The Truth, Still Inconvenient

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The wind farms in west Texas are amazing, the design of the blades don't spin fast enough to kill anything. The investment has already paid for itself, ahead of schedule. It's profitable, cheap, and powering big chunks of Texas, and they're not even done.

It's the kind of success story conservatives like to sweep under the rug.

Thanks for lying about the conservative position. Conservatives aren't against cheap green energy. Try and run Texas with ONLY wind energy and you see where the real debate is. Talk about a straw man argument on your part. What people really want is cheap green energy that can replace fossil fuels without damaging the standard of living. That isn't possible with any green techology or even all of them at the same time. It'll be decades before we find something that good and it'll probably involve something like nuclear and improved solar panels that can actually absorb all the light spectrum for energy.
 
And some say peak oil is not here especially after many of the large finds recently. Nuclear can replace coal but too many environmentalists hate nuclear which is a shame.
 
Not all environmentalists love wind farms.

AOK - News - Activism May Save the Southern Flint Hills

Also, when I crossed the border into Manitoba, it was full of windmills and it made the countryside look like an industrial wasteland. Is that what we want? In trying to be green, we shouldn't fill our wild country with all this crap. That kind of defeats the purpose. Hopefully these wind turbines are just a fad.
 
What people really want is cheap green energy that can replace fossil fuels without damaging the standard of living. That isn't possible with any green techology or even all of them at the same time. It'll be decades before we find something that good and it'll probably involve something like nuclear and improved solar panels that can actually absorb all the light spectrum for energy.

Why does there have to be one size fits all? If you have wind, use it. If you have sun, use it. If you have water, use it.

Why this rigid yesteryear mindset?
 
purpleoscar said:
What a joke! Of course big discoveries mean something. I think people just love apocalypse doom and gloom. The most subversive thing I can say is that things are getting better :giggle:

i am about to turn 21. i have a lot of years left on this earth why would i ever want things to be worse as opposed to better? you really have no idea what you are going on about most of the time.
 
What a joke! Of course big discoveries mean something. I think people just love apocalypse doom and gloom. The most subversive thing I can say is that things are getting better :giggle:
If you can plug your fingers in your ears as a drop in OPEC exports affects the prices of the lettuce you buy for your salads, and the plastic toys you buy for your kids, I admire your detachedness.
 
Let me know when they have those little nuclear reactors powering 18-wheelers, will you, Oscar?
 
Let me know when they have those little nuclear reactors powering 18-wheelers, will you, Oscar?

That sounds like an argument for fossil fuel energy. :giggle: If nuclear is a joke to you then wind and solar must be even worse.

If you can plug your fingers in your ears as a drop in OPEC exports affects the prices of the lettuce you buy for your salads, and the plastic toys you buy for your kids, I admire your detachedness.

Great and what do you think green taxes would do to those same bills? Since fossil fuels are WAY cheaper than green energy this "peak oil" scare appears to be more alarmism again. With green taxes we would still be using fossil fuels for decades with even higher prices (because of the taxes). If you don't like high prices then what is the logic for jumping in right away jacking them up with carbon taxes? The U.S. hasn't even gotten to the point yet where it's even exploiting what has been found yet within their borders. If people don't like the prices as they are they should drill at home more and trade with Canada and Brazil plus add more nuclear power plants that can reprocess spent nuclear materials. Thorium would be a safer option.
 
Because it would be prudent energy policy to wait until we've nearly tapped out those reserves before we start looking for alternatives?

Because without government no one is seeking alternatives? Admit it! You have to have "peak oil!" and "environmental catastrophe!" alarmism to make that argument. Do we then need government to create new technologies for other things? Why not have massive tax increases to eliminate particular diseases? There's thousands of priorities competing with each other and not enough resources to do big changes quickly. It's going to take decades to achieve. For someone who's probably against the Iraq war you should be more skeptical about something so expensive that would make the war chump change in comparison.

It's over buddy. Any energy excessive energy legislation will screw the economy. If Obama wins and manages (though congress won't go for it) to push for some carbon tax it will be so unpopular that it won't pass or so watered down that CO2 still increases. Even Democrats voted against cap and trade. The science is exagerrated, the alarmism is manipulative and for CO2 to not rise it would require a destruction of modern economies to achieve it. Why not just have a tax credit for scientific research and development in your own country and avoid the U.N. all together? It's certainly a lot cheaper than this:

UN study says $76 trillion needs to be invested in Green Technologies over the next 40 years to avoid 'Planetary Catastrophe'

Humanity is close to breaching the sustainability of Earth, and needs a technological revolution greater – and faster – than the industrial revolution to avoid “a major planetary catastrophe,” according to a new United Nations report. The report - The World Economic and Social Survey 2011: The Great Green Technological Transformation (251 pages). The survey says $1.9 trillion per year will be needed over the next 40 years for incremental investments in green technologies. At least $1.1 trillion of that will need to be made in developing countries to meet increasing food and energy demands. Major investments will be needed worldwide in the developing and scaling up of clean energy technologies, sustainable farming and forestry techniques, climate-proofing of infrastructure, and in technologies reducing non-biological degradable waste production.

