goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: ednksu on April 12, 2016, 04:20:18 PM
-
Yes it does have a lot to do with climate change, but it's important theme is the rejection of shared facts. If we can't even agree on facts, than how can you enter into a policy debate about those facts.
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/04/12/473850478/politics-and-the-fracturing-of-shared-reality
You don't need me to tell you how unusual this primary season has been. Every day, more news sites offer more commentary seeking to explain how American politics reached its current, seemly surreal state.
But here at 13.7, our goal is to offer commentary on places where science and culture intersect. From that perspective, one key aspect of this season's political upheaval can be traced back a decade or more. That aspect is "reality," or at least the part we're all supposed to agree on.
Over the past five years, I've written many times about the rising tide of science denial in this country and the dangers it poses. As last year's spread of measles at Disneyland demonstrated, denying real facts has consequences in the real world. Viruses don't care whom you vote for or what Facebook groups you join. And the facts about viruses — the "what-should-we-do-now" kinds of facts — are best revealed through science. That is why, as a nation, we give it value.
When the methods of science are pursued as intended, what is returned is public knowledge. This knowledge, composed of facts and an understanding of their limits, are critical for a functioning democracy. The founders of the American experiment in self-government understood the urgency of public knowledge. It's why they held science in such high regard. It was, for them, the principle means of establishing the background needed for our public life, a background composed of a shared reality.
Unfortunately, over the past 10 years, we have seen the viability of public knowledge eroding in the public sphere for all the wrong reasons. More than anything else, the pressure driving this erosion can be summed up in two words: climate change.
Before we go any further, it is crucial to note that the Republican Party was, for decades, a champion of the U.S. scientific effort. Republican presidents created NASA, NOAA and the EPA. These lawmakers understood how science served as the engine of national security, stability and economic vitality.
Then came climate change.
On this issue, the Republicans did not start out uniformly denying global warming was a problem. For a time, there was consideration over proper responses from all players. But over the past 16 years, one half of the American political establishment came to be aligned with what can only be called denialist positions. Time and time again, the nation's premier scientific organizations (NASA, NOAA the AAAS) issued unequivocal statements about climate change and the threat it posed. Even the military weighed in, as it understands the destabilizing global threat climate change poses. And yet, over and over again, Congressional leaders have rejected the authority of these sources.
It can be argued that the denial of climate change is simply part of a longer trend in turning away from science. For example, the battle of evolution and creationism has a long history in this country. And, in many ways, the forces seeking to cast doubt on climate science took a page from the playbook of creationism in their choice of tactics. But the debate over evolution has never had the scope or the reach of what has happened with climate. In particular, we have never seen the kind of wholesale political attack on a science (particularly a physical science) that has come with the climate debate.
In the decades that followed World War II, politicians understood the ways in which science contributed to the national good. There was an implicit agreement that science should be left to determine its results, and the role of policymakers was to absorb those results within their own policy debates.
But that agreement was broken with climate science. An entire field of research whose results have dizzying implications has been rejected as a whole. The work of thousands of researchers spanning decades is claimed to be wrong or, worse yet, a hoax. And, unlike the debate over evolution, the claim is made at the highest levels and seems to span the whole of a political party. This is something new in our history.
Our ability to deal with climate change has clearly been adversely affected by this rejection of scientific endeavor. But facing into the winds of this strange primary season, we can see how this denial yielded other consequences, too.
If the point of science is to provide us with a method for establishing public knowledge, then its rejection is also the rejection that such public knowledge is possible. If we hold science in esteem because it represents a best practice for establishing shared facts that hold regardless of ethic, religious or political background, then denying science means denying the possibility of such facts. It implies there can be no means for establishing facts about the world and no reason to award authority to mechanisms that deliver those facts.
This wholesale rejection of a shared reality was always the great danger lying in organized, politicized climate science denial. After all, why stop with climate science? Once you get started down this road, who or what determines that it's gone too far?
When the current president was elected, a new variety of conspiracy theory emerged called birtherism. It held that the president was not a U.S. citizen, as demanded by the Constitution, and was therefore holding power illegally. The release of the president's long-form birth certificate did not end the theory. In 2011, a CNN poll "showed that roughly 25 percent of Americans — including over four in 10 Republicans — believe Obama was definitely or probably not born in the United States."
The birther movement certainly can be seen as just another conspiracy theory living in the same fog-shrouded realm as Kennedy assassination plots and claims that the moon landing was a hoax. But the current political season shows us something more. In it we can see how much the landscape of shared reality has been fractured.
American politics has, of course, always had its conspiracy theories and its fringes on the left and the right. And it was always the role of good leadership to act as the adult in the room and maintain the sanctity of our shared realities. John McCain embodied this role when he famously corrected a voter claiming Obama was an Arab.
But as of today, the front-runner in the Republican primary is a man who repeatedly fanned the birther fire. In past elections, it would have been unthinkable for a candidate who held views so at odds with the shared reality of public documents and their veracity to be taken seriously.
Not this time around, however.
For many people in both parties, to find ourselves in this situation seems incredible and more than a little unreal. But that is the point. As a scientist, I've been watching with dismay how reality, as delivered by science at least, has fared in politics. To me, the slide into the gray zone where all facts about the world are up for grabs is the logical consequence of organized science denial.
Without doubt, politics will always be about more than facts. The advocacy for different policy choices can have as much resonance with personal values as it can with numbers established through science or other mechanisms. There can — and should — be vigorous debate about how our values shape public policy from immigration to economics.
But that debate has to be couched within a landscape whose contours are shared as public knowledge. The active, organized denial of climate change science opened the doors to a very public retreat from the principle that a shared public reality could be the basis for our debates. For a nation whose greatness has so often been synonymous with its scientific and technological prowess, that retreat is something we must now take very seriously.
-
In the vast majority of the so called climate change debate, the warmest alarmists have now almost exclusively laid all real or perceived negative climate issues at the alter of AGW.
This is just more minutia being tossed out there by what is now an industry that quite clearly wants to have none of its so called findings, "science" and dire proclamations questioned by anyone.
-
REPUBLICANS WILL FEEL SORRY WHEN NEW YORK CITY IS COMPLETELY UNDERWATER IN 50 YEARS
-
Nothing you or I do can impact climate change even a tiny bit. Best just not to worry about it.
