Hello

Today ahead of a meeting in Copenhagen it was agreed that the EU will fund the improvement of the newer states to help them bring into line their emissons

News Sniffer - Revisionista 'EU strikes climate funding deal' diff viewer (2/3) (http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/266769/diff/2/3)

The essence is the EU will offer some 100bn euros to fund the gap between what was the old eastern blocks of europe and the western

As I have read quite a few thoughts from America on the idea that paying tax to help health care and other social programs is seen by many as a bad thing, I would be intrigued to read what America thinks about taxes being paid to fund industrial improvements in a different country?

Do you really need me to answer this one?

If I don't believe that government should be taxing us to fix OUR social problems, why in the hell would I be in favor of taxing someone to fix the problems of OTHER COUNTRIES.

A better question, Phlanx, is how YOU feel about it. These are YOUR tax dollars we're talking about here, not ours. YOUR money is being taken from you to fund foreign countries to fix a non-existent problem. How does that make YOU feel?

Are you enough of a government-interventionist and "global citizen" to support this idea? Or does it go too far for you?

Elliot

Put simply Elliot, the air I breathe is not manufactured locally, the food I eat is not grown by air that is native and solely situated in my back garden

Pollution is not good for anyone, and if I want to see clean air in the future, mostly for my kids, then I am more than happy to forgo a couple of pints (beers) and pay the tax

You see elliot I am more than happy to compromise when the argument is strong enough to suit the deduction from my wage

The countries that are effected would find it near on impossible to cut their emissions with what they have, so isn't it absolutely pointless for several countries to cut their emissions while others are still polluting?

I don't get when you say you have a young son, you would not want to work towards a clean, safe haven for him to grow up in

And please, companies are the ones who have polluted in the first place in response to market demand of their products, and if it was left up to them to sort out they wouldn't because of the bottom line

I am a capitlist on heart, but even I see the point in looking to tomorrow and safeguarding it today

I kind of agree with British physicist and pioneer in quantum electrodynamics theory Freeman Dyson ;the Professor Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton .

He has stirred the pot lately by taking on the "consensus "thinkers of science that created linkage of human carbon emissions to global warming on the flimsiest of evidence. He predicts that carbon eating frankenplants will be genetically enginered soon that will mitigate the increase levels of atmospheric carbon ,even if the increased CO2 does contribute to warming .

But to your point ;in addition he says that international attempts like Kyoto and the upcoming Copenhagen "protocols" are ineffective and disproportionately hurt developing countries like China ,India, and new Europe ,where the potential to lift millions of people out of poverty now hinges on access to carbon-spewing industries.

The Question of Global Warming - The New York Review of Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494)

The link above is an essay he wrote last year .

Salvo Tom

I am not here to agrue about global warming, purely pollution of any kind and the effects it is has on all of us, i.e smog

In your statement you refer to the damaging effect climate change regulations can have or have had on devoloping countries

This I am in agreement with and this is why the treaty has been forged with helping those countries that need the assistance

It seems pointless to me to wait for these countries to devolop their industry to a point where we are today, that would take a generation of GDP to achieve, so instead they must be given assistance to move forward quicker

In reference to your statement on carbon eating plants, of course that is possible, a friend of mine spends her day manupliating plant DNA, and she stated that would be the possible along time ago

However, I hate the idea of man meadling with nature, as it will produce a side effect we will not like - it always has and always will do so, so if I had a preference between gentically modifed crops and clean output from man, I know which one I would choose

However, I hate the idea of man meadling with nature, as it will produce a side effect we will not like - it always has and always will do so, so if I had a preference between gentically modifed crops and clean output from man, I know which one I would choose


Clean emissions will come eventually because market conditions dictate it. Like yourself ,I don't wish to breath bad air .Our views are not mutually exclusive . We can have both . What would be disastrous and serve no purpose would be draconian unattainable mandates and schemes like cap and trade that only would succeed in making things more expensive and less attainable for everyone.

We are in agreement that technology transfers are on the table .

Okay then, so the only difference then is how new measures are introduced into the market

As you say, if the market wanted clean products they would buy them

However, with all new technologies the product is expensive and change is hard to make

What I see governments doing is not interferring but assisting with this change over, by providing such things as carbon tax and green credits, they can make industry take up the cleaner options by making them econmically viable quicker than they would be if left to market demand

Can you see the difference intervention can have in this instance?

I see cap and trade and green credits as a scam.
What I see developing is powerful people like Al Gore (I use him because he's the poster person for the cause)selling this scheme to his buddies at the highest levels of government while at the same time creating personal enterprises to exploit these new regulations once his buddies in positions of power enact them.
What is the difference between him and the greedy oil company lobbiest ?

That is how most democracies work, that is how yours works well

But the simple difference between Al Gore as you say, of which he has little influence over here, is Gore is championing the cause of clean industry, the oil lot are championing dirty, fossil fuel that has there day

Money is at the root of everything, somebody needs to make money from clean energy in order for it to work

So my question still stands, can you see how pushing industry in one direction is just simply good for the future?

Hello

Today ahead of a meeting in Copenhagen it was agred that the EU will fund the improvement of the newer states to help them bring into line their emissons

News Sniffer - Revisionista 'EU strikes climate funding deal' diff viewer (2/3) (http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/266769/diff/2/3)

The essence is the EU will offer some 100bn euros to fund the gap between what was the old eastern blocks of europe and the western

As I have read quite a few thoughts from America on the idea that paying tax to help health care and other social programs is seen by many as a bad thing, I would be intrigued to read what America thinks about taxes being paid to fund industrial improvements in a different country?

Isn't this what has been done for many years as foreign aid, How is it different except that it has some sort of internal social responsibility tag attached to it. Well if they withdraw agricultural subsidies while they do this but undoubtedly this allows them to extend them

Evening Clete

There is a fundamental difference between the two

Foreign aid is to help a crisis of somesort

This type of treaty helps to bring their industry into line with everyone else's

Yours, the americans, and the western world has very similar setups for manufacture, distribution etc, all because an Ipod to you is an iPod to me (as a brief example)

By combining efforts you also set off a trend of cooperation which the EU's Theory is based on - a common market

Agricultiural subsidies in essence are needed, you cannot be producing too much of a food, just to see the market value drop considerably - I know that this is happening in some cases and the subsidies need to be looked at properly, but the essence is a good thing - stability is the key to economic growth - as long as you don't include the banks :)

Evening Clete

There is a fundamental difference between the two

Foreign aid is to help a crisis of somesort

This type of treaty helps to bring their industry into line with everyone elses

Yours, the americans, and the western world has very similar setups for manufacture, distribution etc, all because an Ipod to you is an ipod to me (as a brief example)

By combining efforts you also set off a trend of cooperation which the EU's Theory is based on - a common market

Agricultiural subsidies in essence are needed, you cannot be producing too much of a food, just to see the market value drop considerably - I know that this is happening in some cases and the subsidies need to be looked at properly, but the essence is a good thing - stability is the key to economic growth - as long as you dont include the banks :)

Steve what I see here is very typical of the confused thinking of the EU. What was once a common market, soveriegn countries cooperating, is now a United States of Europe. Agricultural subsidies in the EU create glut conditions, very undesirable, and they prevent produce from poorer countries being sold in the EU. Now the EU wants to convert the rust belt of the former Soviet Union into a bustling industrial base, and tell me, does the world need another China? Except this one will be a high cost manufacturer. Yes the people of central Europe are poor, I suggest you put them to work building windmills, perhaps this is what they have in mind. Prosperity comes when people do something for themselves, not when someone gives them money, This is a lesson the EU is yet to learn.

I think you will find the setups of Australia, the US and the EU are different. We had to overcome the impacts of Britain joining the EU on our industries and the rise of China. Our manufacturing industries are a shadow of what they once were. No big brother there to help us convert the rust belt, but fortunately this place is not red without reason. We send timber to China and get it back as furniture, Iron ore and Gas and get it back as TV's and PC's, Rice and Wheat and Meat. Need I go on?

I used to sell weighing equipment so I have seen nearly every industry there is in this country, and all of it has gone downwards

Reduced in numbers through new product devolopment, cheaper labour markets, better processing systems and need I go on :)

All of which have been replaced by different industries, distribution, services, finance, and so on

The fundamentals are still there, mining farming, etc but in a diminished capacity

No longer is a car built in one factory, but many factories around the world

I think the VW Golf is made in 8 different countries

The theory is this provides an environment for jobs to be created and markets to be opened up

When you state the common market, I was talking what the EU was founded on - the EC. And the backbone was set in stone within two years of its formation, all of which I am going so far back I was wearing flares and rainbow tshirts :)

The farm subsidies are a shambles now and needs reorganisation, just as we need to protect our farms, we need to ensure european farms are working and then the third world - it is not an easy thing to do, but I think eventually every countries agriculture will be sustainable

As regards, "the rustbelt of europe" let me introduce you to some people I know, they would love you saying that :eek:

Tell me, do you guys have immigration concerns with illegals from parts of asia trying to get into oz for a better life

Of course you do every western country suffers the same

So how much is illegal immigration costing us, in increased resourses and services required, strain on public systems and so on

We have a lot of Polish, and Romania coming here, most of which are hard working people, (regardless of what is happening with recessions) the pattern of illegals is not going to change until one simple thing happens

"Their markets are selling a loaf of bread at the same cost as it is in this country"

What you say as "putting them to work" I say we are, by getting them to a standard where immigration is through freedom of choice and not financial necessity

What will that do for our taxes, our resources?

What we will pay in tax today we will save tomorrow

What we can't sell today, we will be able to sell to tomorrow

As usual the politicians take time, arguing over who gets what for lunch etc, but the essence of the social reform occurring in europe I think is a good one to support

As usual the politicans take time, arguing over who gets what for lunch etc, but the essence of the social reform occuring in europe I think is a good one to support

Steve I think you miss understood I said the eastern european countries the new members of the EU are the rust belt of the Soviet Union. Industries that no longer exist, but economic migrants from those places are now internally displaced persons surely not illegal immigrants. That's what you bought into when you joined the EU. No, you have many Illegals I'm sure from outside the EU, and they come from the same places as our illegals, so by all means redistribute the wealth of Europe through investment but remember the more you do the more inviting it becomes to all those outside the fence.

