 |
Still assuming we shouldn't stop polluting? How about we do it right though, instead of rushing headlong into disastrous regulations, this con game called "cap and trade" and ending all the unnecessary fear mongering and blatant dishonesty?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Here we were having a nice discussion and then you go all bonkers on me...
You say the garbage above with a straight face too, as though you really think you're pulling one off on us, huh?? Using your logic, one could say that WATER is not poison... But, if you drink too much of it, you'll DIE.
It's TRUE, is your warped way, CO2 isn't a polutant, in the truest sense of the word.. But too much of it the air WILL cause things to heat up, and WILL cause the ice caps to melt and WILL cause your home in Jersey to become waterlogged...
So, if people want to listen to you, I'm sure you'll give 'em what they want... But, be prepared for the TRUTH from me.
excon
Salvo Elliot and Excon
Just to add Co2 emissions normally come as a byproduct of burning another product, which also emitts other gasses
Tell me, if you could have a car that has water coming out of the exhaust (tailpipe) or Co2 - which one would everyone prefer?
IS the rest of the argument really necessary? we all know the politicians lie to us regardless of nation, we all know the global science is not proven or disproven, and yet the answer is simple
Clean energy regardless of any other reason is the best way forward, it will devolop jobs, a whole industry, and provide clean breathable air, with an economy not dependent on foreign resource
Is it just me and excon that can see that point of view?
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
YES, I think you believe that, not only you shouldn't STOP polluting, you believe the stuff you produce DOESN'T pollute... If you doubt me, please re-read the Wolvernine's post.
So, the FIRST step in reeling pollution back in, is RECOGNIZING what pollution is... Once we do that, we can all go to second grade... But, SOME of us are stuck in first..
The above, however, is not an endorsement for cap and trade. These, are TWO different issues. But, lets discuss fixing it, after you get that there is something to fix.
excon
A good friend of mine, builds biomass power stations
They are designed to produce electricity for the grid by burning elephant grass
The elephant grass is grown local to the power station
This grass also supports wildlife and is helping to re-populate large areas of agricultural fallow land
So it is producing jobs, good wildlife, green electricity, and serving the local community
There are zero emmissions being produced by the station through filtration
All this is made possible by the government intervening and providing tax credits for green energy, and will do so until the technology and buildings can be profitable
So why should we build coal stations or other fossil fuel stations when we can produce power cleanly?
I'm not the Wolverine.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
It's certainly not me, it seems the "consensus" scientific community is stuck in first grade, they violate the very fundamentals of science in ignoring, downplaying and refusing to discuss conflicting research and observed phenomenon that contradicts their consensus.Quote:
So, the FIRST step in reeling pollution back in, is RECOGNIZING what pollution is... Once we do that, we can all go to second grade... But, SOME of us are stuck in first..
Still misrepresenting us but no surprise since you admit you don't actually read what we post. Since cap and trade is purported to be a solution to the problem you can't separate the two, and that's the same problem as with health care reform. You guys keep telling everyone we don't think there's a problem when we've acknowledged a problem many times. We just disagree on the extent of the problem and the proposed solutions.Quote:
The above, however, is not an endorsement for cap and trade. These, are TWO different issues. But, lets discuss fixing it, after you get that there is something to fix.
As you say, water isn't a pollutant, but too much of it will kill us. Nevertheless, I don't see Congress trying to legislate water out of existence to protect us and save the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
By your logic, we need to prevent rain from falling and get rid of all the oceans because too much water will kill us. That would be the equivalent of what Congress is trying to legislate. The legislation being put forth by Congress calls for the eventual ELIMINATION of CO2 production.
Fact is that we NEED CO2. We need it so that plants can convert it to O2. We need it to regulate the chemistry of our bodies so that our heart rates and resperaatory rates don't go through the roof and kill us. It is a natural byproduct of LIFE, and it is a necessary component for life.
Anything that is both a byproduct of life and a necessary component to life CANNOT be a pollutant.
Elliot
When the technology is available and a rational transition can take place then sign me up. Creating draconian legislation to force the issue will not work. The infrastructure to illuminate the home with the incandecent bulb did not become part of the infrastructure until there was a clear rational market reason for the switch from whale oil lanterns. But you could not have made regulations forcing the switch until the lightbulb was ready to assume it's place. If you had done so ,all you would've had was a whole bunch of darkened homes.Quote:
Clean energy regardless of any other reason is the best way forward, it will devolop jobs, a whole industry, and provide clean breathable air, with an economy not dependent on foreign resource
Is it just me and excon that can see that point of view?
None of us oppose the future technology. What we don't want is economy killing regulations .
