What to do about global warming

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
Uh, no. Label them alarmists because they're raising the alarm.

Right...based on their measurements. It's not alarmist to pull the fire alarm when you spot a fire in a building either...

This isn't just contained to climate stuff. Marine biologists who have been measuring the steady declines in the ocean nekton and benthic communities have also been called alarmist.

Basically, if the data collected by scientists is in any way seen as threatening the revenue stream of businesses, then it's going to be labeled alarmist.

Just for measuring something, and telling people what you measured.

Again, if what they're saying is alarming, perhaps it's because it should be alarming...

I don't recall you objecting to the word "denier". :roll:

If you deny a fire when someone pulls the alarm, that makes you a denier.

I don't object to proper use of language...
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
I wonder if Extra could tell us what sort of subsidies these wind producers are getting? Can we afford to give producers a 1.5 cent per killowatt hour tax credit?

If my fictional company builds wind turbines, the government makes money off us, but the amount the tax man collects is a little less than it would have been because I get a tax credit, can we afford that as a nation?

Now if Extra did some actual analysis this picture would be crystal clear. Instead we have to take his word that these subsidies are massive, and we can't afford them (he still neglects the total price of fossil subsidies which dwarf renewables, and introduces metrics like $ per employee, which says nothing about what we can and cannot afford...)

Don't hold your breath Avro.
Guess you missed post #47. "Course it was about solar, not wind but you should be able to get the drift.

Well here's a couple more examples of the kind of subsidy solar gets. As if you didn't already know that.

Ontario, for those of you not privileged enough to live here, has been relentlessly jacking up the cost of power. People come home to find little notices on their doors indicating they’ve been switched over to a “smart meter”, which calculates rate charges according to a grid based on the time of consumption. Use power during busy periods, and pay through the nose. Figure out a way to do your laundry at 3 am, and … well, you still pay through the nose, because good old Dalton has also just introduced the harmonized sales tax, which applies to home power consumption. Whoopie! We love spending a fortune to heat or cool our homes! Because we have a choice. It’s … it’s … OK, we don’t have a choice. We have to heat the damn place whether we like it or not.


To preclude people complaining about this, the government introduced a subsidy program designed to encourage the use of alternative sources of energy. Solar power, to be specific. Under the microFit program, the government promised to pay 20 times the usual rate for electricity, if it was generated by solar panels rather than by a big, evil nuclear reactor. People thought it was such a great offer that 16,000 applied to take part, many of them farmers with lots of land for erecting solar operations. That’s when the government got nervous: They hadn’t actually expected the program to succeed. They’d expected a limited number of applications, allowing them to waste money on a do-nothing program while proclaiming their dedication to conservation. If the program actually succeeded, they could be on the hook for $1 billion. So they broke their promise, backtracked on the program, and slashed the size of the subsidy. On a Friday afternoon during a heat wave when no one was looking.
Kelly McParland: Ontario pays the price of environmental posturing | Full Comment | National Post

NORTH Vancouver's hydrogen-powered car wash, part of the province's touted Hydrogen Highway, has not been powered by hydrogen since the beginning of April.

The Easywash eco-friendly car wash at Main Street and Mountain Highway has been running on electricity from the public grid for the past 3* months, ever since government funding for the demonstration project expired.


[...]

About 70 per cent of the fuel cell's costs were covered by a grant from provincial and federal governments.

Fuel cell no longer powers car wash
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Real analysis. Real savings. And no government teets involved at all.
Why thank you. You're making my point for me. Real savings! Exactly!

Companies exist to make a profit. Anything which saves them expenses will be embraced. For years supermarkets have been replacing refridgeration units every year or two. Because they're environmentally concious? No, because the technological improvement result in operational savings that will pay for them very quickly. The corporation I contracted for wanted to get ISO certification. Why? Because it would help their image and bolster sales, positively affecting the bottom line. So they submitted to audits and as one of their contractors my company was audited too. Either direct savings or PR, it's all about the bottom line.

(That doesn't mean any or all companies don't care about the environment.)

They like Lomborgs plan because it involves very little difficulty. They enjoy his view because they live in a fairy-tale world.

Lomborg's plan boils down to this:

Which is more effective than current efforts to change the climate.

Looking at samples of ice dating back 160,000 years gives us some clues that CO2 and world temperature are connected.

Global Warming

If the graphs at your link were superimposed you would notice that the warming precedes the CO2 increase, meaning (if anything) that warming causes CO2, the oposite of what the alarmists are saying.


Now, back on topic everyone, please.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
Which is more effective than current efforts to change the climate.

Right... In the same way, why bother to cut costs in spending that someone can't afford now? Using you logic, it would be better for a man who can't afford to pay all his bills to work on a time machine, so he could go back and buy lottery tickets.

Rather than cut costs where he can.

Good luck peddling your fairy tale logic Extra...
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
98,924
5,025
113
Moccasin Flats
Ontario, for those of you not privileged enough to live here, has been relentlessly jacking up the cost of power. People come home to find little notices on their doors indicating they’ve been switched over to a “smart meter”, which calculates rate charges according to a grid based on the time of consumption.
Lovely! Have you ever looked into the capabilities of the "smart meter"? Smart meters have the capability of shutting down your AC or heat if industry needs the energy.