Now Australia is a different kettle of fish. If all our illegals had to camp with the aboriginals for a few years (third world conditions we are told) they wouldn't want to come but it is about time we installed them in the central desert, only thing is the aboriginals don't want them either. I don't know why they come we have enough kabab shops already. They have no skills to do the jobs that are available, despite our million camels we have no jobs for camel drivers and unlike the americans we have no use for household servants

What ? You don't have any lawns that need mowing or lettuce to pick ? Lol Those jobs that Americans won't do except in times of recession ? I have to admit it .The stereotype about us is of our own making .
One can never have enough Mckababs.

What ? You don't have any lawns that need mowing or lettuce to pick ? lol Those jobs that Americans won't do except in times of recession ? I have to admit it .The stereotype about us is of our own making .
One can never have enough Mckababs.


Tom our culture is very different to yours we have no history of having household servants.

No Tom we are no longer allowed to water our lawns so they only grow in spring and we have enough backpackers to pick the lettuce. Once we had manufacturing industries that could use these people as cannon fodder but those days are long gone. Our garment industry is now in China just like everything else and these illegal immigrants are no good at digging holes in the ground, we use Kiwi (New Zealanders) for that, but at least they can go home when they get laided off. As I said we don't need camel drivers and fish stocks are down so we don't need fishermen. We have hung out the help not wanted sign but as we speak only english the message isn't getting across and yes you can have too many kabab shops because these people just like maccas can't make a decent hamburger

Clete

I think you are missing the point of how immigration, emmigration and the movements of industry are working

We can't look backwards, all industries move forward and as such the need for industry and the type changes

What is ahppening in oz is happening in most western countries

Clete



What is a hppening in oz is happening in most western countries

Steve not quite sure what you mean. Unlike most western countries Australia has understood immigration very well. Perhaps we were ahead of many in the impacts on our industries from the rise of Asia and the EU. We went through twenty years of reconstruction where we paid people to leave certain industries because they were no longer viable. These are the industries that used to employ the lesser skilled migrants but you can't get the ones that come now to go into the fields and harvest crops or populate our vast interior.

If you mean that there are illegals arriving in boats, yes we do experience that, there are many foolish people in the world and it seems a number want to come here, risking their lives in the open ocean, a little different to trying to sneak across the channel or a border. Only today we have a report of a boat sunk 700 km from nowhere. We have our own set of problems and we don't want these people here because they fill our cities, placing strain on the infurstructure, We are continually fishing them out of the sea and we have nothing to offer them. Just getting them to speak English is a major exercise let alone getting them to do anything useful.

Australia and to some extent Europe and America is like a fabled land to these people, a cornucopia, where there is peace and plenty and the streets are paved with Gold. We are victims of our own publicity.

Morning Clete

Typical ozzy, missing the point :)

You have all that land and yes I think most people in this country looks at yours and thinks you have the right way off handling immigration - a very tough stance

However, for whatever reason, these people are willing to risk their lives for what they see is a better life

Can you imagine anybody here willing to risk their lives crossing huge oceans and land masses without a airline ticket?

Regardless of whatever the legacy is about, the western world is at the forefront of social reform, fairness to all, social benefits etc etc

Until these countries that have mass migration sort themselves out or are sorted out this will not stop

At present due to the strengtening of the Euro and the weakness of the Pound, we have migration in reverse with hordes of Polish and Romannians going back to their countries

I only stated these two countries as an example of where EU policy and change is helping to stem the tide of immigration

If a home country becomes more attractive to stay then why would immigration be a problem?

Okay then, so the only difference then is how new measures are introduced into the market

Yes... one grants greater power to governments, including the power of foreign governments to dictate policy in your country.

The other is a free-market approach that limits the power of government and puts choice in the hands of the people.

Elliot

Yes... one grants greater power to governments, including the power of foreign governments to dictate policy in your country.

The other is a free-market approach that limits the power of government and puts choice in the hands of the people.

Elliot

Elliot

If you do not understand cultural influence is greater than political power, then I suggest you take a good look around - you will find influences from other countries everywhere, covering your entire life

On this issue, the reduction in pollution should be one that you should support, and if you can see the dangers in leaving for another generation or two while the market decides then you are being disrespectful to your children and your children's children

The power that any givernment has is purely financial - they are not forcing policy rather providing economic incentives to push what everybody sees as a fundaemental issue

http://image.patriotpost.us.s3.amazonaws.com/2009-10-28-chronicle.jpg


"The Copenhagen Conference is about the world's Lilliputians tying down its Gullivers."Investors.com - China, India Cancel Out Copenhagen (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=510152&amp)...

WHat I really love is when people think we shouldn't try to do something because it may be too hard to do

It always interests me when people point out that the effects you are trying to do will be cancelled out by another

May I sugest where do we try to sort the pollution out if people are going to be defeatist from the outset

And what I love is politicians who create crisis for the sole purpose of profiting from it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html

The US has anti-pollution regulations up the kazoo . Our air quality hasn't been this clean in decades . And as new technology enters the markets it gets cleaner still .
We don't need artificial guidelines dictated to us by people who's dual goal is environment and also a large dose of knocking down the US economy.

Why wouldn't a politician profit from something that is wrong with the world!

Isn't better to have a businessman in office than a unionist?

Where on earth Tom have you got the idea the climate agreement is designed or has anything to do with the US?

WHat I really love is when people think we shouldnt try to do something because it may be too hard to do

It always interests me when people point out that the effects you are trying to do wil be cancelled out by another

May I sugest where do we try to sort the pollution out if people are going to be defeatist from the outset

You make the typical argument that I hear over and over again from those on the left. The argument is essentially the same for all issues:

"If you don't support the leftist way of making change, you must be for the status quo."

Just because I don't support a GOVERNMENT-RUN or GOVERNMENT-ENFORCED reform doesn't mean that we want things to remain the same.

We are not saying that we shouldn't try to clean up the environment. We are just saying that 1) global warming isn't the reason to do it, and 2) government regulation isn't the method to do it.

As we have argued before, there are plenty of GOOD reasons to protect up the environment... if only so that my kids have the opportunity to hunt, fish and hike as I had the opportunity to do, and also to keep loggers in business as well. But don't give me this BS about global warming, a non-existant problem that was made up for POLITICAL purposes.

And as we have argued before, the best way to reform environmental consciousness is to create products that people are willing to use on their own, without having the government FORCE them to use it.

Let's face it... excon is right about the power of lobbyists in the USA. EXXON-MOBILE and the other oil companies are going to do everything they can to make sure that government never mandates electric cars and hybrid vehicles. And they have the power to make sure that the government never does it. Which means that government regulation will never happen in any meaningful way anyway, even if I were to support it (which I don't). Ditto for the coal industry and every other form of "dirty" fossil fuels.

So if government can't force the issue, then the only possible solution is a free market solution. If the auto makers can make good, affordable hybrid and electric cars that people want to drive, people will buy them. If someone can come up with a cheap, clean alternative fuel source, people will use it. And no government mandate will be necessary.

If government really does have the power to mandate such things, it is a power that they should not have, and that I do not favor them using. If they LACK that power due to lobbyist influence, then they can't do it anyway. Either way, the solution is not bigger government. The solution is a free market solution.

Elliot

Elliot

There are outside the US more than two choices available to political views, I am neither a republican or democrat

Since when did I argue that cleaning pollution has anything to do with global warming, I am not convinced that global warming is man made, I do however think pollution is unnecessary

Note of interest : In today's high court in the UK it has been made law that climate change and the reasons is now officially recognised as a philosophy

Do you read into things or do you read what is in front of you!?

You really contradict yourself, you want clean environment for your son to grow up in, which is happening now, and yet you wish to allow the market to take a generation to change over, by which time your son will be all grown up and the fish gone (a little extreme but you get my idea)

Regarding cars, lets forget the practical idea of electric cars at the moment, but if sales of electric cars continue, at some point they will surpass the petrol versions and at that point the oil companies can sing and dance all they like, they will be in a weak position - this is market pressure you agree with, and I do, and as long as the government can assist with speeding up the dleivery of electric cars to the market then what on earth is the problem

Your idea that any given government does not have a say in how or why certain issues should be handled is laughable - since the dawn of time, the man in charge has always had a say, just as his subjects have had an equal say back

Elliot

There are outside the US more than two choices available to political views, I am neither a republican or democrat

Since when did I argue that cleaning pollution has anything to do with global warming, I am not convinced that global warming is man made, I do however think pollution is unnecessary

Note of interest : In today's high court in the UK it has been made law that climate change and the reasons is now officially recognised as a philosophy

Do you read into things or do you read what is in front of you!?

Given the hidden agendas of so many people who argue politics, I tend to read between the lines. It has served me well in the past, as my reading tends to be rather acurate.



You really contradict yourself, you want clean environment for your son to grow up in, which is happening now, and yet you wish to allow the market to take a generation to change over, by which time your son will be all grown up and the fish gone (a little extreme but you get my idea)

You assume that this will take a generation. Why? I think it can happen rather quickly. It didn't take all that long for the Blackberry to become popular. Or the Ipod. It doesn't take a generation for a new product do go into production and become popular. It just takes developing a good product and some good advertising.


Regarding cars, lets forget the practical idea of electric cars at the moment, but if sales of electric cars continue, at some point they will surpass the petrol versions and at that point the oil companies can sing and dance all they like, they will be in a weak position - this is market pressure you agree with, and I do, and as long as the government can assist with speeding up the dleivery of electric cars to the market then what on earth is the problem

It's not the government's job to "assist" with anything in industry. It has no legal authority to do so here. And if the government "assists" in anything, then it is violating its requirement and responsibility to maintain a fair business environment.


Your idea that any given government does not have a say in how or why certain issues should be handled is laughable - since the dawn of time, the man in charge has always had a say, just as his subjects have had an equal say back

Actually, from the dawn of time, goverrnments had the right to dictate, and the people had no right to argue whatsoever. If they did, they were either punished harshly or executed outright.

Then we came along, and we made (in part) this declaration:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Within the Declaration of Independence is the justification for the limiting of the power of government... a "new Guard" for the future and security of the rights of the people.

Simply put, the government HAS NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY to make such laws. And if they do, it is OUR responsibility as citizens to either reverse their course by voting them out of office and putting in others who will put right what was wronged, or else to eliminate that government and begin anew. That's the principal that lead to the Revolution and the principal that created the United States of American in the first place. And that is the principal by which we SHOULD be operating today... the principal that a government that has too much power is a danger the G-d-given rights of man, and must therefore be LIMITED in its power.

By arguing for greater power for the government, you are in essence, rejecting the very basis on which the USA was created in the first place. And while there are many who would agree with you, I am not one of them.

