Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
No, DrTeeth (the scientist from the Netherlands), that problem was licked a long time ago.
An Inconvenient Electric Bill
- Thread starter AEON
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
DrTeeth
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Sorry my mistake, it was in fact licked a long time ago. Just like in New Orleans. 
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Angela Harlem said:
and what it really comes down to is that people don't want to be told to change their lifestyles.
because it's inconvenient. hence ...
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
oh, and for the political part, if this is the best Drudge can do, the republicans are totally fucked in 2008.
LyricalDrug
Rock n' Roll Doggie
randhail said:
I think Hillary Clinton hears you loud and clear, right down to the US space program analogy. Here's a snippet of an email she sent to supporters this morning:
"Yesterday, in my latest HillCast, I described a plan for an Apollo-like effort to make clean, alternative energy the energy of America. This plan would create a strategic energy fund to invest in developing and deploying clean and alternative energy -- home grown energy.
We can create the fund without new taxes on Americans by asking the oil companies to "Play or Pay": either they invest in alternative energy themselves, or they pay a portion of their windfall profits earned from the spike in oil prices into the strategic energy fund. We estimate that the fund will have close to $50 billion to invest in America's new energy future over the next 10 years.
My bill would also repeal oil company subsidies they don't need and reward families and businesses for increasing energy efficiency."
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
In Germany our electricity providers start to invest in renewable energies large scale because it becomes really competitive.
So you see, Green is no monster attacking the defenceless big business.
So you see, Green is no monster attacking the defenceless big business.
Bluer White
New Yorker
Won't this result in increased prices at the pump? Does it really matter if Hillary's plan is an "official" tax or a quasi-tax? Don't we hear every single winter about seniors choosing between buying their meds or heating their home?
I'm waiting for the "strategic funds" Hillary has proposed for other industries with higher profit margins than big oil, like finance and biotech. If we are going to regulate profits in one industry, why not them all, especially the highest margin ones?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Bluer White said:
i'm a big fan of a gas tax.
it would solve SO many problems.
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Bluer White said:
Well, they are doing quite well, and as she wrote, get subsidised as well.
So you are already paying for your oil companies.
And with the increasing market share of alternative energy producers and suppliers, which creates jobs, they will get into a competition which will decrease the price rather than raise it.
anitram said:
They've never been to Europe
Irvine511 said:i'm a big fan of a gas tax.
it would solve SO many problems.
Yes, just like the extensive tax breaks given to the telcos to bring fiber optic internet connections to every home back in the early 1990s....
...So why am I forced to use a slow DSL connection in 2007?
And that comes to my point. New taxes aren't going to be the world's savior, because there's absolutely no guarantee that any of the money will be used as intended (and, knowing Congress' poor record of keeping anybody accountable at all, I fully expect such money to be wasted as soon as it arrives). After all, we were funding the Spanish-American War for over 100 years through a gas tax, and look where that got us? (Heh....)
Personally, I'd rather see Big Oil go the way of the Dodo and the telegraph, rather than giving them an incentive to continue their corrupt business model well into the 22nd century, but with a new product. And, frankly, the U.S. government can achieve this goal through targeted legislation, calling for x% of all cars to start using ethanol, hydrogen fuel, or whatever by a certain date and creating incentives to build the appropriate fuel infrastructure/pumps at a national level. That alone could probably lead to increased investment and venture capital into the companies that would create this technology in the private sector, and the shareholders would certainly make sure that they spend their investment as intended, because it will be Chapter 11 for them otherwise when all the investors pull out.
(And it's not as if there isn't a precedent for this. Had it not been for targeted government legislation in the 1970s, we'd all still be driving 8 mpg clunkers.)
The trouble is that Bush has never been interested in any of this, and nobody--including the Democratic Party--has ever been serious enough about discussing it. As far as I'm concerned, a "gas tax" is a futile non-starter, because, not only would the money be wasted like the Universal Service Fund currently is, but the public opposition to such a gas tax would be so fierce as to cause the party in power to be immediately removed from power in the next election.