Wonderful huh? Just be glad you don't live in the UK where power meters are coin operated and you have to pre-pay.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
And what would you call those folks that holler "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no threat?

Not scientists. Scientists have data in hand.

Guess you missed post #47.

Well, post 47 wasn't addressed to me or anything I said. My first post in this thread was #81.

I'll lay it out for you, since you seem to have a hard time following this stuff.

Avro quoted and responded to this nugget of yours:
All very nice. I've already posted some of the problems with wind power, noteably the subsidies.

To which I said to Avro:

I wonder if Extra could tell us what sort of subsidies these wind producers are getting? Can we afford to give producers a 1.5 cent per killowatt hour tax credit?

It wasn't about solar at all...

"Course it was about solar, not wind but you should be able to get the drift.

So, can you address the question or not? What is the actual problem with the government wind subsidies?

This was what you had said earlier, in case you conveniently forgot:

Besides wind power requires huge subsidies and governments are reaching the point where they can no longer fund anything and everything that catches their fancy.

So, considering that the wind power subsidies come in the form of tax credits, how exactly is it unsustainable? The government doesn't pay money out for a tax credit. The company just pays less in taxes, which drives more investment, and ultimately increases government revenue.

Do you have any analysis on that?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
98,924
5,025
113
Moccasin Flats
So, considering that the wind power subsidies come in the form of tax credits, how exactly is it unsustainable? The government doesn't pay money out for a tax credit. The company just pays less in taxes, which drives more investment, and ultimately increases government revenue.
If it's a good thing for economies then why did the Feds pull the plug on the Eco-Energy program that matched ON and other province's CASH investments in sustainable energy retrofitting for home, business and small scale commercial energy production?

Doesn't your province have a program with CASH INVESTMENTS? Why not?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
It's the government...you're asking me to justify their decisions? Is it your experience that governments make the best decisions?

I have no idea why they did that, especially considering they reinstated the program later on.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Not cleaning up, regardless of whether the cleaning up would have an effect on our atmosphere (and it would because CO2 is not the only pollutant in the issue), is simply moronic.
Not cleaning up pollution when we can is moronic. CO2 isn't a pollutant.

Yup, and I posted a lot of the things we did, which you sneered at and moaned that the world would come to an end if everyone tried it and it wouldn't work anyway. Well, bub, it worked for hubby and me and it's working for other countries.We haven't collapsed nor have the other countries that are acting upon the issue.
I didn't sneer at anything, you're reading that into my posts. All I said was what you have done (while commendable) if done by everyone else, wouldn't be enough to achieve the 80% CO2 emission reductions the alarmists say is needed.

So economic feasibility and human nature must be taken into consideration in any proposed solution, or it will fail.

If the 80% is to be reached tomorrow, yeah. So what? What I have been saying is that I bet we can reach that 80%; it will just take time. Again, you seem to think I've been saying it should happen all in one day. You ASSume too much.
Ahh, now we're getting somewhere. Yes it will take time (and money, lots and lots of money). Time for new technology to be developed. Wouldn't it make sense, rather than wasting trillions on efforts that will not have a measurable effect over the next 100 years, that we spend it on R&D for that new tech?

So, Spanish green industry collapsed. That means dirty industries are ok? That means the green industry can't crank up again? That means dirty industries aren't also subsidised?
The only point was that much "green" industry can't survive without massive taxpayer subsidization. That's it.

Reliable, yes. Cheap? Exxon didn't particularly think cleanup was cheap, and it got a hell of a deal on cost. BP thinks its energy is cheap? The accumulated effect on the planet after we've been messing it up over a century or so is cheap? I think you have a very narrow view of things and it has everything to do with short term monetary matters. Which means you ignore a lot of other related issues.
The bills for electricity from hydro-electric and from coal, the heat from natural gas and the price you pay for gas and diesel at the pumps is cheap. Cheap and abundant energy is one of the major reasons we are so wealthy a society.

So did hubby or I toss ethanol out as some sort of panacea? No. Gasoline with ethanol in it does not burn as efficiently so you have to use more to get the same amount of work done. Gas mileage goes down. We knew that long ago. It's why we quit using Mohawk gas.
Hubby posts here too? Which one is he, L Gilbert? I was merely pointing out errors in that graph to him.

Don't use Husky either, they're the same company now and both sell ethanol blend.

Quit ASSuming then, because that's not what he said. You're blowing smoke.
He said burining fossil fuels is stupid. I think it's reasonable to assume that he wouldn't do something he considers stupid. [/QUOTE]
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
CO2 isn't a pollutant.

Yes it is. It causes detrimental effects when the oceans absorb more carbonic acid. The atmospheric levels at the end of this century cause larval fish to swim towards predators during the recruitment phase. Those same levels reduce aragonite (the form of calcium that shellfish use) below a critical threshold by end of century, and in some places even by mid-century. If they can't maintain shells, then that is a detrimental effect. Therefore the chemical causing the effect is a pollutant.

