Great rhetoric, or are we just getting dumb?

I just realized most of my argument was very discombobulated.

I guess thats what happens when you spend like an hour each night rubbing your wifes swollen feet and ankles. It does weird things to your mind.

SVreX wrote: But I can't agree with the idea of running full speed toward a cliff of economic collapse, while accelerating the problem through bad planning, overspending and poor decision making because we've got "a promise that it will work", and nothing more.

I understand your trepidation and can only say that being green must have based some imaginary threshold for me. It has gone from a good thing to do to a moral imperative and thats the crux of my argument and its week and this is a run on sentence.

I respect your right to pursue green for no reason other than you believe in it. I have no problem with that.

Just don't think it makes good public policy.

not entirely on this topic but a good read.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/will-the-geithner-plan-work/

If we're posting links, then http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510937,00.html

Now, any time I see unelected people with guns proposing "trillions" of dollars worth of "change," most of which us with jobs in the U.S. will be paying, I start to suspect motives other than clean rivers and butterflys.

As I have said before, energy is how the U.S. is controlled. We have enough energy here to supply the world. But limiting our ability to actually use it keeps us down.

You want to solve the U.S.' energy problem and cut CO2 emissions to virtually nothing at the same time (like that really means anything)? Then the Dr.Hess Energy Plan is for you. Put one of those new 18-wheeler sized nuclear reactors in every town. Pump up the grid infrastructure. Hook the reactor's generators to the grid and give the electricity away for free. People will find a way to convert their gasoline using car to electricty and they will do it themselves. New business will be created overnight converting gas vehicles to electricity. New England will dump their heating oil systems and for three large each house, put in a heat pump. Add on a 100% tax on all imported oil just to make things interesting, and maybe a 100% tax on all monies sent to the Persian Gulf, Venezuela or anyone else not currently kissing our backside. Total cost to do this? What? A few billion? A few tens of billions? Way less than the TRILLION dollars The O just blew on his buddies in the banking industry and the foreigners behind them, of which us peons here paying for it will see nothing but the bill.

ugh faux news with another hard hitting paranoia starting story.

I thought CNN/CBS/ABC/NBC/MSN were teh faux news?

Anyone ever notice that the conservative viewpoint get's ONE television station reporting their views and everyone calls if fake. But the liberal side gets 5 major stations and no one says poop.

Just saying.

Bobzilla wrote: I thought CNN/CBS/ABC/NBC/MSN were teh faux news? Anyone ever notice that the conservative viewpoint get's ONE television station reporting their views and everyone calls if fake. But the liberal side gets 5 major stations and no one says poop. Just saying.

Look at limbaugh vs air america...

ugh emotional rhetoric with zero supporting thought once again.

Dr. Hess wrote: ugh emotional rhetoric with zero supporting thought once again.

funny I could say the same about you.

Bobzilla wrote: I thought CNN/CBS/ABC/NBC/MSN were teh faux news? Anyone ever notice that the conservative viewpoint get's ONE television station reporting their views and everyone calls if fake. But the liberal side gets 5 major stations and no one says poop. Just saying.

An off-topic flounder to boot. You should start a new thread titled "Fox news - the one TV station I agree with!"

I'll comment there. Second thought. I'll start it for you.

Back on subject.

Green energy needs to be tranported regardless. If we are delivering a billion solar panels across the US ten at a time on trucks that get 4mpg of soot emitting diesel then we are not solving the problem. We can create a energy program that makes a billion joules of power from a grain of sand but if we can not transport the power from the power station to the end user without a breeze knocking out the grid we are not solving the problem.

if you want emotional meaningless empassioned populist rhetoic look here: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganatimeforchoosing.htm

ignorant wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: ugh emotional rhetoric with zero supporting thought once again.

funny I could say the same about you.

Yes, you could, because you are using emotional rhetoric with zero supporting thought, once again. Instead, why don't you read the article on Fox, or read the PDF linked there from some Englishman who is proposing that the we give all our wealth to the undeveloped 3rd world and that will somehow make us all better and reduce "global warming," whatever that is. Or perhaps find fault with the Dr.Hess Energy Plan, besides the obvious fact that the rich energy industry will "suffer" and the U.S. will prosper?

Dr. Hess wrote:

ignorant wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: ugh emotional rhetoric with zero supporting thought once again.

funny I could say the same about you.

Or perhaps find fault with the Dr.Hess Energy Plan, besides the obvious fact that the rich energy industry will "suffer" and the U.S. will prosper?

I like distributed micro generation, I don't know if nuke is correct, but I won't fault it now.

I read the article. I am for cap and trade. I am for making energy efficiency a competitive advantage. I am for creating carbon markets and offsets that will be commodities. I don't understand the paranoia.

edit: I don't believe that cap and trade will hurt business in the long term. Sure it'll hurt in the long term, but I believe that going green and helping the planet is a moral imperative.

ignorant wrote: I read the article. I am for cap and trade. I am for making energy efficiency a competitive advantage. I am for creating carbon markets and offsets that will be commodities. I don't understand the paranoia. edit: I don't believe that cap and trade will hurt business in the long term. Sure it'll hurt in the long term, but I believe that going green and helping the planet is a moral imperative.

one more intangible investment to get inflated and then burst?

how hard could it be?

