[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="713" id="3404285"] I've mentioned the German way, of investing heavily in solar panels. [/quote] So Germany, one of the richest countries on the planet with one of the healthiest economies on the planet, gets ~5% of their electricity from solar by investing huge amounts of money in the project and setting a timeline that goes out to the end of the century? That's your solution to this world ending problem?
[quote who="Jafo" reply="711" id="3404283"] There are only 2 options, neither of which has a snowflake's chance in hell of being adopted. 1. ZPG. 2. Price [tax] ALL 'polluters' out of viability. I DID say neither has a hope.[/quote] Fair enough. I shouldn't have been so broad in my declaration that no one offered solutions, because I think you've mentioned those before (though going back through 29 pages of posts to
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="707" id="3404229"] It's a tax... who cares. The governments need money, they tax everything and everyone. And governments lie about everything to everyone when it suits their purpose, that's nothing new either so who cares what they say, most of it is bullshit anyway. [/quote] So it's a tax that is collected and applied to... what, exactly? Nothing specific. Nothing tangible that you could evaluate for su
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="709" id="3404244"] Taxes are never fair... well anyway we're living in a democracy and the next government may well undo all the work of the previous government. That's how it goes ... there's so much wasted effort but still it's one of the best systems around. I'm overall pretty happy to live in a democracy: because despite all the lying, the false promises and the bureaucracy, citizens are still taken care
[quote who="Cykur" reply="686" id="3403969"] One more thing, if you don't want either fossil fuel OR nuclear, what are YOU suggesting. Maybe I missed it somewhere in all the reams of posts. Other energy sources have limitations. Hydro and geothermal are excellent sources of power, but they can only be developed in areas where they are available. Hydro already supplies something like 16% of the worlds power. Solar and wind are not reliable in all ar
[quote who="Alstein" reply="27" id="3403413"] I meant 60% of the popular vote. [/quote] I say this without intending to be disrespectful at all, because I think we (you and I specifically) have had or taken part in some interesting discussions around this place. This is a terrible, dreadful idea. It undermines the entire strength of the US constitution. The writings of the framers make it clear that they feared tyranny of the majo
[quote who="Chibiabos" reply="58" id="3404196"] 40s, 14th amendment ... do you make yourself take drug tests, Frogboy? Federal laws have always superceded state laws, from the very founding of the nation, long before the 40s (presuming you mean the 1940s). There were fights regarding this throughout the 1700s when we first founded to the 1800s. Probably one of the most notorious amendments smiting "state rights" was the 13th amendment abolishing slavery, in direct
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="606" id="3403173"] That's a major assumption, you're *assuming* that technology will solve everything for you. However, technology will also create problems. Just like solar panels may (or may not) become cheaper, coals plants will also become cheaper, and the digital revolution may (or may not) put increasing pressure on the resources of pure silicon, making it more expensive and thus leading to more expensive solar panels. [/quote]<
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="603" id="3403100"] So anyway, that global warming thing. How's that working out?[/quote] Not well at all. It got into a fight with 1970s global cooling, but then they both died during the Malthusian catastrophe. Unfortunately there are no records of any of it because they all got lost in the "End of History." /shrug
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="592" id="3403024"] Nope. I think that a HELL of a lot of progressives want to cut spending to stuff like defense and use that money elsewhere. Progressives also generally want to do things like get rid of fossil fuel subsidies in favor of subsidies on renewables. So you are just demonstrably wrong. Progressives consistently and repeatedly propose solutions other than higher taxes. [/quote] Just because you want to us
[quote who="Borg999" reply="586" id="3402862"] You and Brad keep on saying "taking money away from other people" or "using other peoples money", but that's what taxes are. Whether it's to buy new military equipment, subsidize school lunches or bridge maintenance. I guess my question is: when are taxes just taxes, and at what point do taxes transform into "taking money away from people". From your perspective, what's the break point?[/quote] <p
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="584" id="3402820"] The only real question is, do you want to pay for averting a far-away disaster now, or are you selfish and do you want future generations to pay for it[/quote] See this is the problem with AGW true believers. If you disagree with the scripture you must be greedy or selfish or stupid or a puppet for some evil super group bent on world domination and the eradication of all puppies. You must bow down to the IPCC altar or you
