflect true costs, that is their right.  But they will pay a fair price for their wasteful ways.  The taxes thus collected can then be used to clean up the mess from the pollution suhc people create.
[i]
[/i] [i][b]A 10% reduction in heating or cooling is very pessimistic.  The energy consumption of a drafty old building can easily be cut in half by sealing it up and controlling the timing of heating and cooling.  Poor people will adjust their thermostats to use less power if their utility bills start to become unaffordable.[/b][b]

[/b]Everything I have read on this doesn’t agree with what you are saying.  If you have some proof for it, I would really be interested in reading it.

[/i]Here is just one website I found on the topic:

http://www.aceee.org/consumerguide/heating.htm  This site says:
[i]
[/i][font=”arial, helvetica, sans-serif”][size=”-1″]”Thorough duct sealing costs several hundred dollars but can cut heating and cooling costs in many homes[/b] by 20%”.

But there are many other ways than sealing ducts that can drastically reduce heating and cooling costs, especially in older buildings.  Such measures are not expensive, just a little labor and knowledge-intensive.
Inexpensive but effective measures include putting plastic over the windows, adding insulation to the attic, using zoned heating and cooling, turning off the heat or ac when one leaves for the day, reflectorizing the windows, adding gaskets to the entry doors, cleaning off the refrigerator coils, and many other things.  The list is endless.  But people generally don’t do these things unless energy costs are adequately high for them to save significantly.
[/size][/font]
[i][b]10% reduction per year is more realistic.[/b]

Actually, that isn’t realistic at all.  With our current birth rates, as well as legal and illegal immigration, we are going to need about 4% more energy a year as far as the eye can see.  10% decrease annually?  The numbers don’t work.  You can either a)stop immigration or b) put in a china-like 1 baby policy.  But less than that, your plan won’t work.  Period.  There is no argument here.

[/i]Your implicit assumption is that people continue to live exactly as they have.  I do not agree with that.  And history will show that I am right.  The average American can reduce his CO2 emission to about 1/10 the present value without a significant reduction in scale of living.  And Americans will do this within the next 10 years.

The Japanese, the French, and many other people from other parts of the world get by very nicely without living like wasteful Americans.  Why can’t we?  We don’t do it because our energy is so cheap that we don’t care very much about the cost.  They are paying >$10 per gallon for gasoline in most other countries.  Obviously they drive less.  Obviously they generate less CO2.  We would do the same if we had the same economic conditions.  I am suggesting that we create those economic conditions.
[i]
[b]$1200 dollars in new taxes.[/b]

Understand, for someone making $40,000, that is a hefty increase in overall taxes, considering most of these people don’t pay any tax today.  This would be, by many multiples, the largest tax increase in history, and it would not be placed on the rich alone.  In fact, in overall dollars the middle class would pay much more of it than the rich. On top of which, as you have stated, GNP would decrease while inflation would decrease, which would further devalue what money they do have.
[/i]
You make a legitimate point that people don’t like taxes.  People also like to pretend that pollution doesn’t have any cost, and people definitely do not like to pay for the cost of their pollution.  But pollution really does cost real money to these same people.  However,  it manifests itself in hidden ways.  Maybe by their children getting asthma, perhaps increased food prices from reduced agricultural production, maybe it is increased maintenance costs from acid rain, perhaps it is in the form of future environmental disasters and wars. 

As expensive as a pollution tax would be, it would be even more expensive to not have a pollution tax.  As I said, you can pay a little now or pay a lot later.

I don’t know if GNP or inflation would increase or decrease.  It could go either way.  New technologies will increase GNP significantly, but old dying technologies will bring it down.  However, GNP is not all that important anyway.  Quantity of production in dollars doesn’t matter if a significant amount of what is being produced is dumb stuff that people don’t really want in a distorted economy where prices do not recognize the cost of pollution.  Also, more GNP doesn’t matter if the earth is destroyed to produce it.
[i]
If that is your proposal, I have no fear, because even liberals will be against it.[/i]

I thought you said both Obama and McCain are for pollution taxes.  If that is the case, it seems there is a good chance it is going to happen.  You seem to think the whole idea is ridiculous.  For me it is obviously something that should be done.

I think that first there will a watered-down version wherein some, but not all, of the pollution costs are added in the form of national sales taxes on selected raw materials.  Then over time the tax will be increased until it is in line with true pollution costs.

Will a pollution tax ever occur?  Really, only time will tell.  

[Unknown Member]

I see a lot of reference here to tax credits, wind power, efficient cars, and the like.

I can never see a path for these things to work. IMHO they are chipping away in little bits at a problem that as Mistrad points out is massive. Further, some of them (wind power) will have very negative consequences. (I can imagine in 2060 a rebellion against the ugly turbines that are destroying the beauty of nature. I might lead that protest). Even further, each item in this laundry list of things that will help some, but not cure the problem, faces very significant political or social oppostion. In other words each one of these little things would be a devil to get instituted.

I would like to propose a massive response to this massive problem. I haven’t seen anyone mention it here, and have heard almost no one mention it in the press.

That is fusion power.

Take water, split it into oxygen and hydrogen, fuse the hydrogen, and get a massive amount of power. Side product is not soot, sulphur dioxide or anything else, but it is heavy water.

We can’t do this now. So what. If I were president, I would announce a massive federal project to make this work. The manhattan project and the Apollo project would be 2 examples. I would put us on a timeline and throw massive amounts of money at it. Even if we do not succeed immediately, that money still works as an economic stimulus. (And we are still reaping benefits from the engineering advances that the space program gave us)

If we succeed, our energy problems are over forever. Further, it is possible that these plants could be miniaturized to have one in each neighborhood or in your garage, This avoids centralization and removes a single fail point for the system. Bye Bye terrorist threat.

The availability of nearly free power could also be used to light crops at night and increase food production. You could heat or cool the fields as necessary to maximize production. Perhaps food production would not need to stop simply because winter set in. (this is a little far off, but it MIGHT be possible.)

Looked at very broadly, energy is (of course) the ability to do something. If this is free, then barriers to third world countries improving their economies go away. They could produce more than enough food for their people. This would be a major stabilizing influence in the world when a country does not have to conquer another to get its energy and food needs.

If we had fusion power, electric cars would be here now. Free fuel. Can you imagine a single better economic stimulus? Someone might even develop an electric jet engine (or maybe each jet contains a fusion reactor to heat the air in the engine).

That’s all the time I have to write today, but think about this. Yes it is pie in the sky, no we can’t do it today. That was true of Manhattan and Apollo both. Our survival depends upon this. We should move on it today.

[Unknown Member]

ORIGINAL: Dr.Sardonicus

I see a lot of reference here to tax credits, wind power, efficient cars, and the like.

I can never see a path for these things to work. IMHO they are chipping away in little bits at a problem that as Mistrad points out is massive. Further, some of them (wind power) will have very negative consequences. (I can imagine in 2060 a rebellion against the ugly turbines that are destroying the beauty of nature. I might lead that protest). Even further, each item in this laundry list of things that will help some, but not cure the problem, faces very significant political or social oppostion. In other words each one of these little things would be a devil to get instituted.