-
REPUBLICANS WILL FEEL SORRY WHEN NEW YORK CITY IS COMPLETELY UNDERWATER IN 50 YEARS
Nope, they have a great track record with cities below sea level. See New Orleans.
-
My favorite part was when he compared saying Obama is an Arab to questioning the science on climate change.
-
New Orleans and Louisiana at the time, controlled by . . . Democrats. One of whom is now in prison.
-
My favorite part was when he compared saying Obama is an Arab to questioning the science on climate change.
It's a valid point in the grand theme of "I have these ideas, anything counter is invalid." I mean these fucktards a booing their own candidate when he speaks the truth.
-
All of which has nothing to do with nothing. WhackADoodle tosses strawmen like bails of hay.
-
My favorite part was when he compared saying Obama is an Arab to questioning the science on climate change.
It's a valid point in the grand theme of "I have these ideas, anything counter is invalid." I mean these fucktards a booing their own candidate when he speaks the truth.
hmmmm, alrighty.
-
All of which has nothing to do with nothing. WhackADoodle tosses strawmen like bails of hay.
you keep saying these things and I'm not sure you know what they mean.
-
New Orleans and Louisiana at the time, controlled by . . . Democrats. One of whom is now in prison.
Lol
-
:lol
-
In reply to the first post in this thread...
A Moral Evaluation Of The Obama Administration's Energy Policies
Alex Epstein
The energy industry is the industry that powers every other industry. To the extent energy is affordable, plentiful and reliable, human beings thrive. To the extent energy is unaffordable, scarce or unreliable, human beings suffer.
And yet in this election year, the candidates, especially the Republican candidates, have barely discussed energy. Thus, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss my moral evaluation of this administration’s energy policies.
When we evaluate energy policies, such as President Obama’s efforts to forcibly restrict fossil fuel use and mandate solar and wind energy, it is always worth asking: Has this been tried before? And what happened when it was?
The answer is much, much milder versions of the President’s energy policy have been tried in Europe—and resulted in skyrocketing energy prices every time.
Take Germany. Over the last decade, Germany pursued the popular ideal of running on unreliable energy from solar and wind. But since unreliable energy can’t be relied upon, it has to be propped up by reliable energy–mostly fossil fuels–making the solar panels and wind turbines an unnecessary and enormous cost to the system. As a result, the average German pays 3-4 times more for electricity than the average American. It’s so bad that Germans have had to add a new term to the language: “energy poverty.”
The United States should learn from the failed German experiment; instead, our President is doubling down on it many times over. And, just as ominously, he is leading global initiatives that call for even the poorest countries to be forced to use unreliables instead of reliables. This, in a world where 3 billion people have almost no access to energy and over one billion people have no electricity.
How could this possibly be moral?
The alleged justification is that fossil fuels cause climate change and should therefore be eliminated. But this does not follow. As with anything in life, with fossil fuel’s impacts we need to look at the big picture, carefully weighing both the benefits and the costs.
And to do that, we need to clearly define what we mean by “climate change.” Because while nearly everyone agrees that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes some climate change, it makes all the difference in the world whether that change is a mild, manageable warming or a runaway, catastrophic warming.
Which is it? If we look at what has been scientifically demonstrated vs. what has been speculated, the climate impact of CO2 is mild and manageable. In the last 80 years, we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from .03% to .04%, and the warming has been barely more than the natural warming that occurred in the 80 years before that, when there were virtually no CO2 emissions. From a geological perspective, both CO2 levels and temperatures are very low; there is no perfect amount of CO2 or average temperature, although higher CO2 levels do create more plant growth and higher temperatures lower mortality rates.
To be sure, many prominent scientists and organizations predict catastrophe–but this is wild speculation and nothing new. Indeed, many of today’s thought leaders have been falsely predicting catastrophe for decades. Thirty years ago, NASA climate leader James Hansen predicted that temperatures would rise by 2-4 degrees between 2000 and 2010; instead, depending on which temperature data set you consult, they rose only slightly or not at all.
Thirty years ago, President Obama’s top science advisor, John Holdren, predicted that by now we’d be approaching a billion CO2-related deaths from famine. Instead, famine has plummeted as have climate-related deaths across the board. According to data from the International Disaster Database, deaths from climate-related causes such as extreme heat, extreme cold, storms, drought and floods have decreased at a rate of 50% since the 1980s and 98% since major CO2 emissions began 80 years ago.
How is it possible that we’re safer than ever from climate?
Because while fossil fuel use has only a mild warming impact it has an enormous protecting impact. Nature doesn’t give us a stable, safe climate that we make dangerous. It gives us an ever-changing, dangerous climate that we need to make safe. And the driver behind sturdy buildings, affordable heating and air-conditioning, drought relief, and everything else that keeps us safe from climate is cheap, plentiful, reliable energy, overwhelmingly from fossil fuels.
Thus, the President’s anti-fossil fuel policies would ruin billions of lives economically and environmentally–depriving people of energy and therefore making them more vulnerable to nature’s ever-present climate danger.
Policies that cause massive, unnecessary human suffering, including increased climate vulnerability, are immoral.
A moral energy policy is one that liberates all the energy technologies, including fossil fuels, nuclear, and large-scale hydro, and lets them compete to the utmost to provide the most affordable, reliable energy for the most people.
A moral energy policy is an energy freedom policy.
Alex Epstein is founder of the Center for Industrial Progress and author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.
-
:lol:
-
JFC all of these people are trapped in a 1980s view of climate change.
-
My favorite part was when he compared saying Obama is an Arab to questioning the science on climate change.
It's a valid point in the grand theme of "I have these ideas, anything counter is invalid." I mean these fucktards a booing their own candidate when he speaks the truth.
I mean you could have compared them to the anti-vaxxers but I guess that probably doesn't quite make the point you were wanting to make.
-
It's so sad that whackadoodle is such a parrot. Along with so many others. It wouldn't surprise me to learn whackadoodle signed the petition to ban water.
-
Watching non-scientists try to pretend to be as smart as scientists has to be my favorite part
-
I like how there isn't a scientific study or scientist cited in Edna's article. These are the same delusional weirdos spreading all the anti-shazbot! nonsense.