The government does indeed have a say in how certain issues are to be handled. Those issues, however, are spelled out in the Constitution. The government has no other powers than those listed in the Constitution, and the reason for that is the basis of our genesis as an independent nation. Any call to increase the power of government beyond the responsibilities listed in the Constitution is in essence a rejection of the reason we became a nation in the first place.

I don't expect you, as a Brit, to follow that principal. Your genesis is very different from ours for all that it was our revolt against your king that caused our creation. The principals that guided the creation and formation of the United States are different from those that created the UK. But these ARE our principals. And while it might be OK for you and your countrymen to create a government that has increased and increasing power, that is for YOU, not for us.

So while you may think that the idea that the government should have limited power is laughable, it is, in fact, the very basis on which this nation was created. I don't find the concept laughable at all. I find it to be the only true path to liberty and freedom of choice. Anything else is an abrogation or subjegation of liberty and freedom of choice.

Elliot

HAHAHAHAHHA

Well if you mean by reading between the lines you think you can twist an argument to your liking is petty!

It didn't take a generation for the blackberry - but it took a generation for mobiles (cell) to become popular - or has the concept missed you by

So the government can't assist with business - now that's a concept! So the US government has put stimulas packages together - as just one of a million examples of where businesses benefit from the government domestically, and as for foreign assistance, don't the US government assist there either - I think they do - I would list some here but Google found millions!

So you think you invented democracy - sorry you are about 2200 years behind Greece on that issue, and as for all men equal, that took another hundred years before it came true, or has slavery just passed you by? Notg to mention the Magna Carta 500 years before your time, and list goes on! Your democracy is different to all others that is all, and as nobody has a perfect system yet, it is not clear which democracy is best

As regards your revolution ideas - again, that is how every rebellion or revolt is created - the suppressed attack the surpressors

AGAIN Stop reading between the lines - where the hell did I say greater government power??

I am stating that on some issues it is the repsonsibilities of a Government to assist with the introduction of a new product that will not only devolop new jobs, but provide a cleaner future for all the worlds citizens and not just the handful in america

It is still laughable that you think government assistance in certain areas in their attemot to grab power

I don't know if you have noticed this or not, but they already control you!

I presume you pay taxes, and are generally law abiding - so you are following their carrot mate - and one thing we in the UK hold dear is we don't need to carry photo ID if we wish not to!

I really think you have totally missed the point of democracy - or in fact any form of government - The People Always have the power!!

Again you are trying to put words in my mouth - if you can't read english Elliot, may I suggest you make a trip to England to learn!

I have no problem in accepting that your form of democracy is based on different ideals, but please do not hesitate for one second think you have the answer to it all because nobody does

I do suggest that you take a good look at what the governments do, because it is those in office that can dictate policy and influence markets, industry also has this power, and it is and will always be a combination of the two that works best for all men - ALL MEN Elliot, not just the ones that fit into a certain criteria

Why wouldn't a politician profit from something that is wrong with the world!

Isn't better to have a businessman in office than a unionist?


I prefer citizen statesmen myself. What I despise is someone like the Goracle doing chicken-little imitation pretending to be a concerned citizen of the world when in truth his aim is to exploit the hysteria he creates to build a lucrative business for himself. A little disclosure here please ? Was this whole charade designed for your personal profit Gore ?Here's how it worked .

Step 1. Lobby the world, the country, and the government that it must do something big and soon to save the planet. In Gore's case, we have his book, his movie, his franchised PowerPoint brief, his Nobel Peace Prize, his Oscar, etc.

Step 2. Specifically lobby your government to spend big money on projects to save the planet. Better yet, make sure that money goes to very specific contractors. In this case, we have "smart grids", which the government is now spending $3.4 billion on. And specifically, a little company called "Silver Spring Networks" got $560 million from the government for it.

Step 3. Invest in those very specific contractors. In Al Gore's case, he has a company for this investing kind of thing: Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. His company, by coincidence I'm sure, had invested $75 million in Silver Spring.

Step 4. Collect big money from those investments. In Al Gore's case, he is also a "corporate adviser" to Silver Spring.

Al Gore defends all this as putting his money where his mouth is and investing in what he believes. That would almost make sense, were it not for the fact that money is made in this "industry" only because the government is sending dump-trucks full of money to these companies.

I prefer citizen statesmen myself. What I despise is someone like the Goracle doing chicken-little imitation pretending to be a concerned citizen of the world when in truth his aim is to exploit the hysteria he creates to build a lucrative business for himself. A little disclosure here please ? Was this whole charade designed for your personal profit Gore ?Here's how it worked .

Step 1. Lobby the world, the country, and the government that it must do something big and soon to save the planet. In Gore's case, we have his book, his movie, his franchised PowerPoint brief, his Nobel Peace Prize, his Oscar, etc.

step 2. Specifically lobby your government to spend big money on projects to save the planet. Better yet, make sure that money goes to very specific contractors. In this case, we have "smart grids", which the government is now spending $3.4 billion on. And specifically, a little company called "Silver Spring Networks" got $560 million from the government for it.

Step 3. Invest in those very specific contractors. In Al Gore's case, he has a company for this investing kind of thing: Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. His company, by coincidence I'm sure, had invested $75 million in Silver Spring.

Step 4. Collect big money from those investments. In Al Gore's case, he is also a "corporate adviser" to Silver Spring.

Al Gore defends all this as putting his money where his mouth is and investing in what he believes. That would almost make sense, were it not for the fact that money is made in this "industry" only because the government is sending dump-trucks full of money to these companies.

Firstly, I think some people saw the movie over here, but I think more people are interested in watching nature programs by Sir David Attenborough

Al Gore for whatever he stands for is doing things the american way

Not only is he making money from the idea, but he is creating jobs in the process

Change costs money - any change costs money, however it comes about, somebody has to pay for it

Regardless of the Global Warming philosophy and that is all that it is, scientists have been able for the first time in mans history to start to work out the effects that man has on himself and his environment

And whether global warming is or is not, the simple truth is pollution is not and will never be good for anybody or anything on this planet

So regardless of how's why or wheres, if the governments around the world start to initiate programs of change then:

Why should we wait for industry to catch up - when the system can and does assist in the scheduling program

I suppose you have not familiarized yourself with the fiasco that was created when our government decided that it was in our interests to support ethanol from corn production.

Not enough time for me to deal with it now ;but I have commented on it here often . Suffice it to say it made bubble markets , creates food shortages ,and to top it off ;it was unproven that there were any advantages in converting corn into ethanol for cleaner emissions or energy independence. It just satisfied another lobby that did not give a damn about the cause they were promoting .

There is a genral rule of thumb in a capitalised society

There needed to be Betamax for VHS to win and take the industry standard

I have seen people trying all sorts from all over the world, and nobody has come up with a definite way yet of providing SAFE energy for all

Until there is an industry standard, people will try all sorts of things to find the answer

I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
Thomas A. Edison

Yes ;that's my point too. The market will sort itself out . We do not need the government deciding the winners and losers.

HAHAHAHAHHA

Well if you mean by reading between the lines you think you can twist an argument to your liking is petty!

It didn't take a generation for the blackberry - but it took a generation for mobiles (cell) to become popular - or has the concept missed you by

Really?

The first cellular networks launched in the USA were in the mid 1980s. By the mid 90s, everyone had a cell phone. As soon as their use became easy, affordable and convenient, people started using them. It didn't take a generation to catch on... not even close.


So the government can't assist with business - now that's a concept! So the US government has put stimulas packages together - as just one of a million examples of where businesses benefit from the government domestically, and as for foreign assistance, don't the US government assist there either - I think they do - I would list some here but Google found millions!

What they DO and what they are ALLOWED to do are two different things. A third is what they SHOULD be allowed to do.


So you think you invented democracy - sorry you are about 2200 years behind Greece on that issue, and as for all men equal, that took another hundred years before it came true, or has slavery just passed you by? Notg to mention the Magna Carta 500 years before your time, and list goes on! Your democracy is different to all others that is all, and as nobody has a perfect system yet, it is not clear which democracy is best

As regards your revolution ideas - again, that is how every rebellion or revolt is created - the suppressed attack the surpressors

AGAIN Stop reading between the lines - where the hell did I say greater government power??

As soon as you mention allowing government to make decisions as to which businesses or industries it will help, you are granting them more power. As soon as you allow them to create incentives for certain businesses, you are granting them more power. As soon as you say that they should regulate businesses, you are granting them more power. This isn't reading between the lines... it is simply the result of implementing your ideas.


I am stating that on some issues it is the repsonsibilities of a Government to assist with the introduction of a new product that will not only devolop new jobs, but provide a cleaner future for all the worlds citizens and not just the handful in america

And I am saying that it is NOT their job to do so, and giving them the power to do so is the same as giving them the power to choose which businesses they will help succeed and which they will push toward failure. You are, in effect, granting them the power to slew the playing field in whatever direction THEY think is the right way to go rather than letting the PEOPLE determine what they want through an open market.


It is still laughable that you think government assistance in certain areas in their attemot to grab power

I don't know if you have noticed this or not, but they already control you!

Yes, I did notice. That's why I am trying to roll back their power.


I really think you have totally missed the point of democracy - or in fact any form of government - The People Always have the power!!

Funny... Clete would (and has) argued otherwise.

But the fact is that we only have power over the government as long as we EXERCISE IT. Power ends as soon as we allow the government to dictate business and industry policy and allow them to get away with it. Power ends as soon as we give the government more power over us than we have over them and allow them to dictate to us what kinds of toilets we can use, what kind of lights we can use, and what kind of cars we can use. We only have power over government if we are willing to limit its power.


Again you are trying to put words in my mouth - if you can't read english Elliot, may I suggest you make a trip to England to learn!

Perhaps you should make yourself more clear.


I have no problem in accepting that your form of democracy is based on different ideals, but please do not hesitate for one second think you have the answer to it all because nobody does

Yes I do. You ought to try it my way... then you'll have all the answers too.


I do suggest that you take a good look at what the governments do, because it is those in office that can dictate policy and influence markets, industry also has this power, and it is and will always be a combination of the two that works best for all men - ALL MEN Elliot, not just the ones that fit into a certain criteria

Yes, industry does have power... but only as long as PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO BUY THEIR PRODUCTS. That is where people get their power in the free market... by choosing what they buy and from whom. That is as direct a form of control as has ever been created by man, and it gives us the final say on any product, business or industry. But if we allow government to have more influence over the market than WE do, we are giving up control of not only the government, but the economy as well.

I for one do not wish to give up that control.

You, apparently have no problem doing so.