I would like to propose a massive response to this massive problem. I haven’t seen anyone mention it here, and have heard almost no one mention it in the press.

That is fusion power.

Take water, split it into oxygen and hydrogen, fuse the hydrogen, and get a massive amount of power. Side product is not soot, sulphur dioxide or anything else, but it is heavy water.

We can’t do this now. So what. If I were president, I would announce a massive federal project to make this work. The manhattan project and the Apollo project would be 2 examples. I would put us on a timeline and throw massive amounts of money at it. Even if we do not succeed immediately, that money still works as an economic stimulus. (And we are still reaping benefits from the engineering advances that the space program gave us)

If we succeed, our energy problems are over forever. Further, it is possible that these plants could be miniaturized to have one in each neighborhood or in your garage, This avoids centralization and removes a single fail point for the system. Bye Bye terrorist threat.

The availability of nearly free power could also be used to light crops at night and increase food production. You could heat or cool the fields as necessary to maximize production. Perhaps food production would not need to stop simply because winter set in. (this is a little far off, but it MIGHT be possible.)

Looked at very broadly, energy is (of course) the ability to do something. If this is free, then barriers to third world countries improving their economies go away. They could produce more than enough food for their people. This would be a major stabilizing influence in the world when a country does not have to conquer another to get its energy and food needs.

If we had fusion power, electric cars would be here now. Free fuel. Can you imagine a single better economic stimulus? Someone might even develop an electric jet engine (or maybe each jet contains a fusion reactor to heat the air in the engine).

That’s all the time I have to write today, but think about this. Yes it is pie in the sky, no we can’t do it today. That was true of Manhattan and Apollo both. Our survival depends upon this. We should move on it today.

Actually, there is much active research in the area of fusion power.  We probably will have economical fusion plants within about 20 years.  They will be expensive to build, and so the cost per kilowatt will not be much lower than current prices despite the very low deuterium fuel prices.  However, the environmental cost will be much less from this form of power.

As for a miniature fusion power source,  I haven’t heard of any promising technology in that area.  I don’t think that will happen in our lifetimes.

[vascularinter]

ORIGINAL: OculusPyramidis

Actually, there is much active research in the area of fusion power.  We probably will have economical fusion plants within about 20 years.  They will be expensive to build, and so the cost per kilowatt will not be much lower than current prices despite the very low deuterium fuel prices.  However, the environmental cost will be much less from this form of power.

As for a miniature fusion power source,  I haven’t heard of any promising technology in that area.  I don’t think that will happen in our lifetimes.

That’s right – we can’t make it work now. Dr. S’s point was that we should do everything to accelerate the progress. Re: “I haven’t heard of any promising technology in that area. I don’t think that will happen in our lifetimes.”: without trying, it won’t happen. I have a computer in my pocket that is more powerful than the one that occupied a full floor of the engineering building when I was in college. In technology, I think you can rely on the fact that there will be unexpected advances whenever you work on the problem intensely.

The promise of fusion is so great we can’t afford not to move on it.

[jquinones8812_854]

Of course, we should be pouring billions of dollars, preferably in tax credits, to the guys.  With fusion, of course that is expensive, so only the gov’t can really fund that.  The others are much more viable, and giving them tax credits or tax free period of 20 years would really get funding going.

But that by no means should preclude our obtaining energy in the near term either.

[Unknown Member]

ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

Of course, we should be pouring billions of dollars, preferably in tax credits, to the guys.  With fusion, of course that is expensive, so only the gov’t can really fund that.  The others are much more viable, and giving them tax credits or tax free period of 20 years would really get funding going.

But that by no means should preclude our obtaining energy in the near term either.

I agree.  Of course, there is the pesky problem of how to pay for such laudable governmental programs.

Pollution taxes, anyone?  Not even a little pollution tax?

Even if funded by other means, I agree that basic research is almost always a great investment of public funds.

Pollution taxes used to fund anti-pollution research is a great combination.  You give a carrot to those who would reduce pollution while giving the stick to those who pollute.  You take the money from the polluters and give it to those who clean it up.

C’mon Mistrad…I can’t do this without you…

[jquinones8812_854]

Sorry.  I think you have made a laudable effort.  I am still unconvinced.  But atleast we have had a nice back and forth, and I think reasonable discussion.

I wish our politicians could have such a reasoned debate, and then let the public decide.

[Unknown Member]

Me too.

In these kinds of issues, reasonable minds can differ.  Ultimately it is best left to the voters.

[vascularinter]

ORIGINAL: OculusPyramidis

Me too.

In these kinds of issues, reasonable minds can differ.  Ultimately it is best left to the voters.

Have you noticed that most voters haven’t a clue?

Jefferson, among others, felt that citizenship required literacy so that one could have an intelligent opinion. While most can read, I doubt that most are educated enough about energy policy to have a truly intelligent and reasoned opinion.

[Unknown Member]

ORIGINAL: RadiologistX

ORIGINAL: OculusPyramidis

Actually, there is much active research in the area of fusion power.  We probably will have economical fusion plants within about 20 years.  They will be expensive to build, and so the cost per kilowatt will not be much lower than current prices despite the very low deuterium fuel prices.  However, the environmental cost will be much less from this form of power.

As for a miniature fusion power source,  I haven’t heard of any promising technology in that area.  I don’t think that will happen in our lifetimes.

That’s right – we can’t make it work now. Dr. S’s point was that we should do everything to accelerate the progress. Re: “I haven’t heard of any promising technology in that area. I don’t think that will happen in our lifetimes.”: without trying, it won’t happen. I have a computer in my pocket that is more powerful than the one that occupied a full floor of the engineering building when I was in college. In technology, I think you can rely on the fact that there will be unexpected advances whenever you work on the problem intensely.

The promise of fusion is so great we can’t afford not to move on it.

I agree.  It doesn’t hurt to pursue basic research that one day may lead to practical miniatiurized fusion power, or other equally amazing technologies.

And it is true that as far as fusion plants are concerned, it is more a matter of working out a number of details than having the basic concepts worked out.

As for miniaturized fusion power (or miniaturized fission power for that matter), there is as yet not even a basic plan as to how it might be done. 

Not that there will never be.  Not that we shouldn’t try.  Not that the government shouldn’t provide funding.

[jquinones8812_854]

[b]Do you deny that global warming has increased the level of the oceans and will continue to do so?
[/b]No
[b] Do you deny that global warming increases the severity of hurricanes? [/b]
Yes.  Well, more accurately, there is no data to prove this.  Actually, the last two years have been the mildest hurricane seasons in the last 50 years.  And long term data has yet to prove any statistical difference.  I am NOT saying it isn’t possible; I am saying the data is not there to back up your statement.