I bet people would take climate warming man made seriously if any of these "scientific" theories ever came to fruition.
Maybe they should get back into the science of electro-shocking the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) out of each other.
-
My favorite part was when he compared saying Obama is an Arab to questioning the science on climate change.
It's a valid point in the grand theme of "I have these ideas, anything counter is invalid." I mean these fucktards a booing their own candidate when he speaks the truth.
I mean you could have compared them to the anti-vaxxers but I guess that probably doesn't quite make the point you were wanting to make.
The fact that you totally miss my point is validation enough that I'm right.
-
I like how there isn't a scientific study or scientist cited in Edna's article. These are the same delusional weirdos spreading all the anti-shazbot! nonsense.
I bet people would take climate warming man made seriously if any of these "scientific" theories ever came to fruition.
Maybe they should get back into the science of electro-shocking the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) out of each other.
:laugh1:
You know that the link has links to all the real studies reference right?
And how many things do you want scientists to be right about before you give up the oil funded pseudoscience ghost?
https://fat.gfycat.com/MadFragrantAoudad.webm
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss?language=en
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/iceshelves.html
-
Scared of the weather.
Scared of a 70 year old routine practice.
Whackadoodle
-
Paranoid about "big oil"
What a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)
-
:lol:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160417%2F3d526221a43753e12537ec306d4943e4.jpg&hash=73caa6afe00423e35e30d572072d84acb06ac39b)
-
You can always count on 'teve 'ave :ROFL:
-
Translation:
I mumped up, didn't look at links, and now I look like a tool bag.
-
RIP to a great truth teller - Bill Gray!
Gray is skeptical of current theories of human-induced global warming, which he says is supported by scientists afraid of losing grant funding and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government.
He believes that humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth and has stated that "We're brainwashing our children." He asked, "How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can’t be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified?"
Gray said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error. He cites statistics showing that there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperature, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.
Gray does not say there has not been any warming, but in 2006 stated "I don't question that. And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."
According to an earlier interview reported by Joel Achenbach, Gray had similarly said that the current warming in the past decades is a natural cycle, driven by a global ocean circulation that manifests itself in the North Atlantic Ocean as the Gulf Stream.
In a December 2006 interview with David Harsanyi of The Denver Post, Gray said, "They've been brainwashing us for 20 years, starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15–20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was." In this interview, Gray cites the global cooling article in Newsweek from 1975 as evidence that such a scare has happened in the past.
Gray has been an active scientist publishing and speaking about weather, hurricanes, and related matters for 60 years. In his presentation to the 7th International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by The Heartland Institute, Gray found virtually no basis to think added CO2 is generating extreme weather events.[citation needed]
-
I'm just gonna say it, I didn't and won't read a word of this
-
Translation
A stop sign fell on my had, and now I am terrified the sky is falling
Edna, the anti-shazbot! proponent of science
-
Translation
A stop sign fell on my had, and now I am terrified the sky is falling
Edna, the anti-shazbot! proponent of science
lol
-
RIP to a great truth teller - Bill Gray!
Gray is skeptical of current theories of human-induced global warming, which he says is supported by scientists afraid of losing grant funding and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government.
He believes that humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth and has stated that "We're brainwashing our children." He asked, "How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can’t be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified?"
Gray said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error. He cites statistics showing that there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperature, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.
Gray does not say there has not been any warming, but in 2006 stated "I don't question that. And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."
According to an earlier interview reported by Joel Achenbach, Gray had similarly said that the current warming in the past decades is a natural cycle, driven by a global ocean circulation that manifests itself in the North Atlantic Ocean as the Gulf Stream.
In a December 2006 interview with David Harsanyi of The Denver Post, Gray said, "They've been brainwashing us for 20 years, starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15–20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was." In this interview, Gray cites the global cooling article in Newsweek from 1975 as evidence that such a scare has happened in the past.
Gray has been an active scientist publishing and speaking about weather, hurricanes, and related matters for 60 years. In his presentation to the 7th International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by The Heartland Institute, Gray found virtually no basis to think added CO2 is generating extreme weather events.[citation needed]
LOL you posted an article from 2006 that has been proven wrong by simple observation over the last 10 years. :lol:
-
Warmest alarmist propagandists still fighting FOIA and Congressional subpoenas every step of the way even though they're publicly funded and work for the taxpayers.
Now warmest alarmest propagandist AG's colluding with Big Green to launch a massive gov't witch hunt.
They're running low on jackboot polish.
-
Big Green :D
-
Scientists have zero to study these days if it wasn't for climate. Big Science is lobbying their ass off to block all that stuff. Worse than unions, imo.
-
Scientists have zero to study these days if it wasn't for climate. Big Science is lobbying their ass off to block all that stuff. Worse than unions, imo.
I'm not saying it's not something we should reasearch, because I believe it is, but I would have to think by and far the largest amount of money available to scientists is to study "climate change", such that it is inventivized.
Even the loonie weirdos who post here think "big oil" is throwing billions at it, and what big oil spends is dwarfed by what governments spend globally.
-
It should be studied, but they need to reach conclusions I agree with or else they are bias - pro-science fsd
-
Man, NASA should really start looking into this. Maybe their budget wouldn't be cut a bunch and stuff.
PFFFT
-
Rapid fire tapouts. Pew Pew pew
-
LOL you posted an article from 2006 that has been proven wrong by simple observation over the last 10 years. :lol:
"simple observation" being you going outside and gauging the temperature, going in and marking it down in your spiral notebook leftover from your Climate Alarmism class, and then coming here to tell us that man is destroying the planet?
-
It should be studied, but they need to reach conclusions I agree with or else they are bias - pro-science fsd
Or you know, actually make their publicly funded research available to be checked and peer reviewed. Not tying it up behind government minutia if not outright breaking numerous laws to avoid having their work analyzed by third parties.
Of course, if you're like Whackadoodle who falls for the complete BS they toss out to explain their constant "adjustment" of historical temp data, and total avoidance of the idea that the vast majority of temp data comes from the same subset of sources that they're constantly manipulating to cool the past, and make the current appear warmer.
-
It should be studied, but they need to reach conclusions I agree with or else they are bias - pro-science fsd
Or you know, actually make their publicly funded research available to be checked and peer reviewed. Not tying it up behind government minutia if not outright breaking numerous laws to avoid having their work analyzed by third parties.
