Do conservatives have to reject global climate change to be conservatives?

[orogenicman]

Says the AGW crowd.

Aside from parafin, nearly every component of oil is toxic.

That's certainly going to be true under the kind of command and control economy you seek to put in place.

It is true regardless.

By "we" you mean the government because you think only government, not the free market, can make "wise" decisions that are in the best interest of the country.

By we, I mean all of us. If you'd prefer to live in a hut somewhere in the wilderness so you won't have to be bothered with others, have at it. I think most people are more social than that.

 

[PLC1]

So you guys want to ban CO2?

You either didn't read my response about Roy Spencer above, or you're just making up a strawman argument despite what I've posted.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You either didn't read my response about Roy Spencer above, or you're just making up a strawman argument despite what I've posted.

the straw man is sooo wrong , he is evil!

 

[orogenicman]

its been decades and nada to show.

that doesot mean we quit looking but for now we leverqe the things we know work.

It's been decades? Oh, you mean since Carter's initiatives? Well, we all know what Raygun did with those, don't we? But hey, there is ethanol in our gas now, so we use less petroleum in the manufacture of gasoline than before, and that's good (and the lead is out, which is also good), though obviously not enough. And if you drive from Chicago to Indianapolis, you will notice miles and miles of wind farms, and that is a good thing. And let's talk about the massive projects in the west, shall we? But most of the really significant stuff has only come in the last four to five years, and most of it didn't come from Federal spending or support, but by states and regional authorities. So to suggest that it has been decades with nothing to show is rather deceptive, and I think you know it.

 

[orogenicman]

Just think how long it took to convince people to ban Lead in Paint, Food cans, and Gas...and how much we knew about how bad they where...Big Buisness always made sure to site some study they made to show Leaded gas did nothing...same with CFCs...

I know a petroleum jobber who was licenced to formulate petroleum products who came up with a lead replacement additive right after the lead ban took effect. The EPA soon realized that what he had done was to use the old stock lead additive he had left over when the ban took place, and did some creative advertizing to get rid of it. He sold it as a "lead-free" additive. Except it was concentrated tetra methyl lead. And the customers loved it because it worked really well. They sent him a cease and desist order, but not before he made a nice nest egg. He keeps the last bottle of the stuff on a shelf in his office as a trophy.

 

[dogtowner]

It's been decades? Oh, you mean since Carter's initiatives? Well, we all know what Raygun did with those, don't we? But hey, there is ethanol in our gas now, so we use less petroleum in the manufacture of gasoline than before, and that's good (and the lead is out, which is also good), though obviously not enough. And if you drive from Chicago to Indianapolis, you will notice miles and miles of wind farms, and that is a good thing. And let's talk about the massive projects in the west, shall we? But most of the really significant stuff has only come in the last four to five years, and most of it didn't come from Federal spending or support, but by states and regional authorities. So to suggest that it has been decades with nothing to show is rather deceptive, and I think you know it.

China spends a lot of money to put expensive ethanol in the gas and the point was to artificially inflate corn prices.

What percentage of power comes from wind and solar ? At what cost ? And what happens when it is cloudy or calm ?

Its not viable and you know it. If it were it would be everywhere.

 

[GenSeneca]

1) But then, there are home geothermal units that work just fine. Their main drawback is that capital costs are high. But they do pay for themselves eventually.

We were talking about alternative energy sources, home geo is not an energy source, it's used for heating, cooling, and requires electricity to operate, as opposed to producing electricity. But since you brought it up, I actually like home geo and I would like to see the technology become more prevalent - by way of the free market, not government subsidies and mandates.

Geo power plants are very limited in where they can currently be used and there's that pesky "geo power causes earthquakes" thing we have to deal with too.

2) Nonesense. What has been completely unnecessary and a complete waste of taxpayer dollars is the massive tax cuts given to oil companies.

A tax cut is a reduction in the tax rate. Oil companies haven't gotten any tax cuts, quite the opposite, their tax rates have been steadily increasing nearly every year for the last decade. They do get tax incentives, tax credits and tax abatement's, but they have to take some action specified by government to qualify.

You remember hearing about "record profits" from big oil? Did you know they pay almost 4 times as much in taxes as they make in profit? So every time you heard about an oil company making record profits, they were paying out 4 times as much in taxes. In 2008, Exxon Mobil alone paid as much in taxes as the bottom 50% of taxpayers.

But no one said that research into alternative energy would be cheap.