Elliot

A generation is classed at 20 years

You state 1984 start, and the us used them first in your market

Here it was more of late 90s before everyone had one

So Whether you class 10 years or 15 years as considerably shorter really makes no difference, SHOULD we really wait 10 -15 years for people to realise that using a 100w light bulb vs the 11w lightbulb is just plain stupid, but seen as their stupidty effects my right to freedom of choice, then why not ban the thing in what most people see as the correct choice to make

So instead of waiting 10 years plus, we can save a shed load of energy in months!

The problem with any document of words is that two people can read them two different ways - so you say they shouldn't be doing something, yet I don't here of impeachments or arrests?

How have you got from providing incentives to green engergy devolopment, which is a response to the peoples cries, which is democracy TO giving them more power? The leap is too much for me to understand?

I refer my right honourable gentlemen to the Miners Strike of the 80s in this country, here we had an industry that needed to be reformed

The workers opposed it, even though it was no longer economically viable to be run.

It had to be reformed, we couldn't allow it to continue in its present form, so here you have the responsibility of the government making a decision that is of the benefit to the country

Incidentally we are on the verge of going through the same mess with Royal Mail, but that is a different story

You cannot leave it up to the market to always make the right choices for itself, just as you can't leave it up to the government

It is a combination of all the factors that make up the checks and balances within a system

Pollution - VERY BAD! Green Energy GOOD! It is so hard to appreciate the simplistic nature of the decision, that you have to refer to a document that was written before pollution really started to effect people

If you don't understand my comments you can always ask for clarification instead of assuming

If your way worked for everybody then everybody would be doing it - let me know how many are in your camp :)

It is still amusing to find someone who thinks they have total control over their lives. Come on we have covered this point already so I will shut up on this

The government has always played an influence in the market because the market has the money and can influence the government

However, the government can create industries by making laws or imposing certain import/export taxes that will reflect what the social thoughts are for the day

Are you trying to tell me that you think the government doesn't influence the markets with the acts of laws and taxes, and if so are you saying that the government shouldn't have that right or power over the market?

When you say things like "pollution-Bad" you really need to define what you mean.

Define pollution. Does it include CO2? Because if it does, I would argue that it is NOT bad.

"Green energy- good"? For whom? The 11w lightbulbs that are supposed to give off as much light as a 120W lightbulb generally don't. The light is dimmer, colder, and causes me to have headaches. The electric cars that are generally supposed to be more efficient than a gas fueled vehicle run out of juice after only 100 miles... and are therefore NOT efficient for long trips. Therefore, these products are NOT the best or most efficient items on the market FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING FORCED TO USE THEM. Despite your assumption that they are.

So you are making assumptions about what people are "supposed to know" that may or may not be true. And you are concluding that if YOU know it to be true, it must be true, and that if anyone DOESN'T believe the same way, they are either evil or stupid, and must therefore be controlled by government.

I'm saying that your assumptions about what is best for people have not been proven true, and that the only way for them to be proven true is to let the people decide for themselves... via the free market.

And for that reason alone, the government should NOT have influence over the markets, should not be allowed to control the markets, and should not have the power to determine what people should buy, use or sell.

If you really want to know what's best for the people, let the people make the decision. Otherwise all you are doing is making an unproven assumption and turning it into a government mandate.

Simply put, the government neither knows me nor cares what my needs are. Therefore, they cannot make the decisions that are in my best interest. I can.

Elliot

So you think pollution is co2 - interesting

Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e. physical systems or living organisms

You also think that pollution is acceptable in any form if it can be justified - questionable!

You think electric cars only go for 100 miles - interesting, besides I was using them as an example, I could quite have easily stated Hydrogen Fuel Cars

You try to make argument based on pinpointing or nit picking a specific section, using energy saving light bulbs is just one way where we can reduce the energy cost

Or has America got all the energy it needs and doesn't rely on foreign markets for most of its use - have I got this wrong??

Tell you what Elliot, you go and live right next door to an industrial area that is pumping out pollutants all day - I am sure you and your son will be more than happy to do that

Problem is pollutants don't just stay around an area, they tend to travel downwind, so what happens in another country can effect me and my family - that's why I have said several times -

Freedom Choice does not give anyone the right to take away anothers freedom of choice

Pollution from man is just stupid, especially as we can all work to providing cleaner air

None of what I have said is referring to global warming - I am still not convinced either, I am referring to what man can do to clean up his act

And whether you think the market should chose or not it is not as simple as allowing the minority to ruin what the majority want, or has the basis of democracy completely been thrown out of the window in favour for marketing trends?

So you think pollution is co2 - interesting


Our stupid Supreme Court has ruled C02 a pollutant and our EPA is running with the ruling to impose regulations on business under the pretext.
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Salvo Tom

I appreciate most governments target Co2 specifically, but take a Diseil Engine in a car - it will produce :

* carbon (soot);
* carbon monoxide;
* aldehydes;
* nitrogen dioxide;
* sulphur dioxide;
* polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

None of which anybody would like to breathe in but we all do

So regardless of what ever crap all our governments spout on, and why they do, the facts are this

If you want to carry on in a system where pollutants are consistently pumped into the air, then please by all means try sucking on an exhaust pipe, if you want clean air, simply start switching to energy saving products that are being supplemented by the governments to get them to market quicker

It's a no-brainer

And whether you think the market should chose or not it is not as simple as allowing the minority to ruin what the majority want, or has the basis of democracy completly been thrown out of the window in favour for marketing trends?

What you have now is the tyranny of the minority, we don't have democracy any more but the one who shouts the loudest gets heard. Since those here like to look back and stay close to the roots of things let us consider the roots of democracy, which surprise, surprise, didn't start in the USA and how the greeks would have handled this debate.

They would have said this is interesting we will hear you again, Not, we will immediately do what you say

What you have now is the tyranny of the minority, we don't have democracy any more but the one who shouts the loudest gets heard. Since those here like to look back and stay close to the roots of things let us consider the roots of democracy, which surprise, surprise, didn't start in the USA and how the greeks would have handled this debate.

They would have said this is interesting we will hear you again, Not, we will immediately do what you say

Don't forget it is who can be photographed the best, it is often said that if Franklin D. Roosevelt was shown in his wheel chair then he probably wouldn't have been voted into office

Too bad there wasn't a willing photgrapher nearby .

So you think pollution is co2 - interesting

No... I happen to think that CO2 is NOT pollution. But the GOVERNMENT DOES... which is the point I was making and the point that you missed.

In other words, I was saying that government is REGULATING THE WRONG THING.


You also think that pollution is acceptable in any form if it can be justified - questionable!

I think that the "fact" that there is pollution being caused by the use of lightbulbs or automobiles is questionable.


You think electric cars only go for 100 miles - interesting, besides I was using them as an example, I could quite have easily stated Hydrogen Fuel Cars

Actually, I don't "think" anything of the sort. I KNOW IT TO BE TRUE. I just saw a documentary special called "Who Killed the Electric Car" (Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2006) that specifically said that electric cars go 100 miles on a single charge. They also talked about the wonderful speed of the vehicles, which seemed to top out at 80 MPH. My 2002 Ford does over 100 easily, so I'm not that impressed with the electric cars. They were specifically talking about the GM EV1 and EV+ vehicles. If you have better information, please let me know.

As for hydrogen-powered vehicles, they aren't safe yet. The fuel cells are still subject to damage from bumps in the road or car accidents. Furthermore, the cells themselves are expensive. Finally, the water vapor in the fuel cells can freeze during the winter causing the vehicle to be unable to start.

And there is this interesting point made by Technology Today in their April 2007 issue:


In the context of the overall energy economy, a car like the BMW Hydrogen 7 would proba­bly produce far more carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline-powered cars available today. And changing this calculation would take multiple breakthroughs--which study after study has predicted will take decades, if they arrive at all. In fact, the Hydrogen 7 and its hydrogen-fuel-cell cousins are, in many ways, simply flashy distractions produced by automakers who should be taking stronger immediate action to reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions of their cars.
Technology Review: Hell and Hydrogen (http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18301/)


Sure, the government COULD mandate the use of hydrogen-powered cars. And sure, that would mean that we had to use them. Yes, the government could jump-start the industry... they certainly have the power to do so.

But SHOULD they?

If the technology is sound, safe, effective and efficient, people will buy it on their own. If it is not, the government has no business demanding that we do it.


You try to make argument based on pinpointing or nit picking a specific section, using energy saving light bulbs is just one way where we can reduce the energy cost

And so far, there have been very few cases where the new technology is both equally effective in doing the job it is supposed to do as the older technology AND more fuel efficient, resulting in a lower cost. That's why the government has had to FORCE the situation. If these technologies really were just as good and more energy efficient/less polluting, people would be buying them on their own. Lightbulbs are just one case where that is true... the flourescents fail to do the job as well as the incandescents. Electric cars are another example... they are less capable of handling long trips and don't have real speed. And hydrogen technology is far from perfected, as I have said.

Bottom line, the reason the government needs to get involved with these projects and create regulations that push them onto the public is because the public doesn't really want them because they aren't as good as what we have now. When the technology catches up, people will be happy to buy them without needing to be forced by the government to do it.


Or has America got all the energy it needs and doesn't rely on foreign markets for most of its use - have I got this wrong??

Actually, with all the oil shoal in the midwest and all the oil off the gulf coast and in Alaska and elsewhere, we actually do have all the energy we need for the next 150 years or so. Problem is, our government isn't letting us dig for it due to... you guessed it... "environmental concerns".


Tell you what Elliot, you go and live right next door to an industrial area that is pumping out pollutants all day - I am sure you and your son will be more than happy to do that

Define "pollutants". According to the US Government, CO2 is a pollutant... and all of us live with CO2 every day. The US Government also calls methane a pollutant... which would mean that cow farmers are at particular risk for pollution. Not to mention that "natural gas", which is one of the main sources of alternative "clean" fuels is actually methane.

The problem isn't regulating pollution. The problem is how they are defining pollution. They are doing so with a political agenda in mind, not an environmental agenda. That is why the government needs to stop being involved. They just screw it up.


Problem is pollutants don't just stay around an area, they tend to travel downwind, so what happens in another country can effect me and my family - that's why I have said several times -

And I agree. But it ain't the job of your government or mine to fix it. It's OUR job to fix it by coming up with alternative industrial methods that are cleaner that people will want to use. And getting rich off the new product, method or system is our reward/incentive for doing so.


Freedom Choice does not give anyone the right to take away anothers freedom of choice

True. But having the government limit freedom of choice doesn't help anybody.