Of course, if you're like Whackadoodle who falls for the complete BS they toss out to explain their constant "adjustment" of historical temp data, and total avoidance of the idea that the vast majority of temp data comes from the same subset of sources that they're constantly manipulating to cool the past, and make the current appear warmer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU
Look at this libtard glacier doing another alarmist "temperature adjustment." You know big green science is making a mint off this crap when they're able to pay off big glacier.
-
I think I would characterize that as a libtarded anecdote, not a libtarded glacier.
Slightly more compelling, however, than, hey its hot today, Probs climate man made change warming. So there's that.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU
Look at this libtard glacier doing another alarmist "temperature adjustment." You know big green science is making a mint off this crap when they're able to pay off big glacier.
The hilarity in this comes when you understand that Warmists believe carbon taxes will stop this from happening.
-
like, some of you may have some valid points but they get lost because you converse with each other like a bunch of downgrades. just an fyi.
-
I think I would characterize that as a libtarded anecdote, not a libtarded glacier.
Slightly more compelling, however, than, hey its hot today, Probs climate man made change warming. So there's that.
I don't think you know what the anecdote critique is.
-
like, some of you may have some valid points but they get lost because you converse with each other like a bunch of downgrades. just an fyi.
Problem is that one side can't interact with society in an educated manner and can only recite talking points and refuses to look at peer reviewed information.
-
Edna, you're one of the "downgrades"
I don't know why you gaf what that loser posts, anyways.
-
like, some of you may have some valid points but they get lost because you converse with each other like a bunch of downgrades. just an fyi.
Problem is that one side can't interact with society in an educated manner and can only recite talking points and refuses to look at peer reviewed information.
Hey honey could you turn the TV down I'm trying to pore over these peer reviewed studies on man made climate change and develop my own talking points for message boarding.
-
like, some of you may have some valid points but they get lost because you converse with each other like a bunch of downgrades. just an fyi.
Problem is that one side can't interact with society in an educated manner and can only recite talking points and refuses to look at peer reviewed information.
Hey honey could you turn the TV down I'm trying to pore over these peer reviewed studies on man made climate change and develop my own talking points for message boarding.
(https://i.imgflip.com/138b3u.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/138b3u)via Imgflip Meme Maker (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
-
:D
-
If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting. Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana. I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.
-
Earther first religion is a new one
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.boingboing.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F04%2F1285cbCOMIC-nate-appendectomy.jpg&hash=c221a88145e6e83b42737cde89ce96cfe9e18655)
-
Nate is mumped.
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
-
If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting. Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana. I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.
If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility. Why don't you want that? We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure. What is not to like about that? *waits for oil company talking points*
-
If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting. Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana. I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.
If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility. Why don't you want that? We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure. What is not to like about that? *waits for oil company talking points*
Making the switch to 100% renewable energy would make us far more prone to economic volatility. Just look at what drought has done to Venezuela. I would also consider job issues lasting 20 years as more of a long-term problem.
-
If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting. Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana. I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.
If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility. Why don't you want that? We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure. What is not to like about that? *waits for oil company talking points*
Making the switch to 100% renewable energy would make us far more prone to economic volatility. Just look at what drought has done to Venezuela. I would also consider job issues lasting 20 years as more of a long-term problem.
depleting the earth of its non-renewable resources is definitely not a long-term problem, though.
-
If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting. Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana. I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.
If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility. Why don't you want that? We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure. What is not to like about that? *waits for oil company talking points*
Making the switch to 100% renewable energy would make us far more prone to economic volatility. Just look at what drought has done to Venezuela. I would also consider job issues lasting 20 years as more of a long-term problem.
depleting the earth of its non-renewable resources is definitely not a long-term problem, though.
It's a future problem.
-
If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting. Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana. I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.
If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility. Why don't you want that? We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure. What is not to like about that? *waits for oil company talking points*
Making the switch to 100% renewable energy would make us far more prone to economic volatility. Just look at what drought has done to Venezuela. I would also consider job issues lasting 20 years as more of a long-term problem.
depleting the earth of its non-renewable resources is definitely not a long-term problem, though.
You mean like water, aluminum, copper, gold, etc etc?
-
If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting. Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana. I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.
If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility. Why don't you want that? We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure. What is not to like about that? *waits for oil company talking points*
Making the switch to 100% renewable energy would make us far more prone to economic volatility. Just look at what drought has done to Venezuela. I would also consider job issues lasting 20 years as more of a long-term problem.
depleting the earth of its non-renewable resources is definitely not a long-term problem, though.
You mean like water, aluminum, copper, gold, etc etc?
Good think you can't recycle aluminum into usable materials again...
-
If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting. Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana. I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.
If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility. Why don't you want that? We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure. What is not to like about that? *waits for oil company talking points*
Making the switch to 100% renewable energy would make us far more prone to economic volatility. Just look at what drought has done to Venezuela. I would also consider job issues lasting 20 years as more of a long-term problem.
This doesn't make sense. Also the job issues would be 20 years tops, that is why you see Saudi Arabia and Qatar trying to move away from oil revenues.
-
If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting. Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana. I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.
If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility. Why don't you want that? We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure. What is not to like about that? *waits for oil company talking points*
Making the switch to 100% renewable energy would make us far more prone to economic volatility. Just look at what drought has done to Venezuela. I would also consider job issues lasting 20 years as more of a long-term problem.
This doesn't make sense. Also the job issues would be 20 years tops, that is why you see Saudi Arabia and Qatar trying to move away from oil revenues.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are moving away from oil because they don't have enough cash to run their countries thanks to $50 oil.
-
OMG, Whackadoodle is utterly incapable of even basic economic thought. I can't even call him Captain Obvious anymore.
-
If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting. Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana. I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.
If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility. Why don't you want that? We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure. What is not to like about that? *waits for oil company talking points*
Making the switch to 100% renewable energy would make us far more prone to economic volatility. Just look at what drought has done to Venezuela. I would also consider job issues lasting 20 years as more of a long-term problem.
This doesn't make sense. Also the job issues would be 20 years tops, that is why you see Saudi Arabia and Qatar trying to move away from oil revenues.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are moving away from oil because they don't have enough cash to run their countries thanks to $50 oil.