From the point of view of POLLUTION, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between a car that emits CO2 and one that emits H2O. Neither one is a pollutant, and neither one is dangerous to the environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
The rest of the argument IS necessary. You see, government is trying to use "global warming" as an excuse to grab more power, and has therefore named CO2 as a pollutant, when it clearly is not. By being able to regulate CO2 emmissions, they can control the energy industry, the auto industry, and any manufacturing industries that produce CO2 as a byproduct of their operations. It is about economic control by the government, not cleaning up the planet. Because CO2 isn't a polutant, there really isn't anything to clean up... it's just an excuse.Quote:
IS the rest of the argument really necessary? we all know the politicians lie to us regardless of nation, we all know the global science is not proven or disproven, and yet the answer is simple
Clean energy regardless of any other reason is the best way forward, it will devolop jobs, a whole industry, and provide clean breathable air, with an economy not dependent on foreign resource
Is it just me and excon that can see that point of view?
And THAT is the point we are trying to make.
You want to have sensible rules to keep the planet clean? Go for it. I'm right there with you.
But when you go way past "sensible" and start using "global warming" as an excuse to increase government control over the economy, then you are going to have a fight on your hands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
As I have said before, I'm cool with alternative fuels... if only to gain energy independence. If burning elephant grass can produce enough electricity on an ongoing basis to supply our current and future needs and is economical, then go for it. (Though most of the feasability studies I have seen have shown that the cost of biomass production is too high for it to replace fossil fuels. If this is an exception to that rule, then go for it.)
But don't tell me that the reason that I need to switch, regardless of the economic costs and whether I will lose money from switching, is because of global warming or because CO2 is a pollutant. That boat don't float.
Elliot
President Bush would mention switch grass occasionally . You make a good point ;a similar point we have made about ethanol . In this case I don't think it is the efficiency as much as other factors like irrigation ;fertilizers... and what happpens in droughts . I do not believe that we are even remotely close to make a complete transition.Quote:
Though most of the feasability studies I have seen have shown that the cost of biomass production is too high for it to replace fossil fuels. If this is an exception to that rule, then go for it.)
Note however that we do have a logical clean burning alternative that the greenies never want to discuss. Breeder reactors .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I have heard that animal dung can be used as a fuel.
So why not just burn the bullsh!t that the Dems and Libs are shoveling? We could power the whole world...
Elliot
Biomass is only working at the moment with tax credits, without them proppping up the industry then it wouldn't be economical at the moment
However, as a company with a biomass station you receive green tax credits and these can be traded to large companies with high c02 levels to help them reduce their overall figure
Don't forget, that the gas in your vehicle has processed oil, which produces emissions, the transportation of the oil and gas has produced emissions and finally you car produces more than just co2 emissions
I can appreciate the argument is not scientifically proven for global warming, but who cares! An argument has to be made, and intervention to occur to force industries and businesses to move twowards a cleaner system
So people who think they should concentrate on the argument of whether global warming is being caused or is natural if at all, what would your argument be to get people to leave their V8s behind and go for the hydrocell?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Of course, the ANSWER lies in hemp... It's production would allow corn to go back to being food. Hemp produces the highest biomass by far, of any other crop. That's why we used it for rope and made our sails out of it...
But, ain't nobody going to talk about that. See?? The drug war is costing us lots of energy dollars too... Silly drug war.
excon
The funniest part is, hemp is a lousy intoxicant. It's close cousin marijuana is what they were trying to prohibit in the 30's and they just about eradicated hemp instead. Government efficiency at it's best.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hahha, excon, NICE, not to be putting your argument donw mate, but hemp does come in second place to elephant grass sorry :)
The only reason we know that is that hemp supplier in the UK has a biomass station and my friends company has tested it and seen the results
HOWEVER! Hemp is still an amazing product, you can power cars with it, hell, you can even build cars out of it, not too mention the other trillon products :)
And wildlife loves it!!
Well for one thing hydrocells Brown's gas is largely a hoax . Maybe you think it takes no energy to separate H from O?Quote:
What would your argument be to get people to leave their V8s behind and go for the hydrocell
Maybe we should subsidize all those cold fusion plants and flux capacitors too .
Then that pretty much answers the question, doesn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
"Green Tax Credits". Al Gore's latest ponzi scheme.Quote:
However, as a company with a biomass station you receive green tax credits and these can be traded to large companies with high c02 levels to help them reduce their overall figure
You realize, don't you, that when you receive a "green tax credit", or what are being referred to in the USA as "Carbon Credits", you are essentially receiving government permission to pollute x amount.
Does that sound as counterproductive to you as it does to me, if your goal is to clean up the environment?
I agree. And I agree that the more we can limit REAL pollution, the better.Quote:
Don't forget, that the gas in your vehicle has processed oil, which produces emissions, the transportation of the oil and gas has produced emissions and finally you car produces more than just co2 emissions
But please don't tell me that something is a polutant when it isn't just to create regulation.