Pollution from man is just stupid, especially as we can all work to providing cleaner air

Pollution from man is inevitable. Pollution is a product of life. Every time a pre-industrial man cooked his food on an open flame he produced pollution. Every time a man breaths, he gives off CO2, which the government defines as pollution. Every time he goes to the bathroom, he produces pollution. Every time he sweats, he is giving off pollution. Pollution is a byproduct of life.

Should we limit the amount of pollution we produce wherever possible? Yes. But "wherever possible" needs to be determined by us, not by the governments of the world who have no idea what "wherever possible" means in our individual cases.


None of what I have said is referring to global warming - I am still not convinced either, I am referring to what man can do to clean up his act

And whether you think the market should chose or not it is not as simple as allowing the minority to ruin what the majority want, or has the basis of democracy completely been thrown out of the window in favour for marketing trends?

The majority ALWAYS will choose the best product at the cheapest price. If you allow the market forces to solve the issue, the majority will ALWAYS follow. But that takes perfecting the product to a level that makes the people want it. A free market always does what the majority wants. It's a regulated market that causes the minority to have control over the majority.

Elliot

If you allow the market forces to solve the issue, the majority will ALWAYS follow. Hello p:

The Wolverine lives in theory - not the real world.. He thinks polluters will stop polluting just because it's the right thing to do. Then, when somebody actually questions that idiocy, he'll just argue that CO2 ISN'T a pollutant...

I guess he's saying that we can just dump as much CO2 into our atmosphere as we want because you breath it out, and plants love it... It's like saying, don't listen to those people who tell you that water can kill you... Water ISN'T a pollutant... It can't kill you either... Unless, of course, you breathe too much of it.

His argument is specious on its face. He doesn't understand that we shouldn't keep throwing our trash into the air.

excon

Salvo Ex

As we both know Co2 is good for the plants, just not us

But regardless of if whys science etc, how can anybody argue that pumping out these gases from desiel engine is good for you, when it has been proven to cause really bad health conditions

* carbon (soot);
* carbon monoxide;
* aldehydes;
* nitrogen dioxide;
* sulphur dioxide;
* polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

How can anybody argue against the notion that Pollution is bad, Clean Energy is good, is just beyond me, it just sounds simple maths, and regardless of what ever is imposed on us to achieve this goal is just fine by me!

For us here the effects of pollution will stay with us for the rest of our lives we are that covered in the stuff, but future generations should not have to put up with what will only get worst if left unchecked

And maybe if Elliot understod anything about epigenetics, he would also understand that the effect will not leave the human DNA for a long time if ever, something that can be stopped so easily

Hello again, p:

I'm sure the owners of rust belt industries had the same arguments when they're time was over... What I don't understand, though, is his thinking that we don't have the entrepreneurial skills to come out of these times even stronger. That's kind of anti-right wing thinking as far as I can tell.

But, he's not alone with his head in the sand mentality... While we were sleeping, the Chinese jumped on green technology, and they're selling it to US. There's a HUGE wind farm being proposed in Texas. The Chinese have the turbines AND they'll finance it for us. Schumer Seeks to Block Stimulus Money for Chinese-Backed Texas Wind Farm - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com (http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/schumer-seeks-to-block-stimulus-funds-for-chinese-backed-texas-wind-farm/)

I thought he was pro AMERICAN business..

excon

I'd be more concerned with being beholden to the Chinese neodymium,terbium, and dysprosium ,lanthanum cartels . Each Toyota Prius uses about 11 kg of rare earth elements, but will need almost twice as much under the automaker's plans to boost the hybrid's fuel efficiency. The turbines in the windmills also use these minerals.

Funny thing is all these fancy clean energy ideas requires the equivalent of strip mining of rare minerals [many of which are found in Chinese controlled land]once we begin a mass conversion of our energy supply to "clean energy" .
I guess there is no environmental concerns there or concerns over the fact that we will be dependent on a foreign source for our energy .

The Schmuckster is of course an idiot. But he's an idiot who thinks he can add buy American provisions into law without international consequences.

For more on this read
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/hybrid-cars-minerals

By the way . The Nobel Prize in Economics this year was won by Elinor Ostrom, who showed that self governance of the "commons".. or the common-pool resource (CPR), is more efficient than ham-handed outside dictates .

Academics, aid donors, international nongovernmental organizations, central governments, and local citizens need to learn and relearn that no government can develop the full array of knowledge, institutions and social capital needed to govern development efficiently and sustainably. The sheer variety of cultural and biological adaptations to diverse ecological conditions is so great that I am willing to make the following assertion: Any single, comprehensive set of formal laws intended to govern a large expanse of territory containing diverse ecological niches is bound to fail in many of the areas where it is applied.

Streamline Training & Documentation: Elinor Ostrom's Research on Management of Common Resources (http://streamlinetraining.blogspot.com/2009/10/elinor-ostroms-research-on-management.html)

I'd be more concerned with being beholden to the Chinese neodymium,terbium, and dysprosium ,lanthanum cartels . Each Toyota Prius uses about 11 kg of rare earth elements, but will need almost twice as much under the automaker's plans to boost the hybrid's fuel efficiency. The turbines in the windmills also use these minerals.



You should be much more concerned about being beholden to the chinese financially. The GFC was caused by the west borrowing money from China and investing it in worthless real estate in the USA. If your fancy cars don't work you can always go back to old technology but if they foreclose and want to take possession. Fortunately because it was capitalism in action you can say it was the banks, the big bad banks who took your money. Like the big bad wolf they huffed and they puffed and they blew you house down. Remember that china gets these minerals from poor African nations

The answer to green or clean energy probably doesn't lie in some of the fields being tried at the moment

Whereas Solar Power and Wind Power are ideal for small rural communities, and biomass for small villages and towns, it will probably be nuclear that wins the day

When there are incentives for industries it handles some of the financial burden placed on trying to devolop a new product, but non if what I have seen iks wrong, all working towards what most people see as must do act

I can appreciate that interferace and ultimatly running of institutions shouldn't be done by governments, it doesn't stop them providing such incentives, particular when this can attract foreign investment into a country which produces jobs and that is one of the responsbilities of any government

Hello p:

The Wolverine lives in theory - not the real world.. He thinks polluters will stop polluting just because it's the right thing to do. Then, when somebody actually questions that idiocy, he'll just argue that CO2 ISN'T a pollutant...

I guess he's saying that we can just dump as much CO2 into our atmosphere as we want because you breath it out, and plants love it... It's like saying, don't listen to those people who tell you that water can kill you... Water ISN'T a pollutant... It can't kill you either... Unless, of course, you breathe too much of it.

His argument is specious on its face. He doesn't understand that we shouldn't keep throwing our trash into the air.

excon


No one is arguing that we can " dump as much C02 into the atmosphere.." that is a strawman. Saying that one does not believe in human caused global warming is NOT the same as saying one is for pollution; in fact one can believe in conservation, and recycling, and efficient use of energy resources AND not believe in the religion of human caused global warming. Anyway, it is a biologically fact, any 5th grader can tell you, that C02 is necessary for plant life. Show me the studies suggesting that reducing C02 is good for plant life? What if we had less plants? Wouldn't we have less 02? In a world of ever increasing human population, how are you going to feed these people if we reduce the C02, if that were possible, that plants and agriculture need?

Speaking of water, you do know water vapor is more of a green house gas than c02 is, right? Would you suggest reducing water? I'm not sure who in their right mind would try to breathe water? That is unless they were being waterboarded ;)


G&P

Hello p:

The Wolverine lives in theory - not the real world.. He thinks polluters will stop polluting just because it's the right thing to do.

You again just proved that you missed the point.

I don't think anyone will stop polluting because it's the right thing to do.

I don't think that the government will stop polluters either. Any attempts to do so will screw the situation up worse, as they have every time they have tried it until now.

What I think is that people will stop polluting when it is in their best interest to do so. Their best interest will be when there is a cheaper, easier, more efficient alternative that is just as effective as what they do now.

This isn't theory, it is fact.

So let's USE that fact by letting someone come up with an effective alternative, sell that alternative on the open market, satisfy the public's demand for such an alternative, and get rich in the process.

But trying to get government to force people to go along with an alternative that DOESN'T work is a disaster in the making. People will rebel against it, government representatives who want to get re-elected will get rid of it, and we'll be right back at square one. Or worse. People might remember their "bad experience" with a product that didn't work and will never want to take a chance on ANY alternative ever again, even if it's an effective one that really does meet their needs.

Government can only make the situtation worse. It cannot make the situation better. But the free market CAN make the situation better... if we allow time for alternatives to be properly developed to the point that it can really compete with what we've got now.

Elliot

I guess he's saying that we can just dump as much CO2 into our atmosphere as we want because you breath it out, and plants love it... It's like saying, don't listen to those people who tell you that water can kill you... Water ISN'T a pollutant... It can't kill you either... Unless, of course, you breathe too much of it.

His argument is specious on its face. He doesn't understand that we shouldn't keep throwing our trash into the air.

excon

Again, you put forth the false argument that if I don't support YOUR way of making change, I must be in favor of the status quo.

No matter how many times I point out that I support change, just change that doesn't involve the government, you try to claim that I am against change. You argue that I am against change EVEN AS I PUT FORTH THE TYPE OF CHANGE THAT I SUPPORT.

You're wrong. Again. Talk about specious arguments.

Elliot

I don't think anyone will stop polluting because it's the right thing to do.


Elliot
Perhaps you are right, however few of us would live in a garbage tip.

First you have to be convinced that what you are doing is actually polluting. It is easy when you are surrounded by smog to see pollution but when you have clear skies how can you be convinced that that power station is polluting.

People need a financial incentive, but not a negative incentive of rising costs or a tax which is a thinly veiled revenue raising.

People need a financial incentive, but not a negative incentive of rising costs or a tax which is a thinly veiled revenue raising.

Agreed. And the free market is the best place to create that incentive without also creating a tax.

Elliot

Agreed. And the free market is the best place to create that incentive without also creating a tax.

Elliot

You are surely not relying on a cap and trade scheme to produce results?

If that were going to produce results it would have done so already in the places it has been tried. Licenses to pollute are not the answer, that is just business as usual, and inevietablely the population pays just like a tax it is just politically convenient to pass the buck to someoneelse.

The free market will only act in its own interest that is why it is called the "free" market. Thus far it has done squat

What I think is that people will stop polluting when it is in their best interest to do so. Their best interest will be when there is a cheaper, easier, more efficient alternative that is just as effective as what they do now.