Wrong in this conversation.
Saudi, ironically, 2025 plan
http://vision.cer.uz/Data/lib/vision_texts/Saudi_Arabia/SAUD_Long_Term_Strategy_2025_October_2007.pdf
And longer
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/25/saudi-arabia-approves-ambitious-plan-to-move-economy-beyond-oil
Qatar’s plan
http://www.gsdp.gov.qa/gsdp_vision/docs/NDS_EN.pdf
http://m.gulf-times.com/story/420522/Private-sector-key-to-Qatar-s-economic-diversifica
-
OMG, Whackadoodle is utterly incapable of even basic economic thought. I can't even call him Captain Obvious anymore.
read a book you rough ridin' idiot
-
Let's keep it civil guys. Remember, none of this stuff matters in the least.
-
Who would have thought a switch was the difference between economic green energy utopia, and immediate fossil fuel death?
-
Who would have thought a switch was the difference between economic green energy utopia, and immediate fossil fuel death?
I believe I said a handful of years if we go full bore commitment and 20 years otherwise.
-
Let's keep it civil guys. Remember, none of this stuff matters in the least.
I'm sick of the ignorant cuck following me into threads and tarting things up.
-
If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility. Why don't you want that? We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure. What is not to like about that? *waits for oil company talking points*
First, fossil fuels are renewable, the world is clean now and will be for thousands of years hence, the world is secure, and economic involatility comes from bad government not bad energy. Why endure ANY "job issues" in pursuit of unproven Pollyanna junk science?
-
ha, classic ptolemy
-
If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting. Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana. I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.
If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility. Why don't you want that? We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure. What is not to like about that? *waits for oil company talking points*
Making the switch to 100% renewable energy would make us far more prone to economic volatility. Just look at what drought has done to Venezuela. I would also consider job issues lasting 20 years as more of a long-term problem.
This doesn't make sense. Also the job issues would be 20 years tops, that is why you see Saudi Arabia and Qatar trying to move away from oil revenues.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are moving away from oil because they don't have enough cash to run their countries thanks to $50 oil.
Wrong in this conversation.
Saudi, ironically, 2025 plan
http://vision.cer.uz/Data/lib/vision_texts/Saudi_Arabia/SAUD_Long_Term_Strategy_2025_October_2007.pdf
And longer
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/25/saudi-arabia-approves-ambitious-plan-to-move-economy-beyond-oil
Qatar’s plan
http://www.gsdp.gov.qa/gsdp_vision/docs/NDS_EN.pdf
http://m.gulf-times.com/story/420522/Private-sector-key-to-Qatar-s-economic-diversifica
Using counties where like 97% of their revenue comes from oil as the reverse example of why making a switch to 100% renewables is economically viable is dumb. Saudi Arabia is projecting to run out of cash in less than 5 years and Qatar is hanging by a thread.
-
I didn't read any of Edna's articles, but don't the problems in the OPEC countries stem from the glut of oil being produced from nontraditional oil extraction methods around the world? I can't' believe that renewable energy has any affect on oil revenue at all.
-
I'm all for renewable, but only if they are economically superior (cheaper) and we are for sure beyond peak oil. As it is now, the technology being developed to extract these "non-renewable" resources from the ground is growing faster than our ability to deplete them. It could be along time before our ability to produce begins to decrease.
-
I'm all for renewable, but only if they are economically superior (cheaper) and we are for sure beyond peak oil.
why on earth would you have the second required qualifier?
-
I'm all for renewable, but only if they are economically superior (cheaper) and we are for sure beyond peak oil.
why on earth would you have the second required qualifier?
CapEx
-
There are tons of reasons to get away from fossil fuels, and at least one should be persuasive to each ideological group. The whole global warming debate has just turned into a counterproductive partisan pissing contest.
-
When you say dumb things that are completely contrary to the current economic climate you get called out on it whackadoodle
-
If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting. Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana. I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.
If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility. Why don't you want that? We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure. What is not to like about that? *waits for oil company talking points*
Making the switch to 100% renewable energy would make us far more prone to economic volatility. Just look at what drought has done to Venezuela. I would also consider job issues lasting 20 years as more of a long-term problem.
This doesn't make sense. Also the job issues would be 20 years tops, that is why you see Saudi Arabia and Qatar trying to move away from oil revenues.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are moving away from oil because they don't have enough cash to run their countries thanks to $50 oil.
Wrong in this conversation.
Saudi, ironically, 2025 plan
http://vision.cer.uz/Data/lib/vision_texts/Saudi_Arabia/SAUD_Long_Term_Strategy_2025_October_2007.pdf
And longer
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/25/saudi-arabia-approves-ambitious-plan-to-move-economy-beyond-oil
Qatar’s plan
http://www.gsdp.gov.qa/gsdp_vision/docs/NDS_EN.pdf
http://m.gulf-times.com/story/420522/Private-sector-key-to-Qatar-s-economic-diversifica
Using counties where like 97% of their revenue comes from oil as the reverse example of why making a switch to 100% renewables is economically viable is dumb. Saudi Arabia is projecting to run out of cash in less than 5 years and Qatar is hanging by a thread.
You are TOTALLY missing the point.
Without question political volatility in the middle east has spawned massive instability in energy markets and political and economic instability here. The entire point of that post was that we need to get away from our dependency on these nations when they themselves are looking to be diversified away from petro within 20 to 30 years. They know the industry is dying and not a long term solution. Yes the market being mumped right now is exacerbating this, but these countries have been seriously talking about this for almost a decade.
-
I didn't read any of Edna's articles, but don't the problems in the OPEC countries stem from the glut of oil being produced from nontraditional oil extraction methods around the world? I can't' believe that renewable energy has any affect on oil revenue at all.
Yepper. Traditional oil rig counts are the lowest since pre-1900, while nontraditional rig counts are steady and are still projected to increase in the near future.
-
When you say dumb things that are completely contrary to the current economic climate you get called out on it whackadoodle
You are totally wrong yet again.
-
Nope. You don't even remember what you post apparently.
-
I'm all for renewable, but only if they are economically superior (cheaper) and we are for sure beyond peak oil.
why on earth would you have the second required qualifier?