Strizzo wrote:

ignorant wrote: I read the article. I am for cap and trade. I am for making energy efficiency a competitive advantage. I am for creating carbon markets and offsets that will be commodities. I don't understand the paranoia. edit: I don't believe that cap and trade will hurt business in the long term. Sure it'll hurt in the long term, but I believe that going green and helping the planet is a moral imperative.

one more intangible investment to get inflated and then burst? how hard could it be?

Why do you say intangible? It's based entirely on emissions which can be measured.

you're buying something you never actually have to take possession of. you're not buying and selling the emissions themselves, just the ability to produce them. then we can get into the whole discussion as whether it really has anything to do with anything, but then we'd actually have to look at real data and facts, not just talk about what we "feel like will help" methane as a greenhouse gas is much worse than co2, but nobody can make any money by telling the cows they can't fart, can they?

ignorant wrote:

Strizzo wrote:

ignorant wrote: I read the article. I am for cap and trade. I am for making energy efficiency a competitive advantage. I am for creating carbon markets and offsets that will be commodities. I don't understand the paranoia. edit: I don't believe that cap and trade will hurt business in the long term. Sure it'll hurt in the long term, but I believe that going green and helping the planet is a moral imperative.

one more intangible investment to get inflated and then burst? how hard could it be?

Why do you say intangible? It's based entirely on emissions which can be measured.

Can it? Even two identical Miatas will exhaust different amounts of carbon over their lifetime the model for cap and trade does not measure true emissions.

Strizzo wrote: you're not buying and selling the emissions themselves, just the ability to produce them.

yup.

There's a pretty easy model that the Diesel engine manufacturers are using. You take credits for engines that are better than standards and spend them on engines that do not meet the standards. (Actually one of the reasons why Cat went out of business in the HD market is because they didn't have enough credits to cover their product in 2010.)

I understand the point about methane, though the people who used this arugment almost always don't care about the environment and are just trying to put out landmines. I think Carbon is used because its easier for most to understand and grasp the concept.

And I understand about offsets being viewed as vaporware.

John Brown wrote:

ignorant wrote:

Strizzo wrote:

ignorant wrote: I read the article. I am for cap and trade. I am for making energy efficiency a competitive advantage. I am for creating carbon markets and offsets that will be commodities. I don't understand the paranoia. edit: I don't believe that cap and trade will hurt business in the long term. Sure it'll hurt in the long term, but I believe that going green and helping the planet is a moral imperative.

one more intangible investment to get inflated and then burst? how hard could it be?

Why do you say intangible? It's based entirely on emissions which can be measured.

Can it? Even two identical Miatas will exhaust different amounts of carbon over their lifetime the model for cap and trade does not measure true emissions.

I don't think we're at the point where measuring and taxing on actuals is an issue. Average aggregate would work just fine to get the ball rolling.

ignorant wrote: I understand the point about methane, though the people who used this arugment almost always don't care about the environment and are just trying to put out landmines. I think Carbon is used because its easier to make money off of

fixed for you.

so the idea is that you buy x car, and said car driven x miles gives your carbon output? thats dumb, different people driving the same car can produce vastly different mileage, not to mention that a miata with bad rings is going to produce more bad stuff than one with a healthy engine.

another issue i'm seeing is that it gives no incentive to improve on what you have. you have x car, and every mile you drive that car is going to cost you x credits, there's nothing you can do about it. if people could certify their car as producing less than other cars of the same ilk, then people might put effort into maintaining and/or improving their car, rather than just drive it till the light says "fix me" because there's no incentive to do otherwise.

In theory, I also like cap and trade.

In practice, it will be just another tax that gets passed on to the consumers one way or another.

Only related to this thread as it is political rhetoric, but what rhetoric.

Click here

Strizzo wrote:

ignorant wrote: I understand the point about methane, though the people who used this arugment almost always don't care about the environment and are just trying to put out landmines. I think Carbon is used because its easier to make money off of

fixed for you. so the idea is that you buy x car, and said car driven x miles gives your carbon output? thats dumb, different people driving the same car can produce vastly different mileage, not to mention that a miata with bad rings is going to produce more bad stuff than one with a healthy engine. another issue i'm seeing is that it gives no incentive to improve on what you have. you have x car, and every mile you drive that car is going to cost you x credits, there's nothing you can do about it. if people could certify their car as producing less than other cars of the same ilk, then people might put effort into maintaining and/or improving their car, rather than just drive it till the light says "fix me" because there's no incentive to do otherwise.

The plans I see relate entirely to industry and nothing to the consumer afterward. Sure, its going to cost the consumer more in the short run, then someone will find a way to do it cheaper (less emissions) then use that as an advantage by having a cheaper price to the consumer.

i haven't seen a plan related actual cars and their emissions. If there is one please let me know I'd like to read it. However, I think thats a berkeleying stupid idea.