This isn't theory, it is fact. Hello again, Elliot:

In theory, I guess the meat packers wouldn't sell bad meat because it's not in their interest to do so... But, in fact, in the REAL WORLD, they sell bad meat because they make more money when they do. THAT is their interest - not the safety of their customers... I don't know how you miss this stuff.

You think the USDA who inspects your meat for wholesomeness is really a government plot...

You don't understand how the real world works - not even close.

excon

Hello again, Elliot:

In theory, I guess the meat packers wouldn't sell bad meat because it's not in their interest to do so... But, in fact, in the REAL WORLD, they sell bad meat because they make more money when they do. THAT is their interest - not the safety of their customers... I don't know how you miss this stuff.

You think the USDA who inspects your meat for wholesomeness is really a government plot...

You don't understand how the real world works - not even close.

excon

That could be because he doesn't eat that meat anyway. Elliot is a self confessed economist, of course he doesn't know how the real world works, he relies on models and scenarios to tell him what is happening.

I especially like the government plot to eradiate food to preserve it. What are we preserving it for? So we can have bigger land fills that produce methane gas for green power. I suggest we short circuit the process and send all food to the waste dump as soon as it is produced, we solve both the energy problem and the consumption problem at the same time, a win-win and we do away with those nasty green house gas producing humans, a bonus

Whereas Solar Power and Wind Power are ideal for small rural communities, and biomass for small villages and towns, it will probably be nuclear that wins the day

As you say SALVO!! When people drop their silly paranoia about the industry everyone will be better off.

Salvo Tom

When a biomass power station was installed down the road from me, being a friend of the person who builds them I saw the plans, and there is not a drop of emission that can come out of it

However at the local planning office, we heard objections because it was going to cause cancer, smog every morning and night, congestion because of all the tractors (its a rural village already) and so on

Talk about paranoia based on stupidty!

I am not in favour of nuclear as it still has a small percentage of failure - its is small but still there

However, I will be more than happy to except it once all avenues have been exhausted, and or used

Eitherway, everyone in the world needs power, and building gas and coal stations is just bonkers!

Remember that china gets these minerals from poor African nations

That is not the facts. The Chinese are mining these rare minerals mostly from Mongolia.


The GFC was caused by the west borrowing money from China and investing it in worthless real estate in the USA.
What caused the GFC is of course the making of another op . I would argue that gvt interventions caused bubbles.

I have no inherent opposition to Chinese investments in the US . I think it is good for the country . I am critical of the US Treasury's and Federal Reserve for the last decade's decision to not promote a strong US currency. But if the Chinese invested in US real estate during the bubble and the bubble collapsed then Booo hooo . The Japanese when they were the "economic dynamo "to be emulated once invested $2 billion in Rockefeller Center .Ask them how that worked out !

Eitherway, everyone in the world needs power, and building gas and coal stations is just bonkers!


Agreed ;turning an energy source into another energy source is frankly a waste of energy. It would be more efficient to just use the natural gas in fueling autos and mass transit. It is a much cleaner alternative to petroleum.

That could be because he doesn't eat that meat anyway. Elliot is a self confessed economist, of course he doesn't know how the real world works, he relies on models and scenarios to tell him what is happening.

I especially like the government plot to eradiate food to preserve it. What are we preserving it for? so we can have bigger land fills that produce methane gas for green power. I suggest we short circuit the process and send all food to the waste dump as soon as it is produced, we solve both the energy problem and the consumption problem at the same time, a win-win and we do away with those nasty green house gas producing humans, a bonus

I think some people have got so used to receiving good service due to regulations and rules that they have forgotten what businesses do at times to make a profit

I sell cars - and my trade is full of people who con customers

When I needed cash years ago, I would sell some really dodgy cars, I never lied if asked directly, but I never offered info if I wasn't - I needed to sell cars to make the money - nowadays I am all above board, however there are plenty of people who need to make money and will do whatever it takes to achieve this

That is why the regs and rules are in place, because even with them it continues, but without them I would be the first one to profit from the situation

To address the methane, unfortunately the oceans will produce more methane than man can, cows produce more methane than the oceans and man combined, so unless we are already to give up steak I suggest we find another way :D

When I needed cash years ago, I would sell some really dodgy cars, I never lied if asked directly, but I never offered info if I wasn't - I needed to sell cars to make the money
And if I was the owner of the car lot next to yours I would've made it a point to tell customers that the lot next to mine sold lemons and not autos.

Intersting you thought I was selling from a lot (pitch) - very interesting!

You are surely not relying on a cap and trade scheme to produce results?

Oh hell no. What would be free-market about a cap & trade program? That's pure government interventionalism.

I'm talking about private individuals or businesses coming up with alternative fuels and tools that work just as well as or better than what we currently have, and that save money and energy. I'm talking about those businesses then selling these products to the public. And I'm talking about keeping the government out of it.

The alternative being put forth is for the government to mandate that we buy these products NOW before they have been perfected, and can't do the job as well as what we currently have. I'm talking about the government forcing us, in the name of social responsibility, to buy products that we really don't want because they aren't any good. Cap & Trade is a good example of that, but is not the only method by which the government forces people to buy stuff they don't really want.

Those are the two alternatives put forth. Phlanx SEEMS to prefer the second method... the government intervention approach. I prefer the first... the free-market approach.

Elliot

Oh hell no. What would be free-market about a cap & trade program? That's pure government interventionalism.

I'm talking about private individuals or businesses coming up with alternative fuels and tools that work just as well as or better than what we currently have, and that save money and energy. I'm talking about those businesses then selling these products to the public. And I'm talking about keeping the government out of it.

The alternative being put forth is for the government to mandate that we buy these products NOW before they have been perfected, and can't do the job as well as what we currently have. I'm talking about the government forcing us, in the name of social responsibility, to buy products that we really don't want because they aren't any good. Cap & Trade is a good example of that, but is not the only method by which the government forces people to buy stuff they don't really want.

Those are the two alternatives put forth. Phlanx SEEMS to prefer the second method... the government intervention approach. I prefer the first... the free-market approach.

Elliot

Elliot, businesses tell the market which product to choose - don't you get that, the choices you make are based on what businesses provide you

If left up to industry to change over to low energy products they would be reluctant to do so due to high cost R&D and difficulty introducing new products to the market

Why would anyone want to wait a generation (!) for something that can be done very quickly

If the product at the moment is not good enough then guess what, the companies selling the products now have the cashflow to redevolop and improve

This is how the markets work, this is how markets have always worked, and you think being pushed in one direction is against your rights - laughable considering it effects all humans and not just one nation

You do realise elliot, the rest of the world look at the US and ask how come 5 percent of the world's population, consume 25 per-cent of the worlds oil production, mostly in the form of vehicle fuel

You have to start to take responsiblilty for a system that has an end! You have to start to create ways of getting this dependency down, because if you don't the US your son will know will not be the one you know

You do realise elliot, the rest of the world look at the US and ask how come 5 percent of the world's population, consume 25 per-cent of the worlds oil production, mostly in the form of vehicle fuel


It is an interesting statistic, an even more interesting one is how 5% of the world's population produce 90% of the world's problems. Now if they just turned their mind to producing 90% of the world's solutions...

STEVE suggested that in the interest of reducing methane production we might consider a non beef diet. Might I ask what percentage of the world's beef is consumed in the USA? They are also responsible for 30% of the methane produced by those livestock. How could 5% of the world's population consume 30% of the world's beef? Incredible

Actually I prefer a rack of New Zealand lamb ribs over a beef steak . But from what I hear that has an even larger methane footprint.

actually I prefer a rack of New Zealand lamb ribs over a beef steak . But from what I hear that has an even larger methane footprint.

No the kiwi tax animal emissions so you get your lamb methane emission free, but you should try Australian salt bush raised lamb a much better product and as the grass isn't as rich there are less emissions. Better still switch to kangaroo and be emission free

I will try kangaroo one of these days.

I will try kangaroo one of these days.

Yes and eat the crocodiles before they eat you

You do realise elliot, the rest of the world look at the US and ask how come 5 percent of the world's population, consume 25 per-cent of the worlds oil production, mostly in the form of vehicle fuel

Do you realize that we refine the largest amount of the world's oil? Russia, which has the second largest oil refinery capacity in the world produced less than 1/3 the amount of refined oil that we do.

Oil can't be used until it is refined into various forsm... heating oil, fuel oil, lubricants, etc. And the only country in the world with the capacity to make refined oil in large enough quantities to service worldwide demand is... you guessed it... the good ol' USA.

We are the world's largest consumers of energy by far. We are also the largest PRODUCER of oil in a usable form for the world market.

So I'd say that the world is getting a fair trade.

If you'd like to know the exact figures:

According to the Energy Information Administration's June 25, 2009 Refinery Capacity Report, total USA refinery capaccity is 18,681,308 barrels per day.

By comparison, Australia's (the continent, not the country) total capacity is 973,000 barrels per day.

Asia's (excluding Russian owned refineries) total capacity is 17,807,210 barrels per day.

Africa's total capacity is 3,506,950 barrels per day.

The Middle East's total capacity is 7,475,300 barrels per day.

Latin America's capacity is 6,626,270 barrels per day.

The Carribean's capacity is 1,622,500 barrels per day.

Canada and Mexico together produce 3,813,600 barrels per day.

Europe, with the exception of Russia, has a capacity of 17,953,200 barrels per day.

Russia, which has refineries in both Asia and Europe, has a total capacity of 4,572,800.

Taken as a whole, the world produces 83,032,138 barrels of refined oil per day. The USA produces 1/5th of that.


One more point: as a per-capita figure, the USA is actually the 10th largest user of energy in the world. Ahead of the USA is:

Qatar - 21,395.8 kg of Oil Equivalents/annum/person
Iceland - 11,718.1
UAE - 10,538.7
Bahrain - 10,250.5
Luxembourg - 9,408.8
Netherlands Antilles - 9,198.5
Kuwait - 9,076.0
Trinidad & Tobago - 8,555.1
Canada - 8,300.7

And then comes the USA with 7,794.8 KGOE/annum/person.

(Source: http://pdf.wri.org/wrr05_full_hires.pdf page 216.)

How come nobody complains about Qatar's use of energy being out of whack? Qatar uses 3 times the amount of energy per person that the USA does? Why is the USA the bad guy?

So this argument about us being the largest consumer of energy is somewhat silly when you consider all the facts about how much we produce and how much we consume on a per-capita basis.

By comparison, Australia's (the continent, not the country) total capacity is 973,000 barrels per day.