[b]In any case, it doesn’t make sense to be making as many RV’s as before.  If that means 10,000 lose their jobs, so be it.  Why employ people making something that, when the cost of pollution is factored in, few people want?  Those unemployed workers can find other useful work easily enough.[/b]
Look, I don’t think we should be in the business of shoring up businesses that are no longer viable.  That said, your callousness is a little harsh.  First, many, if not most, of the workers at the RV plants are ironically Amish; and for them to find new work is not as easy, since they usually can’t move to new places.  It isn’t as simple as you make it.  Maybe it has to happen, but the repercussions are great.

[b]Perhaps higher electric bills will finally make hospitals consolidate their magnets for more cost effective health care.  If a town gets rid of half of its magnets, that represents a 50% savings in MRI electricity consumption. [/b]
Again, you have more faith than I do.  Likely what will happen is that this cost will be transferred to the insurer; or in the case of obama, to the government.  I don’t see people giving up their MRIs.

And no, I don’t want any exemptions for anyone.  Exemptions are lobbyist heaven.

[font=”arial, helvetica, sans-serif”][size=”-1″][b]”Thorough duct sealing costs several hundred dollars but can cut heating and cooling costs in many homes by [u]20%[/u][/b]

Again, 50% is way over optimistic.  I have done a lot of research on this, because I built a house recently, and threw in as many green technologies as I reasonably could.  Even with all that, my cost savings is just around 60%.  Getting to 50% in a old house is not realistic IMHO.
[/size][/font]
[b]The US is a close number two polluter, and our per capita pollution is way above other countries, so we can do quite a bit to stopping pollution.  As I said, we would ideally impose pollution taxes in the context of a worldwide agreement wherein all countries impose such taxes. [/b]
Not going to happen in the near term.  The third world argues that the global warming crisis is largely of the western world’s making, and so they should clean it up before asking them for help.  They do have a point, although the problem is that if the world goes to hell, the third world is going to, no matter who was initially responsible.

But the bigger problems is that at the rate China and India are going, the US will account for less than 10% of global emissions by 2030; China will account for 20%, India around 13%.  Even cutting the US proportion by half is unlikely to reduce warming or any warming side effects.\

The only solution to this is new technologies.  If we can come up with new technologies that the third world can adopt, then they can be clean and develop at the same time.  And that, I would argue, is the biggest flaw in your plan.  There actually is a disincentive to produce new techonologies, because of the tax that will burden them; any new technology is going to have significant pollutants in production, and so your tax actually would inhibit new technologies.

[Unknown Member]

ORIGINAL: MISTRAD

The only solution to this is new technologies.  If we can come up with new technologies that the third world can adopt, then they can be clean and develop at the same time.  And that, I would argue, is the biggest flaw in your plan.  There actually is a disincentive to produce new techonologies, because of the tax that will burden them; any new technology is going to have significant pollutants in production, and so your tax actually would inhibit new technologies.

Not at all.  The tax is on pollution, not technology that prevents pollution.  In fact, a pollution tax makes polluting expensive, so any gadget that can reduce pollution will save people money, and people will demand said pollution-preventing gadget.

Developing new technology does not involve much pollution.  Making a few prototypes is nothing like gearing up for full-scale production of the finished product.

The only inhibition would be a generalized increase in the cost of many items.  But the increased incentive of higher fuel prices would easily overcome the generally slightly increased cost of doing business.

In any case, there is already plenty of technology to prevent pollution, save energy, and save money.  It has not been fully used because energy does not cost enough for people to really care.  US auto plants are already tooling up to make economically viable and marketable electric cars.  Windmills already have ROI’s that rival many other investments.  There are zillions of means of limiting pollution that have been developed, many of which are used because it is just a little bit cheaper to simply dump the pollution on one’s neighbors that stop it or clean it at the source.  With a pollution tax, these pollution limiting devices will finally make financial sense and will be used.

[Unknown Member]

By the time the third world gets around to mass producing gasoline powered cars, electric cars will already be way more economical.  Arguably, they are already.

You seem to be complaining that if cutting US pollution doesn’t stop all pollution, than it is not worth doing.  Surely you will admit that even cutting pollution 10% has a real effect on slowing global warming, and definitely serves as an example to the rest of the world.

It serves as an example not only that we did do it, but also it serves as an example of how the rest of the world can do it.  The world can be inspired by our example, but also learn from it.

[jquinones8812_854]

I think it is worthwhile for the US to cut pollution, no matter what, for many different reasons. But some of the potential benefits you talked about won’t result unless you get a global agreement; i.e. reducing warming.

As for gas producing cars in the third world, that is already happening.  China and India together will produce more cars than the US by 2020.  And they are producing millions of cars today.  And they are all gas using cars.

And China and India don’t care about the US as an example.  They will do it if , a) it is beneficial to them, or b)at the very least it doesn’t stall their growth.  And since you have clearly stated the it will stall growth in the US, you have basically assured that they won’t accept any solution you are proposing.

[Unknown Member]

there are too many cars on the highways.  my opinion is we should invest in public transportation.
 
seeing huge smoke fumes emanating from factories is a fright, but you don’t see these unless you go the where the factories are. in some locales they are hidden away from the main thoroughfares and neighborhoods.  pollution from industry needs to be more regulated.

[kayla.meyer_144]

All the doom & gloom about what can’t be done & the bitter truth doesn’t seem to be the case. Contrary to predictions of doom & what we can’t do we are in “danger” of becoming an energy exporter. Granted, it’s fossil fuels except that renewables like solar & wind, etc are making a major impact. Again, contrary to how renewables like solar & wind, etc could never make an impact against fossil fuels. And TESLA is also showing the future with its all electric cars that can drive respectable distances. In time they will become more affordable. The new Model T?
 
Germany is using renewable s so successfully that the energy companies are feeling the impact of reduced profits & revenue.
 
And that could never happen here?
 
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/science/earth/sun-and-wind-alter-german-landscape-leaving-utilities-behind.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…-utilities-behind.html[/link]
 

It will be another milestone in Germanys costly attempt to remake its electricity system, an ambitious project that has already produced striking results: Germans will soon be getting 30 percent of their power from renewable energy sources. Many smaller countries are beating that, but Germany is by far the largest industrial power to reach that level in the modern era. It is more than twice the percentage in the United States.
Electric utility executives all over the world are watching nervously as technologies they once dismissed as irrelevant begin to threaten their long-established business plans. Fights are erupting across the United States over the future rules for renewable power. Many poor countries, once intent on building coal-fired power plants to bring electricity to their people, are discussing whether they might leapfrog the fossil age and build clean grids from the outset.
A reckoning is at hand, and nowhere is that clearer than in Germany. Even as the country sets records nearly every month for renewable power production, the changes have devastated its utility companies, whose profits from power generation have collapsed.

 
The Right “no-can-doers” are seeing how wrong they have been on most everything. The renewable are so successful the business model of traditional energy producers need to rethink their business plan.
 
No wonder the Kochs are so worried.
 