CapEx
The problem is that if you add in all the costs of petro, including defense spending to protect the regions of extraction, health and environment concerns, and not just the price per barrel it's not that different. You examine the whole balance sheet and it's almost a no brainer.
-
Nope. You don't even remember what you post apparently.
that's because the post went over your head. please see yourself out before you continue to make yourself look anymore ignorant.
-
I didn't read any of Edna's articles, but don't the problems in the OPEC countries stem from the glut of oil being produced from nontraditional oil extraction methods around the world? I can't' believe that renewable energy has any affect on oil revenue at all.
Yepper. Traditional oil rig counts are the lowest since pre-1900, while nontraditional rig counts are steady and are still projected to increase in the near future.
Yep, there was a concentrated effort by OPEC countries particularly Saudi Arabia to flood the markets with oil in order to make US non traditional operations unprofitable. This had limited success. The Saudi's did recently seek $10 billion in bonds to shore up cash holdings.
It had virtually nothing to do with alternative energy production.
-
Nope. You don't even remember what you post apparently.
that's because the post went over your head. please see yourself out before you continue to make yourself look anymore ignorant.
Quiet, sane smart adults talking now.
-
I didn't read any of Edna's articles, but don't the problems in the OPEC countries stem from the glut of oil being produced from nontraditional oil extraction methods around the world? I can't' believe that renewable energy has any affect on oil revenue at all.
Yepper. Traditional oil rig counts are the lowest since pre-1900, while nontraditional rig counts are steady and are still projected to increase in the near future.
Yep, there was a concentrated effort by OPEC countries particularly Saudi Arabia to flood the markets with oil in order to make US non traditional operations unprofitable. This had limited success. The Saudi's did recently seek $10 billion in bonds to shore up cash holdings.
It had virtually nothing to do with alternative energy production.
Surprise, you're totally wrong about my post and this post continues to show your inability to grasp simple concepts that involve long term planning and basic economics. I guess all those links I posted from these governments that back my point are totally wrong too? Keep it up Dax, it's great to watch you flail.
-
God Dax is just the worst.
-
If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting. Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana. I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.
If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility. Why don't you want that? We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure. What is not to like about that? *waits for oil company talking points*
Making the switch to 100% renewable energy would make us far more prone to economic volatility. Just look at what drought has done to Venezuela. I would also consider job issues lasting 20 years as more of a long-term problem.
This doesn't make sense. Also the job issues would be 20 years tops, that is why you see Saudi Arabia and Qatar trying to move away from oil revenues.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are moving away from oil because they don't have enough cash to run their countries thanks to $50 oil.
Wrong in this conversation.
Saudi, ironically, 2025 plan
http://vision.cer.uz/Data/lib/vision_texts/Saudi_Arabia/SAUD_Long_Term_Strategy_2025_October_2007.pdf
And longer
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/25/saudi-arabia-approves-ambitious-plan-to-move-economy-beyond-oil
Qatar’s plan
http://www.gsdp.gov.qa/gsdp_vision/docs/NDS_EN.pdf
http://m.gulf-times.com/story/420522/Private-sector-key-to-Qatar-s-economic-diversifica
Using counties where like 97% of their revenue comes from oil as the reverse example of why making a switch to 100% renewables is economically viable is dumb. Saudi Arabia is projecting to run out of cash in less than 5 years and Qatar is hanging by a thread.
You are TOTALLY missing the point.
Without question political volatility in the middle east has spawned massive instability in energy markets and political and economic instability here. The entire point of that post was that we need to get away from our dependency on these nations when they themselves are looking to be diversified away from petro within 20 to 30 years. They know the industry is dying and not a long term solution. Yes the market being mumped right now is exacerbating this, but these countries have been seriously talking about this for almost a decade.
They know they need to get away from oil because they don't have other countries by the balls as much anymore. That 25 year plan coincides with U.S. proclaiming a path to foreign energy independence in 2006 and massive investment in nontraditional oil liquid extraction methods in 2006-2007. Russia and the U.S. are currently at all-time record production levels, with U.S. energy still being hovering around 10% green during this same timeframe.
-
lol the Saudi moves are about control of liquidity Whackadoodle, done for perception reasons. They'll still be pumping oil for decades to come.
-
If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting. Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana. I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.
If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility. Why don't you want that? We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure. What is not to like about that? *waits for oil company talking points*
Making the switch to 100% renewable energy would make us far more prone to economic volatility. Just look at what drought has done to Venezuela. I would also consider job issues lasting 20 years as more of a long-term problem.
This doesn't make sense. Also the job issues would be 20 years tops, that is why you see Saudi Arabia and Qatar trying to move away from oil revenues.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are moving away from oil because they don't have enough cash to run their countries thanks to $50 oil.
Wrong in this conversation.
Saudi, ironically, 2025 plan
http://vision.cer.uz/Data/lib/vision_texts/Saudi_Arabia/SAUD_Long_Term_Strategy_2025_October_2007.pdf
And longer
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/25/saudi-arabia-approves-ambitious-plan-to-move-economy-beyond-oil
Qatar’s plan
http://www.gsdp.gov.qa/gsdp_vision/docs/NDS_EN.pdf
http://m.gulf-times.com/story/420522/Private-sector-key-to-Qatar-s-economic-diversifica
Using counties where like 97% of their revenue comes from oil as the reverse example of why making a switch to 100% renewables is economically viable is dumb. Saudi Arabia is projecting to run out of cash in less than 5 years and Qatar is hanging by a thread.
You are TOTALLY missing the point.
Without question political volatility in the middle east has spawned massive instability in energy markets and political and economic instability here. The entire point of that post was that we need to get away from our dependency on these nations when they themselves are looking to be diversified away from petro within 20 to 30 years. They know the industry is dying and not a long term solution. Yes the market being mumped right now is exacerbating this, but these countries have been seriously talking about this for almost a decade.
They know they need to get away from oil because they don't have other countries by the balls as much anymore. That 25 year plan coincides with U.S. proclaiming a path to foreign energy independence in 2006 and massive investment in nontraditional oil liquid extraction methods in 2006-2007. Russia and the U.S. are currently at all-time record production levels, with U.S. energy still being hovering around 10% green during this same timeframe.