How come nobody complains about Qatar's use of energy being out of whack? Qatar uses 3 times the amount of energy per person that the USA does? Why is the USA the bad guy?

So this argument about us being the largest consumer of energy is somewhat silly when you consider all the facts about how much we produce and how much we consume on a per-capita basis.

This is the first time I have heard someone try to separate the Australian people from the land on which they stand. I wasn't aware of another nation occupying the Australian continent, unless you are referring to aboriginal Australia which is a figment of the imagination. Just demonstrates US ignorance of anything outside their borders

As far as Qatar is concerned two pennith of nothing is still nothing. How much of that is contributed by the US presence there. The same old lame a**ed excuse, we are not as bad as that guy over there. The truth, yes, you are and worse. Compare yourself with China, the nation that produces a lot of your consumer goods, you are wasteful, just as wasteful as we are in fact on that scale, but then we are digging the minerals out of the ground and sending then to China so they can sell them to you, so your numbers don't stack up. You are among the worse emitters on Earth and the source of the problem. Much of your emissions are contained in other nations figures

Do you realize that we refine the largest amount of the world's oil? Russia, which has the second largest oil refinery capacity in the world produced less than 1/3 the amount of refined oil that we do.

Oil can't be used until it is refined into various forsm... heating oil, fuel oil, lubricants, etc. And the only country in the world with the capacity to make refined oil in large enough quantities to service worldwide demand is... you guessed it... the good ol' USA.

We are the world's largest consumers of energy by far. We are also the largest PRODUCER of oil in a usable form for the world market.

So I'd say that the world is getting a fair trade.

If you'd like to know the exact figures:

According to the Energy Information Administration's June 25, 2009 Refinery Capacity Report, total USA refinery capaccity is 18,681,308 barrels per day.

By comparison, Australia's (the continent, not the country) total capacity is 973,000 barrels per day.

Asia's (excluding Russian owned refineries) total capacity is 17,807,210 barrels per day.

Africa's total capacity is 3,506,950 barrels per day.

The Middle East's total capacity is 7,475,300 barrels per day.

Latin America's capacity is 6,626,270 barrels per day.

The Carribean's capacity is 1,622,500 barrels per day.

Canada and Mexico together produce 3,813,600 barrels per day.

Europe, with the exception of Russia, has a capacity of 17,953,200 barrels per day.

Russia, which has refineries in both Asia and Europe, has a total capacity of 4,572,800.

Taken as a whole, the world produces 83,032,138 barrels of refined oil per day. The USA produces 1/5th of that.


One more point: as a per-capita figure, the USA is actually the 10th largest user of energy in the world. Ahead of the USA is:

Qatar - 21,395.8 kg of Oil Equivalents/annum/person
Iceland - 11,718.1
UAE - 10,538.7
Bahrain - 10,250.5
Luxembourg - 9,408.8
Netherlands Antilles - 9,198.5
Kuwait - 9,076.0
Trinidad & Tobago - 8,555.1
Canada - 8,300.7

And then comes the USA with 7,794.8 KGOE/annum/person.

(Source: http://pdf.wri.org/wrr05_full_hires.pdf page 216.)

How come nobody complains about Qatar's use of energy being out of whack? Qatar uses 3 times the amount of energy per person that the USA does? Why is the USA the bad guy?

So this argument about us being the largest consumer of energy is somewhat silly when you consider all the facts about how much we produce and how much we consume on a per-capita basis.

I have no idea where these figures have come from but as far as I can tell they are a statistical lie - they must be if you are trying to tell me that Trindad and Tobago CONSUME more oil than america does!

Luxembourg has a population of 500,000 - america 300m - so you can see straightaway with your stats, luxembourg uses less oil than you do!

My stat still stands, 5% population vs 25% oil CONSUMPTION

The reason why you guys refine more oil than anybody else is because you guys use more oil than anybody else - seems like a straiught forward equation for me

If anything we need to refine more ;not less. We have not increased capacity since the 1970s .

These observations about Copenhagen ;the US Senate upcoming debate about passing economy killing cap and trade legislation ,and the Al Gore scam... possible the biggest potential swindle since Bernie Madoff and the biggest scam since Y2K... is in the Newark Star Ledger today by libertarian commentator Paul Mulshine .



President Obama's headed to Copenhagen next month to talk climate change. Al Gore's headed toward profits that could make him the world's first "carbon billionaire." But where's global temperature headed?

Nowhere, it seems. The most reliable readings of the Earth's temperature show that it peaked back in 1998. This was not widely reported in America, where the state of science reporting is dismal. But over in England, where they take that sort of thing more seriously, the British Broadcasting Corp. created quite a stir with an article headlined "What Happened to Global Warming?" In it, BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson gave a summary of the problems facing the alarmists: "For the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise."

Hudson went on to cite numerous scientists skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. But perhaps the most damning observation came from a scientist who supports the theory. Mojib Latif is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group that set the panic off with its 1996 report on global warming. According to Hudson, Latif concedes "that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years."

Hmmm. Ten to 20 years is what I would call "the near future." Didn't a certain former vice president of the United States win a Nobel Prize by pushing a movie that told us that the melting of the polar ice would cause sea levels to rise by up to 20 feet "in the near future?"

Perhaps Al Gore was talking about a different future, one in which he gets rich off the panic he helped create. If the Senate passes that cap-and-trade bill that's now before it, Gore stands to make a fortune through his stake in the investment firm he set up with former Goldman-Sachs exec David Blood to deal in carbon credits. So there's a lot at stake in that Senate decision for the firm known to Wall Street wags as "Blood and Gore." There's even more at stake for consumers whose bills would go up by billions.

As for those senators, they'll look pretty foolish if they pass a bill to curb global warming just as we enter a cooling trend. AndDonald Easterbrookwarns that is a distinct possibility. Easterbrook is a professor at Western Washington University who was quoted in that BBC article. When I called him at his home outside Seattle, Easterbrook informed me that we have just experienced the third coldest October in the past 115 years. There's probably more cold to come, he said, and the amount of carbon dioxide in the climate will have little effect on it one way or the other. The reason? Contrary to popular belief, there just isn't that much of it in the atmosphere.

"For every 100,000 molecules of air, only 38 are carbon dioxide," Easterbrook said. The global-warming crowd likes to say that CO2 levels have risen 35 percent in the industrial era. "But 35 percent of nothing is still nothing," says Easterbrook, and the increase in CO2 has virtually no effect.

The alarmists harp on that infinitesimal increase, he says, while they ignore the most prevalent greenhouse gas of them all — water vapor. Clouds reflect sunlight back into the sky. And that is at the center of a developing dispute among scientists. Easterbrook is on the side of a Danish scientist namedHenrik Svensmark. In the 1990s, Svensmark developed a theory that links cloud formation to sunspots. When the number of sunspots is low, more cosmic rays get through to the atmosphere. And these rays, Svensmark theorizes, are the primary cause of cloud formation. The clouds reflect more sunlight back into space. Earth gets colder.

This fits in nicely with Easterbrook's specialty, which is how ocean currents affect climate. "It turns out there is a correlation between ocean cycles and sunspots," he told me. And the historical record shows many climate shifts that correspond to sunspot activity.

"There were 6,000 feet of ice here that all melted very suddenly 15,000 years ago," Easterbrook said of his neck of the woods in the Pacific Northwest. "There have been big ups and downs throughout history. How do you explain them?"

Well, if you want to control people's lives and/or make a lot of money, you explain them the way a lot of politicians do. As for the scientists, they're divided. Most agree that, all things being equal, it would be better for man not to alter the atmosphere at all. But that's an entirely separate question from just what effect that alteration will have on the climate.

And the answer to that question is: Nobody's quite certain.

Except, of course, Al Gore.
Clouds hang over the global-warming alarmists | Paul Mulshine - NJ.com (http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2009/11/clouds_hang_over_the_global-wa.html)

The reason why you guys refine more oil than anybody else is because you guys use more oil than anybody else - seems like a straiught forward equation for me

Steve, that's a per capita figure.

This is the first time I have heard someone try to separate the Australian people from the land on which they stand. I wasn't aware of another nation occupying the Australian continent, unless you are referring to aboriginal Australia which is a figment of the imagination. Just demonstrates US ignorance of anything outside their borders

Oh... I see... you consider New Zealand and Paupa New Guinnea (both of which are part of the Australian Continent, but not part of Australia) to be the same country as you...

And you think that I have a problem with geography and people in the USA are ignorant.

I was very careful in my nomenclature because there's always some idiot that makes a comment. You win the prize...



As far as Qatar is concerned two pennith of nothing is still nothing. How much of that is contributed by the US presence there.

Oh... I see... the roughly 3,300 Americans who happen to be in Qatar are the reason that Qatar is using 3 times the energy per person that we are at home. It has nothing to do with the roughly 1.5 million Qataris.


The same old lame a**ed excuse, we are not as bad as that guy over there. The truth, yes, you are and worse. Compare yourself with China, the nation that produces a lot of your consumer goods, you are wasteful, just as wasteful as we are in fact on that scale, but then we are digging the minerals out of the ground and sending then to China so they can sell them to you, so your numbers don't stack up. You are among the worse emitters on Earth and the source of the problem. Much of your emissions are contained in other nations figures

Uh huh... China, the largest producer of toxins in the entire world, and the one country that has consistently violated every eco-agreement it has ever signed... we're worse than they are.

Got it.

The really sick part is that you believe this sh!t as if it were true.

Elliot

I have no idea where these figures have come from but as far as I can tell they are a statistical lie - they must be if you are trying to tell me that Trindad and Tobago CONSUME more oil than america does!

I cited the sources in my post. You can check them for yourself.

And these are PER CAPITA figures, not totals for the country as a whole. Of course a large country with 307 million people is going to use more energy than a small country with a population of 1.2 million. However, on a PER CAPITA BASIS (usage PER PERSON) the USA uses approximately 10% LESS energy than T&T does


Luxembourg has a population of 500,000 - america 300m - so you can see straightaway with your stats, luxembourg uses less oil than you do!

My stat still stands, 5% population vs 25% oil CONSUMPTION


Again, you are not looking at the PER PERSON usage. On a per-capita basis, the USA does pretty well compared to Luxembourg, T&T or Qatar.

I was very careful in my post to state that these figures are PER CAPITA, not total usage.