Sure... but not through regulation of something that isn't a pollutant. And the fact is that the vast majority of industries already have VERY LOW EMMISSIONS due to really good scrubber technology.Quote:
I can appreciate the argument is not scientifically proven for global warming, but who cares! An argument has to be made, and intervention to occur to force industries and businesses to move twowards a cleaner system
My argument would be very simple... if hydrocell technology is cost effective, efficient and safe, people will buy it on their own. It won't need to be forced onto us through regulation. If you build the better moustrap, people will come knocking on your door. But if you build a crappy moustrap, nobody will want it until you perfect it.Quote:
So people who think they should concentrate on the argument of whether global warming is being caused or is natural if at all, what would your argument be to get people to leave their V8s behind and go for the hydrocell?
That's true of ALL types of alternative fuel technology and green tech.
But if it hasn't been perfected, people won't want it, and the ONLY way to get people to use it will be via regulation.
Do you want to be forced by your government to use a product or service that hasn't been perfected, is less efficient and less effective than what you currently have, and may not be as safe?
So in short my argument is, stop trying to regulate green technology. Stop trying to regulate emissions out of existence. Instead, concentrate on perfecting the alternatives, and in doing so, you will create a market for those alternatives. The FREE MARKET will provide the change we want and need. We don't need to regulate it.
Elliot
You know elliot, Some companies are the worst polluters in the world, these are gas and oil companies, but hey we can't make them green, but we can push the business as a whole towards minimizing carbon output, or is that just to a simple idea?
In addition, it creates a whole new industry for a service economy
I really think you have a bone for the word regulation, intervention is required to push companies to change
Human Beings at times need to be pushed in the direction that a democratic society wants to go in
I don't think that is true. People neither need nor like to be pushed in ANY direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
The key is, instead, to give them a viable option that they would WANT to embrace rather than forcing something onto them that they don't want.
People don't have to be FORCED to buy fire extinguishers for their homes. They buy them because the fire extinguishers are a desirable safety product that is cheap and that works.
The switch from VHS to DVD didn't have to be legislated into existence. The DVD manufacturers built a better product, and people bought it.
There was no reason to force people to switch away from the horse an buggy to the automobile. The auto companies built a good product and people bought it.
Companies didn't have to be FORCED to automate their assembly lines as much as possible. They did it on their own because the technology had been perfected, was cheaper than the manpower costs, and did the job effectively. (In fact, government worked very hard to SLOW DOWN automation in industry in order to help the unions keep workers on the payroll.)
Build a better alternative fuel that sereves our needs and is affordable and safe. People will buy it. There will be no need to legislate it. There will be no need for government to intervene. Companies and individuals will buy the product if it is a good product.
Create the proper economic incentives... a good product at an appropriate price... and people will switch of their own accord.
Free market solutions to real problems.
And yes, I do have a bone to pick with "regulation"... as I have stated in prior posts. It is neither effective nor good for the economy. And I contend that many times it is a usurpation of power by the government.
Elliot
It bears repeating
Note however that we do have a logical clean burning alternative that the greenies never want to discuss... Breeder reactors .
It meets all the requirements safe non-polluting clean reliable energy .It can easily bridge the gap between the industrial age and utopia.
Evening Tom
I agree that nuclear energy is the key at the moment to the worlds energy, but isn't it better to explore all avenues first before we go nuclear?
After all, if a wind turbine explodes, maybe a sheep is going to get it, but a nuclear disaster is a little less forgiving
And who wants to live next to a nuclear plant?
Nope .it's available ,it's proven . The French supply most of their energy with efficient Breeder Reactors and I don't see the plume over Paris.Quote:
isn't it better to explore all avenues first before we go nuclear?
Wind turbines are over rated . Just ask T Boone Pickens .He was gung ho wind turbines last year . This year he says we should tap Iraqi oil.
Someone better do a good job convincing me that alternatives besides nukes will ever be more than a fringe 10% solution.
I agree with your statements accept, the french have convienently placed most of their reactors near the English Channel and any fall out will come our way :(
Nuclear is proven, probably the future, but surely an oppurtunity to make the case for green energy is justified?
So that the power doesn't go out in bad weatherQuote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
So the electric bill is less than the mortgage payment
So the high school dropouts have a job mowing grass on the safety berms
So the high school graduates have apprenticeship jobs available
I can't imagine. Of course I am excluding the plants using the French design responsible for Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
Sure, for automotive and maybe even aviation use. But not for powering large regional electric grids.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
Elliot
Again I do not oppose it .
Do the R&D and when it is viable in the market you'll see us all rush to sign on.
Those vaunted gvt subsidies you talk about however are nothing more than a form of protectionism . Our gvt has subsidized corn ethanol for a long time now and it is an unmitigated disaster;causing disrupting of all types in food and fuel markets both here and abroad(including the Mexicans who should be spitting blood at us over the practice ).