Having an opinion is great, but it can be shown that it is a pollutant. Yeah yeah, it's plant food, but plants aren't starved of CO2, it's not even the most limiting nutrient. Liebig's law of limiting nutrients: growth isn't a function of the total amount of resources, it's constrained by the first limiting nutrient, which isn't carbon dioxide.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Not cleaning up pollution when we can is moronic. CO2 isn't a pollutant.
:roll: Back to this again. You sure have a bad memory. Anything can be a pollutant given sufficient quantities. Considering all the other crap we've spewed into the atmosphere, how would you know that the CO2 we also spew into it isn't a pollutant? Didja ever think that the amount of CO2 we do spew would be ok if it wasn't for all the other crap? It's a compound and complex problem.

I didn't sneer at anything, you're reading that into my posts. All I said was what you have done (while commendable) if done by everyone else, wouldn't be enough to achieve the 80% CO2 emission reductions the alarmists say is needed.
Along with a couple of snide remarks. Exactly. But then when I added that carbon trapping could be used as well, you went dead quiet. So it looks like you think what I suggested (between the list plus trapping carbon) would work.

So economic feasibility and human nature must be taken into consideration in any proposed solution, or it will fail.
So?

Ahh, now we're getting somewhere. Yes it will take time (and money, lots and lots of money). Time for new technology to be developed. Wouldn't it make sense, rather than wasting trillions on efforts that will not have a measurable effect over the next 100 years, that we spend it on R&D for that new tech?
That's what I started out by saying many months ago. But, your comment about "wasting trillions on efforts that will not have a measurable effect" is merely your conjecture.

The only point was that much "green" industry can't survive without massive taxpayer subsidization. That's it.
And I doubt polluting industries could either.

The bills for electricity from hydro-electric and from coal, the heat from natural gas and the price you pay for gas and diesel at the pumps is cheap. Cheap and abundant energy is one of the major reasons we are so wealthy a society.
Yup. And hubby and I have implemented something even cheaper. Our solar/hydro system cost between $7 and $8000 and it took itself about 2 years to pay for itself. Our last statement from the power company came with a $528 cheque for the electricity we added to the "grid".

Hubby posts here too? Which one is he, L Gilbert? I was merely pointing out errors in that graph to him.

Don't use Husky either, they're the same company now and both sell ethanol blend.

He said burining fossil fuels is stupid. I think it's reasonable to assume that he wouldn't do something he considers stupid.
Unless there's little choice. I don't like weeding but I have little choice.
 

GreenFish66

House Member
Apr 16, 2008
2,717
10
38
www.myspace.com
What do you do about Global Warming ...

Care

If you Give a S&*T , Clean up the Waste..Find better ways of doing things..

Think of something Greater than yourself...The Earth ...Our 1 and only Home Planet ...( 4 now)
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
52
Oshawa
YouTube - ‪The Windmill Farmer‬‎

Greentech media has the story – the wind industry is crashing in the wake of Congress’ inability to pass a Renewable Portfolio Standard, or any kind of energy bill. As China and Europe continue to ramp up the green energy revolution, we’ve put America’s economy firmly on track to the 19th century.
“In the first half of this year, we are down 70 percent in terms of wind installation,” Bode said in introducing the report. In addition, she said, “we continue to see a drop in new manufacturing activity.” Speaking with rising passion, Bode said the U.S. had dropped to third place, behind both the European Union and China, in new wind installations. Describing the U.S. wind industry’s circumstances as “dire,” she went on to say, “We need action.”
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,428
143
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nd9OuX7Bd4&feature=player_embedded

Greentech media has the story – the wind industry is crashing in the wake of Congress’ inability to pass a Renewable Portfolio Standard, or any kind of energy bill. As China and Europe continue to ramp up the green energy revolution, we’ve put America’s economy firmly on track to the 19th century.
“In the first half of this year, we are down 70 percent in terms of wind installation,” Bode said in introducing the report. In addition, she said, “we continue to see a drop in new manufacturing activity.” Speaking with rising passion, Bode said the U.S. had dropped to third place, behind both the European Union and China, in new wind installations. Describing the U.S. wind industry’s circumstances as “dire,” she went on to say, “We need action.”


.... Ahhhh, the cry of the greenie-brigade, moaning that they need more subsidies in order to save the planet. With all of the benefits that they demand come with green tech, independently and financially stable are not one of them.

Say Avro, why aren't the dirt-worshipers getting the cash together to save the planet? I suppose that it's really not that important afterall, eh?
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
52
Oshawa
.... Ahhhh, the cry of the greenie-brigade, moaning that they need more subsidies in order to save the planet. With all of the benefits that they demand come with green tech, independently and financially stable are not one of them.

Say Avro, why aren't the dirt-worshipers getting the cash together to save the planet? I suppose that it's really not that important afterall, eh?

Why not?

Big oil and coal get subsidies.