Interesting Weather Record Set Today

[eric1978]

Amen, Justin.

[Wayne SW/MO]

You failed to mention Justin that the government makes no money, it only takes it. My compliant is that it, I think obviously, does a poor job of getting the most bang for the buck.

We're not exactly moving all that fast at solving problems that were recognized 30 years ago and I doubt anyone has a real idea of how much money has been thrown at it.

Separating huge corporations from the government or either political party is impossible. If we had the proper restraints on the legislatures the attraction wouldn't be so strong.

They'll drop oil anytime the need to influence government. The pipeline is a good example, they don't want it to be an issue because the oil companies don't want it.

[Tim Smith]

You failed to mention Justin that the government makes no money, it only takes it. My compliant is that it, I think obviously, does a poor job of getting the most bang for the buck.

It is a vast, sad distortion to say government does not make money. It's this kind of free market fundamentalism that makes this kind of discussion so difficult.

Most of the relevant research that has led to our current technologies was sponsored by the government. You want a bang for the buck? How about fusion, fission, super-conductors, the internet, most biological understandings of how biology and medicine works, and the ag research done in the land grant universities. Scientific pioneers work for the government. Heisenburg, Watson and Crick, JJ Thompson, Rotgen, Rutherford, Plank, Bohr, Einstein, Linus Pauling and just about every scientist who discovered the modern foundations science that make modern technology possible were supported by government.

Rarely does the private sector do more than take the discoveries of others and put them in the form of a product. The profit motive simply does not have the courage to do much basic research without an immediate pay-off on the horizon...

...and the same applies to environmental issues.

[jeb]

You listen to too much right wing talk radio, jeb. Talking points, word for word...written by the oil industry propaganda machine and distributed by FOX and Rush. Your arguments are so old...and totally transparent...and frankly the biggest obstacle we face to reach a solution. Yep, you're probably right...with an attitude like yours, we likely won't ever fix the problem.

I've never listened to "right wing radio" shows. They are not talking points. They are common sense. We simply do not have a viable alternative that can make any real difference in our energy needs. As I have said, hopefully we will someday.

You seem to have the answers. So tell us what viable alternative "green" source of power in today's world that is going to replace the energy that our traditional sources are supplying?

[jeb]

I think if gas prices were at $5 a gallon like was predicted earlier this year, attitudes would be much different. I will say it once more, it is better to be proactive than reactive. We know that an oil shortage is eventually coming so why not have viable alternatives in place when this happens.

Current numbers are showing 100's of years of supplies of oil. So I don't see the need for a headlong rush. Let's take our time and get it right.

I also hope that people understand that cutting govt. spending cuts jobs, then increases people on unemployment which costs the govt. money without any results.

It costs the govt more to have them working at nothing. But you should also realize that getting away from traditional energy sources will also cost a lot of private jobs, putting them on the govt dole.

During a down time in our economy I would rather see govt. spending used to fix things that already need to be fixed, than to continue to extend unemployment benefits to those who refuse to settle for a job that is "below" them.

I'd like to see them have to work for the money, like back in the depression. Work in parks, whatever. At least after a few months of being on benefits. I bet that would incent them to take a job that may be a little beneath them!

None of us wants to see higher taxes, or high unemployment rates, but it is becoming pretty obvious that to fix the deficit we either cut govt. spending (resulting in a loss of jobs in both the private and public sector), or increase taxes (boo).

You're right on there. We're spending money like drunken sailors right now, just running it all onto the taxpayers limitless credit card. That has to end.

[jeb]

It is a vast, sad distortion to say government does not make money. It's this kind of free market fundamentalism that makes this kind of discussion so difficult.

They don't make money, they only take it. And Wayne is right, being efficient is far from a priority. I know of so many examples of old, entrenched govt employees that won't use new IT solutions that are available to them, but demand the old paper and #2 pencil route instead. In a real world business, those people would be fired. Or the company would go under. But not the govt. They're too big to fail.

I understand your point though, about them enabling technologies that occasionally allow for profitable spinoff's in the private sector. That does happen. But they it's not all peaches and cream. For example, all these regulations that have been forced on businesses the last couple of decades that are not coming home to roost in the shipping of so much of our manufacturing going overseas. "Oh, it's just one more regulation. Business will suck it up and consumers will pay. Don't worry!". Well, now we know there are consequences to those actions.

and the same applies to environmental issues.

Maybe, maybe not. There is no one size fits all rule. There are far more wasted govt projects that never came to anything than there are huge success stories.

[rps]

Phil: Please shoot this topic dead.

[Tim Smith]

They don't make money, they only take it. And Wayne is right, being efficient is far from a priority. I know of so many examples of old, entrenched govt employees that won't use new IT solutions that are available to them, but demand the old paper and #2 pencil route instead. In a real world business, those people would be fired. Or the company would go under. But not the govt. They're too big to fail.