 

[Unknown Member]

It’s funny how all the super informed experts who were screaming drill baby drill……..totally missed the shale oil and fracking boom

Not only will it lead us to energy indepedence, it’s creating jobs that are sustainable in this country

Think how much we would have saved by investing in ourselves versus conning the country into the war fir Iraqi freedom

Worse people of my lifetime were the Bush/Cheney administration

Absolutely no doubt. Stupid Stubborn ideologues

[ruszja]

Some people now on this board were barely born when this was an active thread.

We should build more nuclear plants.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from fw

Some people now on this board were barely born when this was an active thread.

We should build more nuclear plants.

I think most posters are not wearing peach fuzz now. And as I read the referenced article, I recalled the heated discussions about how it was all impossible except for the continued burning of fossil fuel. No other alternative. Renewable energy is still the Koch’s worst nightmare. Especially since the original post.
 
As for nuclear power, they are neither cheap or safe. And then there’s the problem of the spent fuel to dispose of. Where do we bury it. Virginia? I don’t see a mad bidding war for the privilege.
 
 

[Unknown Member]

The Germans move to renewable energy will come at a high cost.
 
[i]”Average electricity prices for companies have jumped 60% over the past five years because of costs passed along as part of government subsidies of renewable energy producers. Prices are now more than double those in the U.S.[/i]
[i]”German industry is going to gradually lose its competitiveness if this course isn’t reversed soon,” said Kurt Bock, chief executive of [link=http://quotes.wsj.com/XE/BAS]BASF SE[/link], [link=http://quotes.wsj.com/XE/BAS]BAS.XE -0.22%[/link] the world’s largest chemical maker.[/i]
[i][link=http://online.wsj.com/articles/germanys-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy-1409106602]http://online.wsj.com/art…able-energy-1409106602[/link]”[/i]
 
In the case of the Germans, this may be necessary, because they are not energy rich, but no doubt this may stifle their economy.
 
As far as the drilling goes, what is fracking, if not drilling?  The last time I checked, most conservatives support an an “all of the above” energy policy, including nat gas, atomic power, oil and renewables. Hey, I own TESLA stock.  It was the progressives who opposed fracking in public lands, thinking that all of the world’s energy needs could be supplied by windmills.  
 
As far as the Iraq piece goes, Dr. Don Quijote, we’re headed there again under Obama. Maybe kpack thinks it will be free this time.  I want to see some posts on how stupid and costly the Obama war will be.  Equal time critics would agree.  After all, fair is fair. We should be spending the tax payers money on more social programs for Obama’s illegals and welfare state. LOL!
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Not sure how your argument disputes either the article’s conclusions or mine, Alda. Fracking has created more natural gas that we can sell on the open market including exports. The problems with fracking however is that it is still fossil fuels and has poisoned water that people had used to drink, cook & shower. Not exactly a good thing if your water is poisoned. But that is beside the point anyway. It was Republicans who argued the doom & gloom argument about being unable to improve anything.
 
And the article does state explicitly that these traditional energy companies have to change their business plan. That paying or subsidizing these companies might be necessary for times when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow. So the doom & gloom argument of the WSJ is unhelpful at best & is just more of the same “Can’t do” they have been making for years. Decades even.

[btomba_77]

Quote from aldadoc

… last time I checked, most conservatives support an an “all of the above” energy policy, including nat gas, atomic power, oil and renewables. Hey, I own TESLA stock.  It was the progressives who opposed fracking in public lands, thinking that all of the world’s energy needs could be supplied by windmills.  

 
You must not have checked too recently.  Self-identified conservatives are the only group in the US who tend to think we should be primarily focused on hydrocarbons rather than both fossil and alternatives   (self identified liberals tend to oppose fossil fuels).

[b]Conservative Republicans now prioritize traditional energy sources over alternative sources by a 65% to 26% margin; a year ago they were divided (47% oil, coal, natural gas vs. 43% alternative energy).[/b]
[b] 

[/b]
 
[image]http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Screen-shot-2012-04-09-at-10.50.41-AM.png[/image]
 
 
[link=http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/section-7-global-warming-environment-and-energy/]http://www.people-press.o…nvironment-and-energy/[/link]
 
 
I personally favor an all-of-the-above energy policy that goes [i]safely[/i] ( in a highly regulated fashion to limit environmental degredation) while acknowledging that climate change is real and that we will with current technology not be able to safely burn all the fossil fuels we find and therefore incentivizes development of renewable energy sources through governmental  policy and international agreements.  I am also pro-nuclear and think that in 50 years or so we will be looking more to nuc power.
 

[Unknown Member]

Pssst. Did you happen to notice that the Arctic ice mass is at an all time record high? Climate change sucks. Freezing MAO.
[link=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice-area/]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice-area/[/link]

[ruszja]

Quote from Frumious

As for nuclear power, they are neither cheap or safe. And then there’s the problem of the spent fuel to dispose of. Where do we bury it. Virginia? I don’t see a mad bidding war for the privilege.

 
It’s safe if we want it to be safe and the only reason it is expensive is because we want it to be expensive. As for the waste, we can just sell it to china, they can mix it into babyfood or iphones and sell it back to us. Or just dig a deep enough hole.

[eyoab2011_711]

Of course you could look at actual science rather than misunderstanding and misinterpreting data
 
[link=http://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm]http://www.skepticalscien…a-ice-intermediate.htm[/link]
 
If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere ([link=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5643/273][color=”#0046aa”]Gillet 2003[/color][/link]). A side-effect is a strengthening of the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent ([link=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/5569/895][color=”#0046aa”]Thompson 2002[/color][/link]). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas leads to increased sea ice production ([link=http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037524.shtml][color=”#0046aa”]Turner 2009[/color][/link]).

[kayla.meyer_144]

Pssst Alda, Arctic ice is still declining.

Also consider Alda, that Antarctica’s land ice is decreasing by 100 billion tons per year. So,

What’s up with that?

[kayla.meyer_144]

And I believe globally glaciers are still retreating also.

What’s up with that?

[kayla.meyer_144]

As the above article points out, there are major benefits to renewables and the cost is not  a major factor bringing doom (& gloom).
 
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/science/earth/fixing-climate-change-may-add-no-costs-report-says.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…costs-report-says.html[/link]
 

In decades of public debate about global warming, one assumption has been accepted by virtually all factions: that tackling it would necessarily be costly. But a [link=http://www.newclimateeconomy.report/]new report[/link] casts doubt on that idea, declaring that the necessary fixes could wind up being effectively free.
A global commission will announce its finding on Tuesday that an ambitious series of measures to limit emissions would cost $4 trillion or so over the next 15 years, an increase of roughly 5 percent over the amount that would likely be spent anyway on new power plants, transit systems and other infrastructure.
When the secondary benefits of greener policies like lower fuel costs, fewer premature deaths from air pollution and reduced medical bills are taken into account, the changes might wind up saving money, according to the findings of the group, the [link=http://newclimateeconomy.net/content/global-commission]Global Commission on the Economy and Climate[/link].
We are proposing a way to have the same or even more economic growth, and at the same time have environmental responsibility, said the chairman of the commission, Felipe Calderón, the former president of Mexico and an economist. We need to fix this problem of climate change, because its affecting all of us.