Fine then, so if plans were brought up to build a nuclear station near you, would you object to it?
I don't think that Chernobly was a French design. Three Mile Island wasn't even close to a disaster . It was an easily contained event. But besides that ,it was not a breeder reactor.Quote:
Of course I am excluding the plants using the French design responsible for Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
Breeders reuse the waste to a point that waste is almost nonexistant.. without the long half life that reactors in the US generate.
Already live within the evacuation range of one. They were building one on Long Island when I was younger . That project was funding the whole school district . It was great for the community . But neighboring communities made an issue about evacuation so the project was scrubbed . Now LI has terrible generation issues. Projects like windmills in the ocean have gone nowhere. No one wants their site lines disturbed.Quote:
Fine then, so if plans were brought up to build a nuclear station near you, would you object to it?
I appreciate the point that nobidy wants to live anywhere other than natural beauty, but it's a simple choice, andif you are happy to live near one, then it means I don't have to
NIMBY is a plague . People think that electricity comes from wires to their house and are not even remotely aware of what it takes to get there .
We need more energy to fuel existing economies and emerging ones ,not less .The way I see it ;all hands on deck . Exploit all of them and let the market decide.
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
We New Yorkers already have Indian Point (Westchester County), FitzPatrick (Oswego County, upstate), Ginna (Wayne County, 20 miles north of Rochester), 9 Mile Point (also in Oswego County), and we used to have Shoreham (Suffolk County), till it was shut down. (Tom and I are just a stone's throw away from Indian Point and Shoreham.)
Right next door in New Jersey, we've got Hope Creek (Salem County, southern part of NJ), Oyster Creek (Ocean County, central NJ), and Salem (Salem County). (I vacation in Ocean County.)
Problem is, they are all running at less than 20% of capacity and barely producing any electricity. If we simply took the 65 or so currently operating reactors and let them operate at 80% of capacity, we could just about solve our national need for electrical energy. They are already built and mostly just standing idle, or close to it. The capital costs would be just about ZERO, because they are already just standing there.
Elliot
Hey phlanx, have you seen this ad on TV?
The UK government is telling creepy climate change bedtime stories to children complete with a drowning dog. Apparently people aren't too happy about that. That's what I was talking about earlier, we need to end this fearmongering about climate change and scaring and using children for such propaganda is just pathetic.
I think it is undesirable to wish for an ice age, after all the place where you live would be frozen solid. I understand the possibilities of shutting down the "Great conveyor" in the North Atlantic, but I doubt man has the ability to do this, something else is involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
Nope, never saw that advert before speech, but doesn't surprise me
The government here has had a policy for three years on Co2
What it really comes down to is
1. They want more fuel efficient cleaner cars on the road and the big guzzlers to go, for the reasons of increased space in city centres and more car sales
They even stated that winding your window up saves on petrol and therefore less co2 - all good until you feel warm and stick on the aircon!
2. We have not invested in nuclear power or any other source correctly and with a growing population the shortage problem is getting bigger and so to combat that we are being told to reduce or electricity intake
I understand completely the crap that politicians spread, unfortunately it takes a rare breed of a politician who can stand up and say and do the right thing and still win the popularity contest that most politicians get elected on these days
We all know we are being told crap, but that is the way the game is played - the same in France, Germany and especially in the US
You cannot tell someone to change for the better because it is right to do, you have to tell them if they don't change it will be worst for them
As I have said before, accept the fact that all politicians lie, find out for yourself the reason and go with that
Sometimes doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still doing the right thing
The point is it is all hypothetical, the only way to truly know if anybody is right about the whole global warming structure is for a global disaster to occurQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Who wants that!
I knew that when everyone was so hot on Obama and his promises on transparency, ethics, civility and on and on. That lasted until the first full week of his presidency.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
Sorry Steve, I'm just not that cynical.Quote:
You cannot tell someone to change for the better because it is right to do, you have to tell them if they don't change it will be worst for them
Maybe, but I take offense at using children as pawns in this game and I still believe in honesty as the best policy. I'm not a child and it's past time for politicians to both stop treating me like one and acting like one.Quote:
Sometimes doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still doing the right thing
I don't know what the stats are for election polls over in the US, but here, local and state elections run at around 30% to 40% turnout of the voting population
This I put down to the fact that most people are sick and tired of the way they are spoken to by politicians and as such don't really care who gets into power as the lie is the same for all
I am stating how politicians play the game, I never said I liked it
I have always wanted to see a politician on a Performace Related Pay, when they state they will get waiting lists down or more people employed, then fine - give a target, and if you achieve it you get 100% pay, if you get 50% of the target then you get your BFH (Bus Fare Home)
I always thought having legislators pay come out of profit was the way to go. Simplistic, but wouldn't it change politics?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:30 AM. |