The reason why you guys refine more oil than anybody else is because you guys use more oil than anybody else - seems like a straiught forward equation for me

Not everything we refine is used by us. Much of it is put back into the world market. The argument being used is that the USA consumes more than it contributes and is therefore an evil country. My argument is that we contribute as much as we consume or more... but that contribution is in the REFINING of oil to a usable form as well as the drilling process. And in refining, we contribute more to the world energy market than any other country and even more than any other CONTINENT. If we combine our DRILLING activities and our REFINING activities, we are actually the world's largest contributors to the energy markets. In other words, we contribute as much as or more than we consume and are not the evil, greedy country that we are portrayed as.

Naturally this argument is one that those who are proponents of the "evil American Empire" idea will find hard to counter. And for that reason, they will resort to insulting the guy who puts the argument forward. I understand that: it's hard to have your worldview turned end-over-end. But insults can't change the facts. We aren't the ogres you would like to make us out to be.

Elliot

I am not going to listen to statistical crap, we can all bend and twist figures to suit, this doesn't alter the pot at the end of the meal - the US is still by far the largest consumer of fuel of any other

You have to question your logic, if refined oil is placed back into the world market - something you have denied in another post! Then all you are stating is the companies can get a higher price elsewhere than your own - so of course you will export if this is the case

Who gives a rats @@@ about who refines more or less - the US uses more oil than any other nation - if you don't like the idea that its how the world sees you, then buy a lower cc engine!

Empire - you need more than one country under your control to be called that! - As for ogre, don't use as much oil!

I am not going to listen to statistical crap, we can all bend and twist figures to suit,

Except when they suit you. Please keep in mind that you tried to prove that my statistics were wrong by using statistics of your own. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/eu-agrees-climate-change-411166-8.html#post2077373


this doesn't alter the pot at the end of the meal - the US is still by far the largest consumer of fuel of any other

Except that we are NOT, as I have pointed out. On a person for person basis we are NOT the largest consumer. As a whole, yes we are. So what... as you tried to point out, it is the NUMBER OF PEOPLE that creates that fact, not the misuse of oil or natural greed of Americans.


You have to question your logic, if refined oil is placed back into the world market - something you have denied in another post!

Where did I deny that?


Then all you are stating is the companies can get a higher price elsewhere than your own - so of course you will export if this is the case

Naturally. So what?


Who gives a rats @@@ about who refines more or less - the US uses more oil than any other nation - if you don't like the idea that its how the world sees you, then buy a lower cc engine!

Let me try to explain it again. As I have stated above, and as Paraclete argued, the USA is being called a greedy nation for only having 5% of the world's population but using 25% of the world's oil. This would indeed seem to be indicative of greed and evil... except for the fact that the USA contributes to the world at least as much as it consumes in terms of energy. And I have pointed out what those contributions are.

Now... if you think that the rest of the world can get by without the USA's refinery capacity, you are sorely mistaken. If you think that you could survive through a winter without the heating oil produced by us, or have enough fuel for your cars without the fuel oil produced by us, you are wrong. You simply do not have the capacity to produce enough. You need what we produce.

Now... if we consumed oil without actually producing any for the world market, then yes, we would be greedy. If we didn't supply you with the rerfined oil you need to survive and only produced enough for ourselves, that would indeed be selfish. And in such a situation, the accusations would be correct.

But the fact is that we DO produce refined oil for the rest of the world. And you get it rather cheaply, relatively speaking. Which means that instead of being greedy and selfish, we are instead acting as global citizens and make our resources available to the rest of the world. And we are doing so AT LEAST to the same degree as which we consume. Which would seem to me to be fair. If we produce as much as we consume, we are actually acting in good faith, aren't we?

But you cannot recognize this fact.



Empire - you need more than one country under your control to be called that!

Agreed. Which makes it all the more of a mystery that so many on the left call the USA an Evil Empire.


- As for ogre, don't use as much oil!

Or, in the alternative, produce in proportion to what we consume. Which we do.

Elliot

One other point, Phlanx...

Were you aware that the USA, which as you have said is 5% of the world's population, actually produces 11% of the world's oil? We produce 8,457,000 barrels per day. That makes us the 4th largest producer of oil in the world, after the Arab League, Russia and Saudi Arabia. (Source: The CIA World Factbook)

We are also the second largest producer of natural gas, after Russia. We produce 582.2 billion cubic meters per year, or 18% of the world's natural gas.

And finally, we are the worlds largest producer of electricity, with 4.368 trillion KwH per year, or 22% of the world's electricity.

Does that fact make us generous instead of greedy?

After all, if consuming energy out of proportion to our population makes us bad, then producing energy out of proportion to our population should, by the same logic, make us good.

That would seem logical, anyway.

But I doubt that this is the case. Liberal logic doesn't work that way.

Elliot

Liberal logic doesn't work that way.

Elliot

I don't think any logic works that way. Of course if you are going to use 25% of the world's anything resource you are going to have to produce something yourself and some of the resource yourself, you are not just going to pour it on the ground. But the point is well made within your statistics, you use 25% of the worlds oil but produce only 11 % yourselves.

As far as providing fuel cheaply to Britain or Europe have you ever purchased fuel there? It is a remarkably more expensive purchase than you might imagine so your benevolence just doesn't wash. I'm pleased that my nation obtains it's excess from SE Asia, it might be much more expensive obtaining it from the US

Now the nannystate in Great Britain is going to compel individuals to adhere to carbon allowances .
Everyone in Britain could be given a personal 'carbon allowance' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/carbon/6527970/Everyone-in-Britain-could-be-given-a-personal-carbon-allowance.html)



Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity. Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using. If their "carbon account" hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits. Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit. Lord Smith will call for the scheme to be part of a "Green New Deal" to be introduced within 20 years when he addresses the agency's annual conference on Monday. An Environment Agency spokesman said only those with "extravagant lifestyles" would be affected by the carbon allowances. He said: "A lot of people who cycle will get money back. It will probably only be bankers and those with extravagant lifestyles who would lose out." Right ...sell it with the phoney soak the rich BS !

Can the Democrats in Congress be far behind ? If they can unconstitutionally force people to buy into a government approved insurance plan ,can carbon credit cards be far behind ?

Life is all about choices. Whether global warming is good or bad for the future of mankind on Earth is of no consequence, since it won't be our children or our children's children who are affected. Take a trip to Salt Lake City, Utah, Denver, Colorado, or Los Angeles, California. No one seems concerned that the pollution is so bad that there are days they tell joggers to stay inside to protect their lungs. We have much bigger problems in America to solve. I liken this debate to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We can't even stop gangs from terrorizing our major cities in America. What makes us think we have a snowball chance in Hades to win a war in Afghanistan or Iraq? If you don't understand this analogy, then how about our healthcare system. Congress is trying to pass a bill that takes an approaching bankrupt system, and add millions more beneficiaries (costs). How stupid is that? Americans have a severe learning disability when it comes to problem solving, and that might just be the reason our capitalist system is on its way down!

Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity. Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using. If their "carbon account" hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits. Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit. Lord Smith will call for the scheme to be part of a "Green New Deal" to be introduced within 20 years when he addresses the agency's annual conference on Monday. An Environment Agency spokesman said only those with "extravagant lifestyles" would be affected by the carbon allowances. He said: "A lot of people who cycle will get money back. It will probably only be bankers and those with extravagant lifestyles who would lose out."

[/INDENT]

And this is different from an ETS how? The way an ETS works is you slowly reduce the cap to force the reduction

Who gets to decide what a person's ration number is? I'd like to see how that gets hashed out. I know someone like the Goracle is deemed more essential and thus should benefit from a higher consumption rating . Or do you think it will be an equitable distribution of credits?? Not likely!

This is effectively a 100% tax on consumption above a certain level.But it reminds me a lot like indulgences to be paid to the high priests of the cult of the Environmentalists .

Meanwhile it turns out that the more carbon we add to the air the better plant life grows.



The more carbon emissions we dump into the air, the faster forests and plants grow.
This new revelation is the result of research done by the North American carbon program. Scott Denning, Ph.D., a physicist from Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado, explains the North American Carbon Program… Physicists tracking the data have found an unexpected benefit of rising carbon dioxide levels. Dr. Denning says it's unusual. “Stuff is growing faster than it's dying, which is weird,” he says.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0603-can_carbon_dioxide_be_a_good_thing.htm

Now the nannystate in Great Britain is going to compel individuals to adhere to carbon allowances .
Everyone in Britain could be given a personal 'carbon allowance' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/carbon/6527970/Everyone-in-Britain-could-be-given-a-personal-carbon-allowance.html)


Right ...sell it with the phoney soak the rich BS !

Can the Democrats in Congress be far behind ? If they can unconstitutionally force people to buy into a government approved insurance plan ,can carbon credit cards be far behind ?



You read in article in a newspaper and think it is reflective of the views of the country... please!

Then I'll defer until I hear the details of his address and “Green New Deal” proposal.
Please update after his speech today.

Meanwhile it turns out that the more carbon we add to the air the better plant life grows. Hello again, tom:

It didn't turn out for me. But, I understand science..

The point, of global warming, though, isn't about how well the plants like it. It's about how the polar ice caps are going to melt and put NY City under the pond...

But, the plants'll like it... Dude!

excon

Except the claim about the ice caps is also junk science. The only thing shrinking is the credibility of the global warming cult.

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/revealed-antarctic-ice-growing/story-e6frg6no-1225700046908)

Hello again, tom:

It didn't turn out for me. But, I understand science..

The point, of global warming, though, isn't about how well the plants like it. It's about how the polar ice caps are gonna melt and put NY City under the pond...

But, the plants'll like it... Dude!

excon

So we've gone from "I don't know anything about science but I know pollution is bad" to "I understand science", and from "It isn't about global warming, but rather pollution" to "It's about how the polar ice caps are gonna melt and put NY City under the pond".

How often do you plan on contradicting yourself?

Elliot

except the claim about the ice caps is also junk science. The only thing shrinking is the credibility of the global warming cult.

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/revealed-antarctic-ice-growing/story-e6frg6no-1225700046908)

I think it is well documented the ice caps and glaciers covering the poles have been shrinking year on year

What is in dispute is whether it is man made or natural, eitherway as Ex states the seas will rise to accommodate the new water, so whether you feel it is aload of junk or not, New York shoreline will be inland for a while, that is not in dispute

Good I'll have beach front property

I think it is well documented the ice caps and glaciers covering the poles have been shrinking year on year

What is in dispute is whether it is man made or natural, eitherway as Ex states the seas will rise to accomodate the new water, so whether you feel it is aload of junk or not, new york shoreline will be inland for a while, that is not in dispute

All the more reason to desalinate and drink it and save our groundwater... or to water crops since saving the delta smelt is more important than feeding the world (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574384731898375624.html).