 
The predictions of the coming benefits of renewables were correct. Fossil fuels are moving into the past & the future looks bright as a result.
 
 

[btomba_77]

[link=http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-12-17/cuomo-to-ban-fracking-after-health-department-calls-it-unsafe]http://www.businessweek.c…rtment-calls-it-unsafe[/link]
 

The New York state Health Department said fracking for natural gas cant be done safely, dooming prospects that Governor Andrew Cuomo will allow the extraction process after a six-year-moratorium.

 
 
I am fine with a fracking moratorium until enough daylight is shed on the process, the technology advances to avoid contamination, and a full federal regulatory regime is put in place.
 
 

[ruszja]

Quote from dergon

[link=http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-12-17/cuomo-to-ban-fracking-after-health-department-calls-it-unsafe]http://www.businessweek.c…rtment-calls-it-unsafe[/link]

The New York state Health Department said fracking for natural gas cant be done safely, dooming prospects that Governor Andrew Cuomo will allow the extraction process after a six-year-moratorium.

I am fine with a fracking moratorium until enough daylight is shed on the process, the technology advances to avoid contamination, and a full federal regulatory regime is put in place.

 
That’s great. There is a glut of gas on the market at this time, down the line when prices come back up and NY is broke, they can extract it and get a better price.

[btomba_77]

[link=http://www.eiu.com/industry/article/742664258/coal-downturn/2015-01-15]http://www.eiu.com/indust…al-downturn/2015-01-15[/link]
 
The Germans make real headway on renewables
 

[b]Coal-fired power generation in Germany fell last year for the first time since 2009, while renewables became the largest source of electricity.

[/b]

[kayla.meyer_144]

And the naysayers said it couldn’t be done.

[kaldridgewv2211]

the graphene people just discovered that if you waft salt water over the graphene it make an electrical charge.  It’s a small electrical charge, like less than a double A battery holds but kind of cool.  If they could figure out a way to do that on a large scale, that would be a pretty cool way to get power.
 
[link=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgizmodo.com%2Fpouring-saltwater-over-graphene-generates-electricity-1563379860&ei=Isa-VJy7D8GlNpOYg9gG&usg=AFQjCNGDAgE96lxyEx3BiyWgNQqNeYBrAQ&sig2=O0Ti19U-r5LV8CLRqt3W2A&bvm=bv.83829542,d.eXY]https://www.google.com/ur…;bvm=bv.83829542,d.eXY[/link]

[julie.young_645]

That would be nice. The report from EIU is nice too, and truly encouraging, but neglects to tell us just how much the changeover cost them, and how they paid for it.

[btomba_77]

In the Renewable Energy Law (EEG), sector- specific tariffs are set for electricity from renewable energies fed into the public supply grid. The amount of compensation follows the principle of cost-covering compensation and is based on the specific electricity production costs of the specific sectors. KfW’s funding program Renewable Energy (Erneuerbare Energien) section Standard provides low-interest loans for investments in installations for electricity production in accordance with the EEG, cogeneration plants and for small heat production installations. In program section Premium low interest loans with repayment subsidies are granted for renewable energy heat produced in large installations. KfW funding programs for energy-efficient construction and renovation (CO2 building renovation program), which promote the development of renewable energies, are Energy efficient Construction (Energieeffizient Baue), Energy Efficient Renovation (Energieeffizient Sanieren) or Energy-efficient Renovation Local Authorities (Energieeffizient Sanieren Kommunen) and Social Investment – Building Refurbishment (Sozial Investieren- Energetische Gebäudesanierung). Heat-and-power Cogeneration Act (KWKG) regulates the funding of old and new combined heat and power (CHP) plants and the development and construction of heating networks into which heat from CHP-plants is fed. Guidelines on the promotion of mini-CHP plants promote through investment grants the new construction of CHP – plants up to 50 kW el. Energy Tax Act (EnergieStG) provides tax relief for energy products used for combined heat and power production if the CHP plant has a monthly or annual efficiency of at least 70%. There is also a tax exemption for biogas which is combusted immediately after production or is used in a CHP-plant.
 
 
 
___
 
[link]http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060007702[/link]
 
 

But these lofty ambitions have a matching price tag, one that increasingly falls to households and small businesses, which now pay some of the highest electricity prices in Europe. Support for the renewable energy feed-in tariff comes from a surcharge on power bills, but more than 2,000 big energy users, like metal smelters and large factories, are exempt.
Eurostat, the European Union’s statistics agency, reported that in the second half of 2013, German households paid 29.2 euro cents (37 U.S. cents) per kilowatt-hour, a price second only to that paid by Danish households in the European Union. German industry, meanwhile, paid an average of 14.4 euro cents per kWh.
In the United States, the Energy Information Administration reported, American households paid 12.5 cents per kWh for electricity on average this year.
However, several factors offset the electricity price in Germany compared to the United States.
The average American home used 10,837 kWh and paid a monthly bill of $107.28, averaging 2.7 percent of household income, in 2012, the year for which the most recent data are available from EIA.
The average German household consumed 3,500 kilowatt-hours per year, paying an average monthly bill of 85 ($108.81), about 2.5 percent of household income, in 2013. Roughly half of the bill goes to taxes and levies, including this year’s 6.24-euro-cent-per-kWh renewable energy surcharge.
An average American home is almost twice as big as an average German home (201 square meters versus 109 square meters). Per capita, that’s 77 square meters per person in the United States, compared to 55 square meters per person in Germany. In part due to climate differences, air conditioning has a penetration rate of less than 10 percent in Germany but surpasses 65 percent in the United States.
Earlier this year, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) ranked Germany first in energy efficiency in a comparison of the world’s 16 largest economies, accounting for factors like average fuel economy for vehicles and energy used per unit of floor space ([link=http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060003100/][i]ClimateWire[/i][/link], July 18).
The report cited Germany’s mandatory efficiency codes for commercial and residential buildings as a big part of the reason for its award. “When you are looking at a country with higher energy prices, the attitude is likely that they are going to do more energy efficiency to lower their bills,” said Rachel Young, a research analyst at ACEEE and the lead author of the report.

[julie.young_645]

Sounds like you are saying the price is high.

[btomba_77]

[link=http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-involved-in-fracking-on-federal-lands-must-now-disclose-what-chemicals-they-use-2015-3]http://www.businessinside…micals-they-use-2015-3[/link]
[b]Companies involved in fracking on federal lands must now disclose what chemicals they use[/b]

Obama administration tightens fracking rules.

The Obama administration said Friday it is requiring companies that drill for oil and natural gas on federal lands to disclose chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, the first major federal regulation of the controversial drilling technique that has sparked an ongoing boom in natural gas production but raised widespread concerns about possible groundwater contamination.
A rule to take effect in June also updates requirements for well construction and disposal of water and other fluids used in fracking, as the drilling method is more commonly known.
The rule has been under consideration for more than three years, drawing criticism from the oil and gas industry and environmental groups alike. The industry fears federal regulation could duplicate efforts by states and hinder the drilling boom, while some environmental groups worry that lenient rules could allow unsafe drilling techniques to pollute groundwater.