We're better off evolving towards the 22nd century through targeted goals and incentives, rather than punishments.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
False analogy; in the case of typewriters and digital cameras the technology was developed and marketed to consumers without government programs forcing people to dump their old alternatives; so far there hasn't been any solutions that outcompete traditional forms in the marketplace and those that do can be greatly lacking (for instance the energy involved in making a Prius means that over the life of the car it exeeds the average hydrocarbon burning one in net carbon emissions.
If a consortium developed a zero emission power source that was cheaper than current ones or a means to make current ones zero emission that was economically viable (in light of lawsuits due to carbon emissions and that liability) then it would be adopted. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars if not trillions forcing it to happen isn't the same.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
A_Wanderer said:
Not necessarily. There are many other factors involved. There are some sources that may have slightly bigger initial cost, but substantial long run benefits, but get ignored due to short sightedness. There are other people's profits. There's the comfort level of switching over. And there's the pure status quo of "if it ain't broke then don't fix it".
And as you can see, many don't think it's broke.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Outlay falls under cheaper.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
A_Wanderer said:
I understand that.
Here's an example. There's a town here in west TX. 5 years ago a company proposed a swith to wind power. The whole town could be powered. Not one household would have to change a thing. The cost was nothing, and the town wanted it. Well the utility company didn't, so in working with the local government they passed laws that restricted the building of these turbines, i.e. height restrictions and what not. So the local utility company halted progress due to their loss of profits. It wasn't a matter of having inferior power source or cost.
That was 5 years ago, they have since lost a law suit and the turbines are now being brought in.
A_Wanderer said:
Where government ends up being important is in developing the R&D for products that are "too adventurous" for the marketplace, because, let's face it, corporations aren't interested beyond the current fiscal quarter. And developing "space age" technology isn't something that a company like Exxon is interested in, when they're making record profits with plain, old-fashioned crude oil. And why would the old farts who run America's corporations care about global warming? They'll just laugh all the way to their golden coffins.
However, unlike the NASA-era development that ultimately created things like microwave ovens and hair dryers, things like ethanol, hydrogen fuel, nuclear power, wind power, and ocean power already exist. It's really now a matter of promoting that the infrastructure be built and utilized. And that's where government, rather than taxing the death out of things (which, really, would only be necessary for R&D spending), can set targeted goals and incentives for the private sector to build the energy infrastructure needed for the 22nd century. But we need the leadership; if Bush was as concerned about this as he was in "rebuilding Iraq," it could happen.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
You've outlined one of the biggest problems in America regarding alternative energy, because there's no legal framework in place for outside companies/entities to add to our power grid and get paid for it. As such, your local power utility is not compelled to cooperate with anyone except itself.
Utility deregulation is going to be necessary--as long as it is done properly. Perhaps that means maintaining state regulatory control over the transmission lines, while casting off the power plants themselves as wholly private entities, and, as such, creating a kind of "net neutrality" for power lines, where everyone is allowed to add to the grid (and that could, theoretically, include micro-level homes with solar cells on their roofs selling their excess power).
Either way, one of the first steps that our government needs to tackle before it even starts talking about alternative energy is this. But I guess there isn't enough hot-button "tabloid shrill" for them to pay attention to this issue.
Last edited:
OP
OP
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Irvine511 said:
Indeed.
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
It's seriously depressing...
I personally think New York will have to be flooded under 10 feet of water before anyone will actually sit up and start to do something...
I personally think New York will have to be flooded under 10 feet of water before anyone will actually sit up and start to do something...
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
elevated_u2_fan said:It's seriously depressing...
I personally think New York will have to be flooded under 10 feet of water before anyone will actually sit up and start to do something...
you mean swim up?
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
redhotswami said:
Fair enough
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
AEON said:
Does that make it right for you?
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
i'm going to guess it doesn't, not that i can speak for aeon. i think in general it gives a kind of permission for complacency, doesn't it. that 'think global, act local' campaign had a lot of potential. pity that was all it ever had - potential.