I agree, it's not cheap, let the private sector pay for the research. It's not the governments (taxpayers) job to fund alternative energy... And if I had my way, the Capitalist way, there would be no tax incentives, tax breaks, tax credits, subsidies or mandates, for any business or industry. Every business and industry would have to fend for itself without assistance from the government.

Do you think all those oil dericks out in the gulf of Mexico are cheap?

They cost 10-30 million each and operating costs are a quarter to a half million per day once built.

How much taxpayer money went into their design and construction?

Zero.

Unlike you, I actually looked this information up so you're the only one guessing, assuming, and estimating about oil companies and taxation.

A lot more than has gone into wind research, would be my estimate.

Much of the taxes that oil companies currently pay (which are actually paid for by consumers) are direct subsidies for alternative energy. "Green" energy cannot compete in a free market, so it has to be massively subsidized with oil money to compete against the oil companies.

And by the way, there certainly has been a lot of progress on alternative energy. I guess you missed that memo, eh?

Really? We've been working on Solar since the 1950's, spent billions upon billions on R&D, and it accounts for a whopping 0.09% of our total energy. Wind doesn't fair much better, so I'm wondering what progress you're referring to here...

3) That's not entirely true. Wind farms can put a sizable dent in our current carbon usage. It is true that they cannot be up and running 24/7, and so we still need more conventional power plants to suppliment the grid when they are offline.

Their location is incredibly limited, the size of wind farms is an issue, so is the noise, and don't forget about the treehuggers who will be blocking you every step of the way because they kill birds and interrupt their migration patterns.

And I was the one who pointed out you need backup power plants for wind and solar because of their inefficiency and reliability issues. Those back up power plants still have to be manned 24/7, they still have to have an adequate supply of fuel, not to mention maintenance, which is part of why alternatives are so much more expensive to operate than just having a traditional power plant.

And the best part is that the energy is free and non-pollutiing. What's not to like?

You never have explained how you are going to get past the NIMBY crowd. Do you think you could at least try to address that?

 

[GenSeneca]

1) One has to wonder why you don't care about our dependence on foreign oil, when it is a huge drain on our economy.

You have to believe trade deficits are a bad thing to think that our dependence on foreign oil is also a bad thing and therefore a drain on our economy.

I don't care about our dependence on foreign oil because I know trade deficits are a fabricated concern.

2) No one is saying that what is good for the country has to hurt the bottom line.

What your proposing will hurt the bottom line (the economy) and you don't have to say it, we already know.

In fact, with regard to alternative energy (which would be good for the country and the planet), there is no explanation for the claim that it would be bad for our economy.

Replacing cheap, efficient, reliable, plentiful sources of electricity with expensive, inefficient, unreliable alternatives, paid for at taxpayer expense, isn't a recipe for economic prosperity.

3) That is because of the high start up and research investment costs. Do you think our current power grid magically appeared overnight? No. It took decades to build, at a substantial cost to the taxpayer, I might add.

Politicians love to blow money on pet projects like that because it gives them something to brag about when running for re-election, "I helped fund our new smart-grid", he just leaves off the part about how the taxpayer foots the bill and he takes all the credit.

Where do you think Taxpayer money comes from anyway? It's taxed OUT of the economy. Taking money out of the economy doesn't grow the economy, it shrinks the economy. Ergo, funding massive projects on the taxpayers dime hurts the economy.

The government has always participated in assisting such ventures.

Government only "assists" because politicians want to be seen as helping their districts. If they didn't think spending money on these kind of projects didn't help them to get re-elected, they would spend it somewhere else where they thought it would help them.

Why? Our energy needs are a national security matter.

This mantra about our energy being a matter of national security has only recently come into vogue because politicians on both sides saw it as way to sway the public into supporting pet projects.

But hey, if you've got a few spare bucks, you can always invest in one of those start ups yourself, and save the taxpayer a few bucks.

I'd rather have the reliability and efficiency of privately owned utilities. Paying taxes to help operate a public utility and then also paying a monthly bill from the same public utility supported by my taxes is something I'll leave to people with too much money.

 

[GenSeneca]

Im sorry, did you have a real question? since no one said Ban CO2 or suggested it , hinted at it, thought it....Man you love your straw men...

I was being sarcastic... You used to have a sense of humor.

 

[GenSeneca]

But you don't care, right? So what is your point?

Just pointing out that on one hand you think our dependence on foreign oil is a bad thing but on the other hand you support measures that increase our dependence on foreign oil.