Well done!  Steps in the right direction.

[Unknown Member]

Not real sure how much fracking is done on federal lands

I thought a lot if not most was done on private land

I could be wrong on this one though

[btomba_77]

A big part of it is about getting the industry to expose their chemicals. Many states have passed laws allowing/mandating nondisclosure of the substances used in tracking. This makes assessing damage to groundwater supplies impossible.

[kaldridgewv2211]

I’ve never understood the fracking is safe argument.  Putting chemicals into the ground doesn’t really seem safe for water supplies which are becoming an increasingly scarce resource.  It doesn’t seem anymore safe than if I dumped a quart of Pennzoil into the storm sewer.

[kayla.meyer_144]

“Proprietary information” Revealing proprietary information would negatively impact the business (by informing the public what is being injected?) & provide their secrets to their competitors.
 
No one has proven fracking is not safe. Burning water faucets are not real. Poisoned water wells never happened, the water was poisoned or flammable long before the fracking was done. Didn’t you read the industry’s papers?
 
Any leaking of methane from well heads or earthquakes or poisoned/flammable water is due to a very few faulty operators. Thanks to fracking oil and gas are at very low prices – good for the American consumer (like sending jobs to China was). And provides jobs. Only a few communities now require bottled water shipped in.
 
All sounds like Eastern Europe’s environmental pollution defenses. What do you want, good jobs or good health. You can’t have both.
 
And cigarettes were “safe” for years, no? The tobacco industry fought the idea that cigarettes were dangerous for years – decades, saying we needed more research. At one time,  smoking was advertised as good for your health. Ahhhh, relaxing with a good smoke. “3 out of 4 doctors recommend our cigarettes for your health.”
 
[attachment=0]
 
Now fracking is good too.
 
[link=http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304520804576345522519486578]http://www.wsj.com/articl…0804576345522519486578[/link]
 
 

[btomba_77]

Quote from DICOM_Dan

I’ve never understood the fracking is safe argument.  Putting chemicals into the ground doesn’t really seem safe for water supplies which are becoming an increasingly scarce resource.  It doesn’t seem anymore safe than if I dumped a quart of Pennzoil into the storm sewer.

 
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/us/oklahoma-acknowledges-wastewater-from-oil-and-gas-wells-as-major-cause-of-quakes.html]Oklahoma Recognizes Role of Drilling in Earthquakes[/url]

Quote from NYT

Abandoning years of official skepticism, Oklahomas government on Tuesday embraced a scientific consensus that earthquakes rocking the state are largely caused by the underground disposal of billions of barrels of wastewater from oil and gas wells.

The states energy and environment cabinet introduced a website detailing the evidence behind that conclusion Tuesday, including links to expert studies of Oklahomas quakes. The site includes an interactive map that plots not only earthquake locations, but also the sites of more than 3,000 active wastewater-injection wells.

The website coincided with a statement by the state-run Oklahoma Geological Survey that it considers it very likely that wastewater wells are causing the majority of the states earthquakes.

[kaldridgewv2211]

based on the title, how would you confront the energy crisis, I would now say buy some Philips LED light bulbs.  What I’m reading is that they now make a $5 dollar 60watt LED, and while supplies last it’s 2 for deal.  So head over to the Home Depot and grab a 2 pack of 60watt LEDs for a $5.  One bulb based on 3hours use a day uses $1 and change in electricity/year. 

[btomba_77]

Quote from DICOM_Dan

based on the title, how would you confront the energy crisis, I would now say buy some Philips LED light bulbs.  What I’m reading is that they now make a $5 dollar 60watt LED, and while supplies last it’s 2 for deal.  So head over to the Home Depot and grab a 2 pack of 60watt LEDs for a $5.  One bulb based on 3hours use a day uses $1 and change in electricity/year. 

 
[url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/17/the-gop-s-relentless-crusade-to-save-america-from-commie-light-bulbs.html]
The GOPs Relentless Crusade to Save America From Commie Light Bulbs[/url][/h1]  

…as Groucho sang in [i]Duck Soup[/i], Whatever it is, Im against it, and so it is with conservatives: If liberals are for it, they automatically turn anti. A study last spring by a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania found the following: She took two sets of liberals and conservatives and explained to them that CFL bulbs cost more upfront but saved money over the long haul and could reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. At this point, liberals and conservatives reacted with more or less equal enthusiasm. But then? [link=http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-do-conservatives-like-to-waste-energy/]As Grist reported it[/link]: Slap a message on the CFLs packaging that says Protect the Environment, and we saw a significant dropoff in more politically moderates and conservatives choosing that option, said study author Dena Gromet.
 
So if official, educated-seeming people say its good for the planet, oppose it. Even if you liked it before you knew it was good for the planet.
 
Whats going to happen when someone finally invents practical, affordable, post-internal-combustion future and we can all afford cars that no longer burn gas? You know exactly whats going to happen. The major car companies will adapt, and most of us will, too. But there will surely arise a car company that will make gas-guzzlers the likes of which weve never seen, and it will be based, no doubt, in Texas, catering to all who dont want to give up their freedom. In the meantime, maybe GE can invent a CFL bulb that doubles as something you can affix to the end of your shotgun and take out into the woods and kill endangered species with. Then the Texansll snap em up.

[kayla.meyer_144]

I recall long discussions with the OP about “government overreach” & “banning” incandescent lightbulbs. Except somehow I’m still able to buy incandescent lightbulbs if I wish.
 
Hyperventilating and inaccurate arguments made for the sole sake of being “anti” everything.
 
[link=http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA628.html]http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA628.html[/link]

When General Electric blamed “a variety of energy regulations that establish lighting efficiency standards” for the closing of incandescent light bulb factories in Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky, its PR team left out a critical detail: General Electric and fellow light bulb manufacturers Phillips and Osram Sylvania had lobbied for those regulations. 

Ignore claims that the incandescent light bulb ban was imposed to fight global warming. The motive behind the bulb ban is money: Incandescents have a low profit margin. 

[kaldridgewv2211]

You can buy incandescent but it’s probably limited to whatever stock is left, unless you smuggle them in from China.  For $5 on a two pack of 60 watt LEDs I don’t see why you want to.  That’s a solid deal on bulbs that consume very little power, look good, and will last many hours.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Exactly. Not the end of the world or bankrupting consumers as predicted by the Right.

[btomba_77]

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/us/white-house-solar-plan-aims-at-low-and-middle-income-people.html?partner=rss&emc=rss]
Obama unveils solar panel plan for low-income homes[/h1] [/url]
 

Part of the administration’s climate change strategy, the plan calls for tripling solar energy systems in federally subsidized housing by the year 2020, and making it easier for homeowners to borrow money for solar panels.