Let's try to keep this civil, folks. No need to start getting snippy towards each other.
Rono
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
that is another reason to be so energy saving as possable.If people look where the oil is comming from,....Venuzuela, Iran, Saudie Arabia, Russia, Africa ( all very democratic countries ) oil money is making those countries only richer.Irvine511 said:
Saving energy is a win win win situation.
1 - My children will have energy also
2- My children will have a cleaner world.
3- My children will have a saver world because all those corrupt dictators need to start re-think thier position.
btw, a hybrid is only energy saving in cities,...on long distances, the cars are to heavy to save energy.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
The label denier is a fine piece of political language.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
This is on Drudge today
PETA TO AL GORE: YOU CAN’T BE A MEAT-EATING ENVIRONMENTALIST
Tue Mar 06 2007 17:08:05 ET
The Most ‘Inconvenient Truth’: According to U.N., Animals Raised for Food Generate More Greenhouse Gases Than All Cars and Trucks Combined
Norfolk, Va. — This morning, PETA sent a letter to former vice president Al Gore explaining to him that the best way to fight global warming is to go vegetarian and offering to cook him faux “fried chicken” as an introduction to meat-free meals. In its letter, PETA points out that Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth—which starkly outlines the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming and just won the Academy Award for “Best Documentary”—has failed to address the fact that the meat industry is the largest contributor to greenhouse-gas emissions.
In the letter, PETA points out the following:
· The effect that our meat addiction is having on the climate is truly staggering. In fact, in its recent report “Livestock’s Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options,” the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.
· Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.
PETA also reminds Gore that his critics love to question whether he practices what he preaches and suggests that by going vegetarian, he could cut down on his contribution to global warming and silence his critics at the same time.
“The single best thing that any of us can do to for our health, for animals, and for the environment is to go vegetarian,” says PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk. “The best and easiest way for Mr. Gore to show his critics that he’s truly committed to fighting global warming is to kick his meat habit immediately.”
PETA TO AL GORE: YOU CAN’T BE A MEAT-EATING ENVIRONMENTALIST
Tue Mar 06 2007 17:08:05 ET
The Most ‘Inconvenient Truth’: According to U.N., Animals Raised for Food Generate More Greenhouse Gases Than All Cars and Trucks Combined
Norfolk, Va. — This morning, PETA sent a letter to former vice president Al Gore explaining to him that the best way to fight global warming is to go vegetarian and offering to cook him faux “fried chicken” as an introduction to meat-free meals. In its letter, PETA points out that Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth—which starkly outlines the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming and just won the Academy Award for “Best Documentary”—has failed to address the fact that the meat industry is the largest contributor to greenhouse-gas emissions.
In the letter, PETA points out the following:
· The effect that our meat addiction is having on the climate is truly staggering. In fact, in its recent report “Livestock’s Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options,” the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.
· Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.
PETA also reminds Gore that his critics love to question whether he practices what he preaches and suggests that by going vegetarian, he could cut down on his contribution to global warming and silence his critics at the same time.
“The single best thing that any of us can do to for our health, for animals, and for the environment is to go vegetarian,” says PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk. “The best and easiest way for Mr. Gore to show his critics that he’s truly committed to fighting global warming is to kick his meat habit immediately.”
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Maybe this is all tied in to the polar bear in Lost
'Don't discuss polar bears": memo to scientists
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment CorrespondentThu Mar 8, 5:27 PM ET
Polar bears, sea ice and global warming are taboo subjects, at least in public, for some U.S. scientists attending meetings abroad, environmental groups and a top federal wildlife official said on Thursday.
Environmental activists called this scientific censorship, which they said was in line with the Bush administration's history of muzzling dissent over global climate change.
But H. Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said this policy was a long-standing one, meant to honor international protocols for meetings where the topics of discussion are negotiated in advance.
The matter came to light in e-mails from the Fish and Wildlife Service that were distributed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Biological Diversity, both environmental groups.