Exactly how does this work? Much of the capital in the private market is in the hands of the oil companies, and they are only interested in the status quo, rather like you are, I might add.

You really don't know what you're talking about... BP, for example, is a world leader in solar panel technology. Oil companies refer to themselves as energy companies because they want to control the "alternative" energy market and they are doing so with the help of government.

And how is it creating more problems than it solves? GM is ramping up to produce the Volt. Other car makers have similar vehicles in the works. The electric car is coming, Gen. Is this a problem for you? Just curious, since you appear to be saying that it is a problem.

Billions and Billions of dollars of government money went to developing hydrogen fuel cells under Bush because he saw that as the "wave of the future". Once in office, Obama redirected all those funds into electric vehicle technology because he sees that as the "wave of the future". Who know what the next president will see as the "wave of the future" but one thing is for sure, having politics decide the winners and losers, rather than the free market, is wasting valuable resources.

Of course you are. I am top,

Did you just try to claim you are also a Capitalist? If so, you have no idea what Capitalism is and what it stands for.

but I also realize that government by itself is not a solution, and neither does the free market have all the solutions. Which is why I believe that the only real solutions will take a partnership between government and industry. It worked during Apollo and other huge projects, such as our interstate system. Why not for alternative energy, which, by the way, IS a National Security issue, if nothing else.

Where is all that taxpayer money going to come from?

Ad hominem. How is the greater good ever a waste of resources?

LOL, you need to learn what an ad hominem is before you accuse people of using them. Yes, there are many examples of government wasting resources in the name of the greater good, this alternative energy fiasco is one of them.

Would you prefer to live under anarchy?

If you lovers of big government continue to get your way, government will collapse on itself under the weight of it's massive debts and anarchy is what we will have. Personally I'd prefer capitalism, which limits government and forces it to live within it's means.

Yeah, just look at Chrysler.

You have no idea what a free market is or how it operates.

So, if there is money to be made or saved, that is your only motivation. Whether it helps anyone else or helps keep the planet clean is irrelevant. Got it.

What you've got are fallacies and misconceptions that you consider to be knowledge. Keeping the planet clean... CO2 is not a pollutant. If I help others it's out of charity, not because I feel some obligation to do so. As a Capitalist, I'm motivated by self interest. The concept of self sacrifice for the greater good is something I'll leave to you collectivists.

 

[GenSeneca]

plants can readily increase their uptake of CO2 only up to a limit, beyond which it becomes detrimental to their growth. And that is because plants have adapted to the concentrations as they exist in the atmosphere, and can only adapt up to a point to ever increasing concentrations,

What a load of BS... First of all CO2 has been steadily on the rise for decades and mans contribution to that is insignificant compared to the amount nature places in the atmosphere.

The USDA conducted 55 experiments where they tested the effects of CO2 on plants and found the higher the concentrations of CO2, the more extensive the root system and the less water a plant needs to grow. Plants under normal watering conditions that got 600ppm grew 51% more than plants at current CO2 levels. Another group in drought conditions at 600ppm grew 261% more than the control group.

At the rate CO2 has been climbing for the last few decades, it will take 200 years before we get to 600ppm. That's plenty of time for plants to adapt.

certainly NOT at the rate we are emitting it into the atmosphere.

PLC, where are you!? You're buddy is here screaming about how the sky is falling!

Atmospheric CO2 would have to be 5000ppm to kill humans... That gives us a few thousand years to adapt.

2) How Christian of you to say so.

I'm an Atheist.

 

[GenSeneca]

By we, I mean all of us.

Only the free market gives everyone a vote. Government is run by an elite group that makes decisions for the entire country.

 

[GenSeneca]

You either didn't read my response about Roy Spencer above, or you're just making up a strawman argument despite what I've posted.

I'm sorry to see that you have also lost your sense of humor... I guess the only thing you find humor in lately is bashing Conservatives and Christians.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I was being sarcastic... You used to have a sense of humor.

its hard to tell your sarcasm from so many illogical arguments made from you and others on your side.....plus I think more likey you just realized how dumb it sounded after you got called on it...but who knows maybe you did mean it to be funny...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Only the free market gives everyone a vote. Government is run by an elite group that makes decisions for the entire country.

so under a free market, we are not run by the decisions of ...well just start naming of the banks, large companies , and hedge funds...that have more power over most of our daily lives then Government...but without the votes.