…the moves {are} part of a bigger-picture effort to try to drive innovation toward cleaner, low-carbon energy solutions.

Also to be unveiled on Tuesday are commitments totaling more than $520 million from charities, investors, states and cities to pay for solar and energy-efficiency projects for lower-income communities.

 

[kaldridgewv2211]

Two key words there.  Borrow and Money.

[btomba_77]

Quote from dergon

Quote from DICOM_Dan

I’ve never understood the fracking is safe argument.  Putting chemicals into the ground doesn’t really seem safe for water supplies which are becoming an increasingly scarce resource.  It doesn’t seem anymore safe than if I dumped a quart of Pennzoil into the storm sewer.

[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/us/oklahoma-acknowledges-wastewater-from-oil-and-gas-wells-as-major-cause-of-quakes.html]Oklahoma Recognizes Role of Drilling in Earthquakes[/link]

Quote from NYT

Abandoning years of official skepticism, Oklahomas government on Tuesday embraced a scientific consensus that earthquakes rocking the state are largely caused by the underground disposal of billions of barrels of wastewater from oil and gas wells.

The states energy and environment cabinet introduced a website detailing the evidence behind that conclusion Tuesday, including links to expert studies of Oklahomas quakes. The site includes an interactive map that plots not only earthquake locations, but also the sites of more than 3,000 active wastewater-injection wells.

The website coincided with a statement by the state-run Oklahoma Geological Survey that it considers it very likely that wastewater wells are causing the majority of the states earthquakes.

 
[link=http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/earthquake-shakes-swath-midwest-missouri-oklahoma-41842405]http://abcnews.go.com/US/…ouri-oklahoma-41842405[/link]
[h1]Strong 5.6 magnitude earthquake hits Oklahoma close to the surface.[/h1]

[kayla.meyer_144]

The OP and other Republicans said alternative energy & solar, etc was not realistic & could never be done and any attempt would totally ruin the economy. Yet here we are.
 
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/science/the-new-optimism-of-al-gore.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…timism-of-al-gore.html[/link]
 

Still an object of derision for the political right, Mr. Gore has seen support for his views rising within the business community: Investment in renewable energy sources like wind and solar is skyrocketing as their costs plummet. He has slides for that, too. Experts predicted in 2000 that wind generated power worldwide would reach 30 gigawatts; by 2010, it was 200 gigawatts, and by last year it reached nearly 370, or more than 12 times higher.
 
Installations of [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/solar-energy/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier]solar power[/link] would add one new gigawatt per year by 2010, predictions in 2002 stated. It turned out to be 17 times that by 2010 and 48 times that amount last year.I think most people have been surprised, even shocked, by how quickly the cost has come down, Mr. Gore says in his office in an environmentally friendly building in the prosperous Green Hills neighborhood of Nashville.
 
Every minute in Bangladesh, two more homes get new rooftop solar panels. Dubais state utility [link=http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2015/01/dubai-utility-dewa-procures-the-worlds-cheapest-solar-energy-ever]accepted a bid[/link] for a solar power plant with a cost per kilowatt-hour of less than six cents. Wow, he says, his eyes wide. That just set everybody on their ear.

 
 

[btomba_77]

Just read this article.  Found it interesting.  The Bloomberg Energy Outlook for 2040.

[url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-23/the-way-humans-get-electricity-is-about-to-change-forever]The way humans get energy is about to change forever: Six shifts will transform markets over the next 25 years[/url]

Solar prices continue to crash.  The current $ billions of solar investment become $ trillions by 2040 with an estimated $2.2 trillion going to individual homes, decentralizing the energy industry.

Increasing efficiency causes the rate of energy usages growth to slow.
Natural gas plays a role, briefly and mostly in the US.  Fossil fuels play a decreased overall role, dropping from a 2/3s of energy production currently to 44%.

And …. “the climate is still screwed”.

The shift to renewables is happening shockingly fast, but not fast enough to prevent perilous levels of global warming.

About $8 trillion, or two thirds of the world’s spending on new power capacity over the next 25 years, will go toward renewables. Still, without additional policy action by governments, global carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector will continue to rise until 2029 and will remain 13 percent higher than today’s pollution levels in 2040.

[kaldridgewv2211]

interesting.  I live in an all electric house.  I actually found I save a lot by switching to LED bulbs, and all my TVs are LEDs.  As long as I’m not running heat or AC I only spend between $20-30 a month on electric utility.  So +1 for efficiency.  Philips has a 2 pack of LEDs for 5 bucks now.  
 
I’d love to have some NatGas but I also have no way to get NatGas in my development.  I did see my first CNG station being built by the Honda plant in Marrysville, OH last weekend.  I’m told it’s because Honda wants to hook up employees who want their CNG models.  The place was called Trillium.
 
We’ll see on the Solar.  To expensive for me to be an early adopter.

[btomba_77]

[url=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122509/gops-all-above-energy-policy-nothing-obamas] The GOP and Obama mean very different things when they say “all of the above” energy policy[/url]
 

 
As Slates [link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/06/gop_presidential_debate_on_energy_republican_candidates_sound_a_lot_like.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top]Eric Holthaus[/link] {notes}, “Jeb Bush and Scott Walker both effectively endorsed President Obamas energy policy,” {duringthe GOP primary debate} noting that “all of the above” is “the same language Obama uses.”
 
 
 
It’s true that Obama occasionally uses the same phrase, but he means something different when he says it. And Bush and Walker endorsed his energy policy only to the extent that it supports the continued development of fossil fuels.
 
Obama has pitched his “all-the-above strategy for the 21st century” in [link=https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/05/29/new-report-all-above-energy-strategy-path-sustainable-economic-growth]March 2012[/link], and a [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/06/annotated-transcript-the-aug-6-gop-debate/]2014 report[/link] from the White House stated that “part of the Presidents all-of-the-above energy strategy has been to encourage safe and responsible production of oil and gas resources on federal lands and waters as well.” The Democratic Partys official platform similarly [link=https://www.democrats.org/party-platform]endorses[/link] “developing America’s many energy resources, including wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, hydropower, nuclear, oil, clean coal, and natural gas.” Environmentalists object to this “all the above” strategy because they would rather see clean energy prioritized over oil, coal, and natural gas.
 
But, as Holthaus later acknowledged [link=https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/629705645378306050]on Twitter[/link], that doesn’t mean Obama’s position is the same as Bush and Walker’s. Obama supports above-ground renewable investment and energy-efficiency measures for cars and homes, while Walker and Bush intend to end subsidies for clean energy, largely continue the same century-old tax breaks that remain for fossil fuels, and encourage expanded federal permits for coal and oil extraction. Consider Walker’s full quote on Thursday: “One of the best things we can do is get the government out of the way, repeal Obamacare, put inreign in all the out-of-control regulations, put in place an all-of-the-above energy policy, give people the education, the skills that the need to succeed, and lower the tax rate and reform the tax code.” There’s [link=http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/02/3664995/walker-climate-epa/]no doubt[/link] includes Environmental Protection Agency rules in those “out-of-control regulations.”
 