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="580" id="3402775"] Quoting Krazikarl, reply 577 Quoting Frogboy, reply 573Sure. But where do you want to draw the line? I think that this was determined a bit over 200 years ago. Its the Constitution. If you can get enough votes, you can get the government to do what you want. Unless its prohibited by the Constitution. Forcing people to buy Start8 would probably be ruled unconstitutional, electric car subsi
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="577" id="3402753"] What do you want? I don't have a number, and I don't think that anybody does. The price is that many less businesses will have to retool to be "greener". This is expensive, which will make them will make products more expensive for consumers and make many businesses less competitive. Governments will probably have to spend money on stuff like infrastructure (power grids!), which will require some
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="572" id="3402741"] Hrm, this is a major issue that I haven't gotten into, but this might be the appropriate time. The claims of doom and gloom for the economy are almost certainly overstated. Certainly switching to a greener economy will cause great economic change. And every time you see great economic change, you see the old guard whining to high hell about how the economy will suffer. I mean, when computers come aroun
[quote who="Borg999" reply="568" id="3402734"] What is it about electric cars you don't like? The gov't takes money away from people (taxes) and uses it for all sorts of things. [/quote] The problem is do-gooderism never runs out of uses for other people's money. That's Brad's whole point. The solutions to these problems ALWAYS revolve around taking money from people and using it for all sorts of things.
[quote who="Borg999" reply="569" id="3402735"] Ok, I just read your last post. You have an issue subsidizing consumer products. Fair enough. I agree. But I would say that if you live outside a city, a car is a necessity.[/quote] I disagree. But even if I agreed a "car" is a long way from a modern electric car. The cost is quite different. We could buy you a car to get around for $10k. The electric car is several times that. <
[quote who="flagyl" reply="506" id="3402543"] Why didn't you quote my other post or myfist0's post? Cherries must taste really nice when you pick them in the fall, right?[/quote] I quoted this one because this is the one where you bitched about rich people being the only ones who could afford it. That's a point I have been trying to make and you and others keep pretending doesn't exist. I'm not cherry picking at all. In fact I seem t
[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="501" id="3402535"] Why is this ludicrous... people don't care, so they'll keep on pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. At 2ppm/year of CO2 increase, this will result in about 2,500 ppm of CO2 after 1,000 years. [/quote] It's ludicrous because we're decades away from having real, viable alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Once those alternatives are cost effective they will overtake carbon fuel as th
[quote who="sjaminei" reply="497" id="3402517"] However the consequences will largely be felt by the third world, and we've screwed them before, so why not again? [/quote] Even assuming all the true-believers are right about AGW, a fact I dispute but will stipulate for arguments sake, which screws the 3rd world more? The eventual consequences of AGW or having their economic development destroyed because they can't afford non-carbon based fuel development? &nbs
[quote who="sjaminei" reply="497" id="3402517"] However the consequences will largely be felt by the third world, and we've screwed them before, so why not again? Republicans (as they seem the main deniers in the US), or their advisers could be aware of this, and even if hell breaks loose in a 100 years, just invade Canada and you guys will be fine. Someones misery is always someones gain. But instead of saying the truth, that global warming is man-made, or will at least be dep
[quote who="flagyl" reply="486" id="3402462"] http://www.solarpanelscostguide.com/#cost Statistics An average home in the United States requires approximately 20 to 24 kWh of electricity every day. An array of panels able to produce this much power has a size of 4 kW or more (based on 5 sun hours per day) and ranges in price from $15,000 to $20,000 installed (not taking any incentives into consideration). http://www.greencarreports.com/n
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="483" id="3402451"] Al Gore, after all, couldn't even be bothered to put up a token solar panel on his mansion. [/quote] He was going to put in a nice big array, but he needed the money to fuel his zero carbon footprint private jet that he uses to jump all over the globe giving all those free AGW speeches that he does. You know, the ones where he courageously warns folks of the impending doom to the planet that can only be avoided by his