This UN study is asking for 3% of world GDP for an accelerated conversion to green technologies, revamping agriculture according to their agenda and tossed in poverty elimination. I see zero chance of this proposal being adopted. They are asking for 20 times more than what was rejected at Copenhagen. It is interesting to see what kinds of plans get created by the United Nations and to imagine what the world would be like if these kinds of plans actually had serious consideration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf5NtSg_aBM

Inhofe 3:47​

Did you also consider that if you increase taxes and there is no replacement for fossil fuels for decades, you may actually destroy capital to the point that will slow down development instead of speeding it up?
 
Oscar, you have gone over the deep end. Do you even realize the technologies, health advancements, or energy advancements that have been due in part to governments?
 
I like what Michelle Bachmann said in the debate Sat night, that we need to "legalize American energy" again.
I am actually with the idea that we need to leverage existing US fossil fuel deposits.

The problem is that when you have a conservative's dream level of regulation (little to none), you get Deepwater Horizon and all-American families with flammable tap water.

Not providing government support for research into future energy alternatives to fossil fuels, despite the Solyndra cuffufle, is also a huge mistake.
 
BBC News - Canada to withdraw from Kyoto Protocol
Canada to withdraw from Kyoto Protocol

Canada will formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the minister of the environment has said.

Peter Kent said the protocol "does not represent a way forward for Canada" and the country would face crippling fines for failing to meet its targets.

The move, which is legal and was expected, makes it the first nation to pull out of the global treaty.
Canada declared four years ago that it did not intend to meet its existing Kyoto Protocol commitments and its annual emissions have risen by about a third since 1990.

:wave: Anti-science Canucks
 
Oscar, you have gone over the deep end. Do you even realize the technologies, health advancements, or energy advancements that have been due in part to governments?

I'm not saying governments don't pose a role but they often have a crappy track record. Something that is in research and development like solar and wind doesn't need to be pushed on the planet until it's proven in a small scale.
 
purpleoscar said:
I'm not saying governments don't pose a role but they often have a crappy track record. Something that is in research and development like solar and wind doesn't need to be pushed on the planet until it's proven in a small scale.

Next time you pull up your smart phone to surf the Internet, check weather, or use the GPS just ignore the irony of this statement and stay the course.
 
Next time you pull up your smart phone to surf the Internet, check weather, or use the GPS just ignore the irony of this statement and stay the course.

None of those cost as much as cap and trade to develop. They also served a government purpose first and are a different area than energy, unless the left has their way. Roads are mainly done by the government, so should cars also be nationalized?
 
purpleoscar said:
None of those cost as much as cap and trade to develop. They also served a government purpose first and are a different area than energy, unless the left has their way. Roads are mainly done by the government, so should cars also be nationalized?

You're pulling an Oscar and changing your argument.
 
You're pulling an Oscar and changing your argument.

You're pulling a BVS and changing my argument. My argument has been the same for years. Just because we have government in some areas doesn't mean there haven't been failures and we should just plow ahead with a huge U.N. takeover of world energy. Does creating GPS cost as much as what the U.N. is asking for? Is money for third world countries as well as green technology? Will this money be wasted? If the government creates nuclear power should it run the nuclear power industry?
 
You're pulling a BVS and changing my argument. My argument has been the same for years. Just because we have government in some areas doesn't mean there haven't been failures and we should just plow ahead with a huge U.N. takeover of world energy. Does creating GPS cost as much as what the U.N. is asking for? Is money for third world countries as well as green technology? Will this money be wasted? If the government creates nuclear power should it run the nuclear power industry?

Let me remind you, you asked:

Do we then need government to create new technologies for other things?

^This argument is ignorant, and I was showing you why...


If you want to talk about the economics of energy develpment then let's do that, but when you constantly change your argument over and over and ask silly questions like this you demean your argument.

Let's take baby steps, one question at a time:

In the long run, what do you think would be cheaper; staying the course with fossil fuels or finding an efficient means to use something that's free and available forever like solar or wind?
 
From the link posted:

"Canada's previous Liberal government signed the accord but Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government never embraced it."


I'm glad :D

Why is this issue split down partisan lines? Can anyone explain this? Decades from now, we're all going to be wishing we worked together to find solutions, not create problems, point fingers, and maintain the status quo. There needs to be leadership coming from all sides.

Climate change is real. I'm sure many of us have noticed that winters are not what they used to be, summers are warmer and dryer etc. Not sure how some of you could be so blind as to not notice this.

However, I think that climate change is a natural phenomenon that occurs here on Earth. I believe, though, that consumption of fossil fuels and other sources of pollution serve as a means to speed up that process. Take from that what you will.

And, really, if climate change is not real, is there any good reason why we shouldn't be looking at cleaner uses of our energy anyway? If the end result of this is a cleaner, healthier, more efficient way of living that is good for our planet, how is that a bad thing?
 
Why is this issue split down partisan lines? Can anyone explain this?


because, in the US at least, the Republican Party is entirely sold out to the oil companies, who wish to make money. and they make money by selling oil. the more oil we consume, the more money they make. eventually, the money will be in green energy, but not yet. also, it can be expensive for businesses to conform to environmental regulations. it's much more profitable to, say, dump toxins into the groundwater and settle out-of-court when a bunch of 8-year olds get lukemia than it would be to follow every single EPA rule. that's just the costs of doing business.
 
Back
Top Bottom