Listed as a "new requirement" for foreign travelers on U.S. government business, the memo says that requests for foreign travel "involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice, and/or polar bears" require special handling, including notice of who will be the official spokesman for the trip.
The Fish and Wildlife Service top officials need assurance that the spokesman, "the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears" understands the administration's position on these topics.
Two accompanying memos were offered as examples of these kinds of assurance. Both included the line that the traveler "understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues."
ARE POLAR BEARS 'THREATENED'?
Polar bears are a hot topic for the Bush administration, which decided in December to consider whether to list the white-furred behemoths as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, because of scientific reports that the bears' icy habitat is melting due to global warming.
Hall said a decision is expected in January 2008. A "threatened" listing would bar the government from taking any action that jeopardizes the animal's existence, and might spur debate about tougher measures to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming.
Hall defended the policy laid out in the memos, saying it was meant to keep scientists from straying from a set agenda at meetings in countries like Russia, Norway and Canada.
For example, he said, one meeting was about "human and polar bear interface." Receding Arctic sea ice where polar bears live and the global climate change that likely played a role in the melting were not proper discussion topics, he said.
"That's not a climate change discussion," Hall said at a telephone briefing. "That's a management, on-the-ground type discussion."
The prohibition on talking about these subjects only applies to public, formal situations, Hall said. Private scientific discussions outside the meeting and away from media are permitted and encouraged, he said.
"This administration has a long history of censoring speech and science on global warming," Eben Burnham-Snyder of the Natural Resources Defense Council said by telephone.
"Whenever we see an instance of the Bush administration restricting speech on global warming, it sends up a huge red flag that their commitment to the issue does not reflect their rhetoric," Burnham-Snyder said.
'Don't discuss polar bears": memo to scientists
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment CorrespondentThu Mar 8, 5:27 PM ET
Polar bears, sea ice and global warming are taboo subjects, at least in public, for some U.S. scientists attending meetings abroad, environmental groups and a top federal wildlife official said on Thursday.
Environmental activists called this scientific censorship, which they said was in line with the Bush administration's history of muzzling dissent over global climate change.
But H. Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said this policy was a long-standing one, meant to honor international protocols for meetings where the topics of discussion are negotiated in advance.
The matter came to light in e-mails from the Fish and Wildlife Service that were distributed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Biological Diversity, both environmental groups.
Listed as a "new requirement" for foreign travelers on U.S. government business, the memo says that requests for foreign travel "involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice, and/or polar bears" require special handling, including notice of who will be the official spokesman for the trip.
The Fish and Wildlife Service top officials need assurance that the spokesman, "the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears" understands the administration's position on these topics.
Two accompanying memos were offered as examples of these kinds of assurance. Both included the line that the traveler "understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues."
ARE POLAR BEARS 'THREATENED'?
Polar bears are a hot topic for the Bush administration, which decided in December to consider whether to list the white-furred behemoths as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, because of scientific reports that the bears' icy habitat is melting due to global warming.
Hall said a decision is expected in January 2008. A "threatened" listing would bar the government from taking any action that jeopardizes the animal's existence, and might spur debate about tougher measures to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming.
Hall defended the policy laid out in the memos, saying it was meant to keep scientists from straying from a set agenda at meetings in countries like Russia, Norway and Canada.
For example, he said, one meeting was about "human and polar bear interface." Receding Arctic sea ice where polar bears live and the global climate change that likely played a role in the melting were not proper discussion topics, he said.
"That's not a climate change discussion," Hall said at a telephone briefing. "That's a management, on-the-ground type discussion."
The prohibition on talking about these subjects only applies to public, formal situations, Hall said. Private scientific discussions outside the meeting and away from media are permitted and encouraged, he said.
"This administration has a long history of censoring speech and science on global warming," Eben Burnham-Snyder of the Natural Resources Defense Council said by telephone.
"Whenever we see an instance of the Bush administration restricting speech on global warming, it sends up a huge red flag that their commitment to the issue does not reflect their rhetoric," Burnham-Snyder said.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml
Similar threads
- Sticky
