 |
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
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 officeQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Too bad there wasn't a willing photgrapher nearby .
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
In other words, I was saying that government is REGULATING THE WRONG THING.
I think that the "fact" that there is pollution being caused by the use of lightbulbs or automobiles is questionable.Quote:
You also think that pollution is acceptable in any form if it can be justified - questionable!
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.Quote:
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
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
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.
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.Quote:
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
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.
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".Quote:
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??
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.Quote:
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
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.
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.Quote:
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 -
True. But having the government limit freedom of choice doesn't help anybody.Quote:
Freedom Choice does not give anyone the right to take away anothers freedom of choice
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.Quote:
Pollution from man is just stupid, especially as we can all work to providing cleaner air
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.
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.Quote:
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?
Elliot
Hello p:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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
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/20090...-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 .
Streamline Training & Documentation: Elinor Ostrom's Research on Management of Common ResourcesQuote:
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.
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 nationsQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
You again just proved that you missed the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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
Perhaps you are right, however few of us would live in a garbage tip.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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.
Agreed. And the free market is the best place to create that incentive without also creating a tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Elliot
You are surely not relying on a cap and trade scheme to produce results?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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
As you say SALVO!! When people drop their silly paranoia about the industry everyone will be better off.Quote:
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
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:29 AM. |