Yeah....Did you read my posts?
The point is that even the hydro carbon energy producers are recognizing the need to move on. The US is inventing new, awful ways, to keep the addiction, if not growing it. My entire posts was about the need to past this dependence because it will have numerous benefits.
-
lol the Saudi moves are about control of liquidity Whackadoodle, done for perception reasons. They'll still be pumping oil for decades to come.
You are so rough ridin' basic. You think a generation long plan is about liquidity now. :ROFL:
-
It's about having the liquid assets to invest in that plan, how can you develop the infrastructure without cash?
ARAMCO will still be producing oil for decades.
-
If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting. Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana. I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.
If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility. Why don't you want that? We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure. What is not to like about that? *waits for oil company talking points*
Making the switch to 100% renewable energy would make us far more prone to economic volatility. Just look at what drought has done to Venezuela. I would also consider job issues lasting 20 years as more of a long-term problem.
This doesn't make sense. Also the job issues would be 20 years tops, that is why you see Saudi Arabia and Qatar trying to move away from oil revenues.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are moving away from oil because they don't have enough cash to run their countries thanks to $50 oil.
Wrong in this conversation.
Saudi, ironically, 2025 plan
http://vision.cer.uz/Data/lib/vision_texts/Saudi_Arabia/SAUD_Long_Term_Strategy_2025_October_2007.pdf
And longer
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/25/saudi-arabia-approves-ambitious-plan-to-move-economy-beyond-oil
Qatar’s plan
http://www.gsdp.gov.qa/gsdp_vision/docs/NDS_EN.pdf
http://m.gulf-times.com/story/420522/Private-sector-key-to-Qatar-s-economic-diversifica
Using counties where like 97% of their revenue comes from oil as the reverse example of why making a switch to 100% renewables is economically viable is dumb. Saudi Arabia is projecting to run out of cash in less than 5 years and Qatar is hanging by a thread.
You are TOTALLY missing the point.
Without question political volatility in the middle east has spawned massive instability in energy markets and political and economic instability here. The entire point of that post was that we need to get away from our dependency on these nations when they themselves are looking to be diversified away from petro within 20 to 30 years. They know the industry is dying and not a long term solution. Yes the market being mumped right now is exacerbating this, but these countries have been seriously talking about this for almost a decade.
They know they need to get away from oil because they don't have other countries by the balls as much anymore. That 25 year plan coincides with U.S. proclaiming a path to foreign energy independence in 2006 and massive investment in nontraditional oil liquid extraction methods in 2006-2007. Russia and the U.S. are currently at all-time record production levels, with U.S. energy still being hovering around 10% green during this same timeframe.
Yeah....Did you read my posts?
The point is that even the hydro carbon energy producers are recognizing the need to move on. The US is inventing new, awful ways, to keep the addiction, if not growing it. My entire posts was about the need to past this dependence because it will have numerous benefits.
And I'm saying that their need to move on was because of the U.S. proclaiming and eventually reaching energy independence. We're there, bud. Green energy is still hovering around that 11% total energy mark since 2010, even with the green energy standards and record investments.
-
Emawican
A few issues. First exemplified by Sheikh Al Maktoum's quote "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel," that these nations aren't planning 5 years out like Dax thinks. They know they need to diversify. The problem is that we aren't investing in our own energy independence in the ways we need to to make our nation secure (economically/politically/environment). Second, IMO, you're creating a total false correlation between the 10% point and our investment in green energy. The biggest reason we haven't pushed further is because of the cheap oil that has been pointed out. That is the reason we've stalled growth. Look at India's push for solar and how costs are dropping like a rock and will be within a decade cheaper than petro sources.
Thanks for a real post.
-
Emawican
A few issues. First exemplified by Sheikh Al Maktoum's quote "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel," that these nations aren't planning 5 years out like Dax thinks. They know they need to diversify. The problem is that we aren't investing in our own energy independence in the ways we need to to make our nation secure (economically/politically/environment). Second, IMO, you're creating a total false correlation between the 10% point and our investment in green energy. The biggest reason we haven't pushed further is because of the cheap oil that has been pointed out. That is the reason we've stalled growth. Look at India's push for solar and how costs are dropping like a rock and will be within a decade cheaper than petro sources.
Thanks for a real post.
These are good discussions, boyo. The US gets only like 25% of our energy from oil and have for several years. We're a net exporter of oil now for Christ's sake. We're diversified, Saudi Arabia isn't and they realized that. Are you familiar with the renewable portfolio standards? Record investment is being forced in renewables that are more costly than coal or natty. What you're saying is and has been happening for several years.
-
Emawican
A few issues. First exemplified by Sheikh Al Maktoum's quote "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel," that these nations aren't planning 5 years out like Dax thinks. They know they need to diversify. The problem is that we aren't investing in our own energy independence in the ways we need to to make our nation secure (economically/politically/environment). Second, IMO, you're creating a total false correlation between the 10% point and our investment in green energy. The biggest reason we haven't pushed further is because of the cheap oil that has been pointed out. That is the reason we've stalled growth. Look at India's push for solar and how costs are dropping like a rock and will be within a decade cheaper than petro sources.
Thanks for a real post.
These are good discussions, boyo. The US gets only like 25% of our energy from oil and have for several years. We're a net exporter of oil now for Christ's sake. We're diversified, Saudi Arabia isn't and they realized that. Are you familiar with the renewable portfolio standards? Record investment is being forced in renewables that are more costly than coal or natty. What you're saying is and has been happening for several years.
The problem is that we've only scratched the surface of what we need to do to reinvent our energy economy.
Bloomberg had this a bit ago on solar costs.1
It's an important lesson as idiots, like Dax, talk about Solyndra because most people leave out the massive subsidies China is pushing into solar, basically making it a no risk investment domestically. Yes I know we're making strides, but nowhere where we need to be to switch off petrol. And you can see this in other places, see VW and Shell being accused of blocking electric cars in Europe.2 My point is that to truly transform we need to also take hard looks at carrier lines, grids, and beginning point infrastructure (ie one of wind's biggest problems is getting the power from the wind farm to the grid). Now so of this is needed simply because of again infrastructure which we desperately need, and also to handle new "types" of power to ensure better distribution and storage. It's great we're seeing private investment in end user items, like Tesla's battery units for homes and small offices. But we need to do more to build capacity and storage. The only way to do that is through concerted investment. But if we do with a Marshall Plan domestic infrastructure rebuild, that will ensure America's independence and hegemony 20 years down the line for generations to come.