[kaldridgewv2211]

I don’t believe the drill baby drill argument works anymore.  I think the producers want to do less things like fracking as the prices have come down.  There’s been a lot of layoffs that I’ve seen published.  Republican fantasy land where gas will be 87 cents again.

[eyoab2011_711]

A nice takedown of Fiorina’s silly response to Katie Couric.  Props for the use of the word “derp”
 

Conservatives are [link=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422395/carly-fiorina-climate-change-left]delighted[/link] with Fiorina’s performance. [link=http://www.westernjournalism.com/carly-fiorina-owns-katie-couric-on-climate-change/]Thrilled[/link]. [link=http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/fiorina-feds-bigger-threat-than-global-warming/]Pumped[/link]. They think she crushed Couric and showed how to outwit liberals on climate change.
In fact, Fiorina’s comments are a farrago of falsehoods and red herrings, a derp different in character from science-denial derp, but no less derpy.

 
[link=http://www.vox.com/2015/8/21/9186313/carly-fiorina-climate-wrong]http://www.vox.com/2015/8…-fiorina-climate-wrong[/link]
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Like Huckabbe’s performance. A performance made up of bad erroneous arguments meant to take attention away from reality facts.
 
The article is 101% correct, the key is to neutralize the science, which, “which party leaders have [link=http://grist.org/climate-energy/theres-an-emerging-right-wing-divide-on-climate-denial-heres-what-it-means-and-doesnt/]concluded[/link] is not favorable terrain.”
 
Because reality is different than what the GOP is selling.
 
 
 

[btomba_77]

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/politics/bill-gates-expected-to-create-billion-dollar-fund-for-clean-energy.html]Bill Gates to create multi-billion dollar renewable energy fund[/url]

Bill Gates will announce the creation of a multibillion-dollar clean energy fund on Monday at the opening of a Paris summit meeting intended to forge a global accord to cut planet-warming emissions, according to people with knowledge of the plans.

The fund, which one of the people described as the largest such effort in history, is meant to pay for research and development of new clean-energy technologies. It will include contributions from other billionaires and philanthropies, as well as a commitment by the United States and other participating nations to double their budget for clean energy research and development, according to the people with knowledge of the plans, who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the fund.

[suyanebenevides_151]

Quote from Thor

A nice takedown of Fiorina’s silly response to Katie Couric.  Props for the use of the word “derp”

Conservatives are [link=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422395/carly-fiorina-climate-change-left]delighted[/link] with Fiorina’s performance. [link=http://www.westernjournalism.com/carly-fiorina-owns-katie-couric-on-climate-change/]Thrilled[/link]. [link=http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/fiorina-feds-bigger-threat-than-global-warming/]Pumped[/link]. They think she crushed Couric and showed how to outwit liberals on climate change.
In fact, Fiorina’s comments are a farrago of falsehoods and red herrings, a derp different in character from science-denial derp, but no less derpy.

[link=http://www.vox.com/2015/8/21/9186313/carly-fiorina-climate-wrong]http://www.vox.com/2015/8…-fiorina-climate-wrong[/link]

 
“What’s the alternative? Unchecked climate change will lead to immense suffering, [link=http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/27/climate-change-poor-countries-ipcc]concentrated in[/link] but [link=http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports/global-climate-change-impacts-united-states]not confined to[/link] the world’s poorer countries.”
 
Talk about stupid alarmism. This is why people don’t take you seriously.
 
There are far more people who aren’t necessarily even skeptics that think that even if there is warming, it’s better for the world’s “poorer” countries.
 
You guys are so mythological it’s crazy. But a global jihad movement which we know for a fact is true, forget about that. That’s not harmful. Bring them all in with open arms! Ha, what a joke

[btomba_77]

[url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-14/big-oil-make-way-for-big-solar-the-winners-and-losers-in-paris]Big Oil, Make Way for Big Solar. The Winners and Losers in Paris[/url]

To stay ahead of climate policies, energy majors are placing their heaviest bets on gas. While solar is advancing quickly in terms of cost and efficiency, the industry hasnt yet figured out how to stockpile sufficient power for times that the sun isnt shining. Until that problem is solved — likely with major improvements in batteries — there will be significant demand for coal, gas, or nuclear power.

Energy investment, though, will increasingly shift toward green power. Under another IEA scenario, renewables will attract about 59 percent of capital in the power sector over the next decade, rising to about two-thirds from 2026 to 2040. Frances Total, for example, is building out its solar business, shifting investment to gas, and expanding energy-efficiency services to cope.
…
While environmentalists and many politicians argue the overall transformation will be positive for economies and jobs, millions of workers will face severe consequences. In the Canadian province of Alberta, the heart of the countrys oil patch, a newly-elected left-of-center government last month raised carbon taxes sharply. The idea, Environment Minister Shannon Phillips said, is to use the proceeds to help “make those investments in clean tech, in efficiency, in the renewables space,” and diversify the economy away from fossil fuels.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Yesterday’s deniers, Mistrad vs today’s, cigar.
 
Too bad for them, reality and facts has caught up to both of them..

[btomba_77]

Rumors coming out of Congress today say that the oil export ban has been lifted in the budget agreement.

In exchange, tax credits for wind and solar have been extended for another five years.

[btomba_77]

Interesting read on solar subsidies.

NYT: [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/opinion/the-conservative-case-for-solar-subsidies.html] The Conservative Case for Solar Subsidies [/url]

Solar, long viewed {from the Right}  through the lens of crony capitalism, has shown the ability to inject real market competition in energy distribution, one of the last monopolies in the energy sector, while improving the efficiency of the grid and putting more dollars in the pockets of middle-class Americans. Conservatives, in other words, need to take another look at solar.

…
{T}he solar investment tax credit is pretty smart. Its structured so that as solar power becomes more efficient, the effect of the credit on each watt produced becomes smaller. Ideally, we would let markets decide the winners on their own, but so long as government is intervening in markets, it should do so in an evenhanded way. Similarly, any government support for the solar industry should be impartial, rather than having government bureaucracy pick and choose favored companies as it does through its loan guarantee program. The solar investment tax credit comes close to that ideal.  And theres nothing in free-market economic theory that precludes government support. Markets tend to underproduce what economists call positive externalities that is, the broad social benefits, like a cleaner environment, that arent captured on a companys balance sheet.

Solar panels, and the companies that make them, are replete with such benefits: They eliminate redundant power plants that otherwise lie idle, empower consumer choice and have fewer negative consequences than most other forms of energy. But markets dont always reflect these, which is why it makes sense for subsidies to enter the picture.  The kerfuffle over the Solyndra collapse aside, many conservatives already agree, and have for years. When I was at the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, we believed that an across-the-board energy policy was by far the best approach and that included solar. From both a market and an environmental point of view, supporting the solar industry should make sense, no matter which side of the aisle you come from.

[Unknown Member]

Got a solar supply pack for my pool and patio area and a magnetic motor for the pool…………….cut my electric bill in half