I understand your point though, about them enabling technologies that occasionally allow for profitable spinoff's in the private sector. That does happen. But they it's not all peaches and cream. For example, all these regulations that have been forced on businesses the last couple of decades that are not coming home to roost in the shipping of so much of our manufacturing going overseas. "Oh, it's just one more regulation. Business will suck it up and consumers will pay. Don't worry!". Well, now we know there are consequences to those actions.

Maybe, maybe not. There is no one size fits all rule. There are far more wasted govt projects that never came to anything than there are huge success stories.

Jeb. Not everything can be judged on short term profit. To approach these issues from that perspective cripples the whole process.

I think Al and Eric have pointed out most of my concerns about your posts. In general you don't accept the human role in climate change...which sort of makes your other positions easier to understand. You don't think CO2 emissions are pollution so you write off an previous experience with pollution.

So of course you criticize alternative energies. Except that you are at odds with quite a few people who seem to know what they are talking about.

Your idea that alternative energies are too expensive to install can be directly investigated here: http://solarpoweraut...com/calculator/

Your idea that alternative energy is not currently viable is contradicted here:

http://www.dailytech...rticle24970.htm

According to NREL, 80% of our electricity could be produced by existing alternative sources by 2050 if we made the choice to do so.

The idea that the environmental costs of solar energy are greater than carbon based sources is contradicted here:

http://wiki.answers....ng_solar_energy

As long as you're stuck with your short term profit oriented thinking, you'll not make a positive contribution here.

[eric1978]

I've never listened to "right wing radio" shows. They are not talking points. They are common sense. We simply do not have a viable alternative that can make any real difference in our energy needs. As I have said, hopefully we will someday.

You seem to have the answers. So tell us what viable alternative "green" source of power in today's world that is going to replace the energy that our traditional sources are supplying?

I'm not talking about today's world...you are. I'm talking about tomorrow's world. No one has the silver bullet in their pocket right now, obviously, otherwise it would be at the fore of the debate. The point is, whatever the solution ends up being, it's going to take effort, optimism, foresight, research, development and a huge investment to get there...none of which you seem to support. Throwing up your hands and suggesting we'll never get off the oil industry's teet because we haven't already is self-defeating and irresponsible.

[Quillback]

Jeb. Not everything can be judged on short term profit. To approach these issues from that perspective cripples the whole process.

I think Al and Eric have pointed out most of my concerns about your posts. In general you don't accept the human role in climate change...which sort of makes your other positions easier to understand. You don't think CO2 emissions are pollution so you write off an previous experience with pollution.

So of course you criticize alternative energies. Except that you are at odds with quite a few people who seem to know what they are talking about.

Your idea that alternative energies are too expensive to install can be directly investigated here: http://solarpoweraut...com/calculator/

Your idea that alternative energy is not currently viable is contradicted here:

http://www.dailytech...rticle24970.htm

According to NREL, 80% of our electricity could be produced by existing alternative sources by 2050 if we made the choice to do so.

The idea that the environmental costs of solar energy are greater than carbon based sources is contradicted here:

http://wiki.answers....ng_solar_energy

As long as you're stuck with your short term profit oriented thinking, you'll not make a positive contribution here.

Your links are somewhat contradictory and generalized, except for the first one.

A quote from link one:

For example: A system that costs $18,000 has a payback period of about 20 years. The cost of a solar panel today is around $3 per watt, and the extra cost of installation brings costs up to $5- $6 per watt. Note: Installation costs for PV systems include both labor and the electronics needed to tie the solar array into your existing electrical system.

Link 3 seems to contradict that:

The environmental impact of using solar energy is negative at the start with the

cost of the materials and the cost of production of the equipment. It balances out after a few years and the impact is then positive.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_environmental_impact_of_using_solar_energy#ixzz1yYB8j08D

20 years to get to even on a typical residential solar panel installation. Tough sell in this economy for the average homeowner. I've looked into installing them on my house, but the savings aren't there. Solar technology is certainly capable of supplementing our electrical use, and I am hoping in a few years costs will come down enough for it to make sense for the average homeowner. And if we're talking electric cars in our future we're going to need to extra electricty to charge those cars.

And I'm sure you noticed in the links you provided that to replace exisiting electrical production using wind as part of the solution, they're talking about intalling 120,000 wind turbines over forty years. 120,000 wind turbines? Have you driven through Wyoming lately and seen some of those wind farms? They're a blight on the landscape - is that really a good idea to add 120,000 more?

And wind farms are not without their impacts - seems to be an issue with local climate warming.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/do-wind-farms-have-a-negative-effect-on-the-environment/26086