1.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/first-solar-making-panels-more-cheaply-than-china-s-top-supplier
2. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/28/vw-and-shell-try-to-block-eu-push-for-cleaner-cars
-
So what is the reason for your point of going more green? We're already energy dependent. We're exporting oil. We're exceeding our energy needs. There's been massive investments and standards implemented for green energy. Power plants can't burn cheap ass natty as much anymore now because 25% or whatever State threshold of the energy has to come from renewable sources, which the cost is passed onto the consumer. That's not really energy independence, but green energy dependence.
-
The main points are
1) it's the only long term solution for our nation. That doesn't mean my lifetime or yours, I'm talking generations. The faster we do it, and do it well, the faster we become a world leader in exporting that tech.
2) It makes our nation more secure for a number of reasons.
a) not being dependent on the most volatile region in the world for control of a market monopoly. Yes we have significant reserves in case crap goes down, but the average day in America is greatly effected by the petrol market.
b) if we are able to export this tech to poor nations that might be a potential source of conflict it will stabilize them in long term ways (I'm thinking the ability to make clean water as an example since de-sal takes so much power).
c) while it may suck for the people who are affected by "energy poverty" now, the long term stability of renewables makes the US more domestically secure.
3) Building off 2C, this is a necessary spring board for our economy to develop. If done right it provides near generations massive job opportunities for the rebuilding of our infrastructure and creates lasting manufacturing jobs as green production components will be in long term demand and later demand for maintenance items. Unlike petrol that is trying to find new ways to reinvent itself (fracking), greener energy is a power source that is only going to get more efficient. As it does, we'll constantly have to update in a strong linear process rather than the chaotic process of petrol development. Risks like train derailments vaporizing a town, supply interruptions because of international issues, all but disappear.
4) The environment is at a tipping point. We've seen all the scientific data, none of which can be reasonable denied. The more time passes the more it's accelerating, especially as we learn about how the naturally balanced system of carbon sinks are being affected (think methane sequestration in tundra as one example). This news about ethane coming from fracking just shows that that technology is not a long term solution to our energy needs. But more local to our generation, petrol based energy is rough ridin' filthy. Even if you don't prescribe to man made global warming, we know that petrol energy is a huge risk to our immediate environment. From Deep Water Horizon, Exxon Valdez, Lac-Mégantic disaster, or even the impact in the Tar Sands, the risk to our world in the immediate sense is stupendous. If we go green now, we have an immediate positive impact on our environment outside of the global warming debate.
link to fracking/ethane point
http://www.futurity.org/bakken-formation-fracking-ethane-1149132-2/
-
So we should pay more now so people 150 years from now can export the tech?
-
So we should pay more now so people 150 years from now can export the tech?
20 years....but yeah....with that kind of thinking Jefferson doesn't buy Louisiana from the Frenchies.
-
Exporting cheap gas to poor nations now has a more meaningful effect than some solar panels 20 years from now. We're stable as all get out because you know, we're exporting oil. Not saying we shouldn't do the solar panels in 20 years, but let's be realistic.
The renewable portfolio standards are a perfect example of what happens when green energy is forced onto a market. Electricity costs have gone up 9 out of the last 10 years. The standards are expected to continue to raise costs, even as natty gas and coal are at record lows. Makes sense, right? And it's only going to get worse.
-
Exporting cheap gas to poor nations now has a more meaningful effect than some solar panels 20 years from now. We're stable as all get out because you know, we're exporting oil. Not saying we shouldn't do the solar panels in 20 years, but let's be realistic.
The renewable portfolio standards are a perfect example of what happens when green energy is forced onto a market. Electricity costs have gone up 9 out of the last 10 years. The standards are expected to continue to raise costs, even as natty gas and coal are at record lows. Makes sense, right? And it's only going to get worse.
You're talking about an inflationary to slightly above increase for most of that time. And pinning energy costs and variatons from an international market on mandates about %s of green energy? I don't see the logic in that.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_3
And to my broader point we need to stop thinking about 5 to 10 years, and start thinking 20 years and beyond. We need to stop thinking that we can stabilize the middle east, that type of thinking is putting us in a 15 year commitment to Afghanistan and at least as long in Iraq. Yes poorer nations would benefit now from cheap oil and gas. The problem is that committing them to that energy locks them into a 2nd tier status as the 1st world moves towards green energy. Keeping their economy dependent on petrol doesn't solve the long term structural issues in those countries and arguably exacerbates them over the long term.
-
Exporting the tech. Lol, it will be stolen, copied and taken over by emerging nations. Component production will be off shored if the US's current taxation climate holds. In the interim energy poverty will grow, and the US cannot afford to subsidize both ends of green energy unless you're an idiot who thinks budget deficits and national debt is just numbers.
Not to mention the crony capitalism that will flourish even more squeezing out competition as the government handpicks the winners and losers.
-
Exporting the tech. Lol, it will be stolen, copied and taken over by emerging nations. Component production will be off shored if the US's current taxation climate holds. In the interim energy poverty will grow, and the US cannot afford to subsidize both ends of green energy unless you're an idiot who thinks budget deficits and national debt is just numbers.
Not to mention the crony capitalism that will flourish even more squeezing out competition as the government handpicks the winners and losers.
LOL at using the inoculated Solyndra talking point.
-
Yes, just Solyndra! Not the industry as a whole, not technology and manufacturing trends, not the real world issues of corporate espionage, nor the current taxation climate, just Solyndra!
-
Edna sure is reading a lot into Saudi Arabia's attempt to come up with a new revenue stream.
Reminds me of when the federal government attempted to raise revenues off something more than import/export tariffs and everyone was like "see! this whole trade of goods thing is extremely short sighted. The proof is in the pudding".
-
So we should pay more now so people 150 years from now can export the tech?
20 years....but yeah....with that kind of thinking Jefferson doesn't buy Louisiana from the Frenchies.
What was the cost in today's dollars, about $250 million? I think we spent that on Solyndra executives pay.
-
The 3 amigos of logic back to back to back. :Woohoo: