Democrats Unveil Ambitious Global Warming Bill

[blazerboy30]

What you're not accounting for here is that solar power technology will also benefit from technology's accelerating development.

But for that to happen, there have to be people working on that technology, which requires money.

I'm more a proponent of having a good, solid business plan, with new technology and having investors provide the funding.

This appears like the opposite: tax the taxpayers, and then look for places to spend the money, with the government deciding which market to force forward. That seems bad to me.

It isn't very common that a VC will have extra money and just decide which market they want to move forward. They will fund solid business plans, promising technology, etc.

Nuclear has proved to be a viable technology for power countries. We know it will work, and extra money can be used to improve it (like you mentioned, handling the waste).

 

[PapaG]

Because technology changes. Wind, solar and geothermal have been "around," but that doesn't mean humans ever had the technology to effectively harness them. Nuclear power, an option you say you like, has been around for billions of years...it just takes a higher level of technology to use than burning fossil fuels does.

So far, burning fossil fuels has been the most efficient form of energy. However, A. it's non-replenishable and B. improving technology has made nuclear very efficient and could very well make wind/solar/geothermal very efficient in the future.

I don't think using oil should be stopped, but other forms of energy (including nuclear, but not excepting wind/solar/geothermal) should be explored. The fact that it has "been around" a long time without being efficient is only a comment on the past, not the future.

My thought is that the best product has always made its way through the private sector. I agree with you and would like to see this money used to further develop nuclear energy, but that simply will not happen, so we're left with this BS.

 

[Minstrel]

I'm more a proponent of having a good, solid business plan, with new technology and having investors provide the funding.

This appears like the opposite: tax the taxpayers, and then look for places to spend the money, with the government deciding which market to force forward.

It isn't very common that a VC will have extra money and just decide which market they want to move forward. They will fund solid business plans, promising technology, etc.

In most cases, I agree. I think some markets need to be forced forward, because the market forces value only the present. Which is generally the right focus, but just because oil is the most efficient form of energy right now doesn't mean that other things shouldn't be developed for the future, even if it is not profitable now. That is where I feel government has an investing role...things that are important that private investors either can't do (space exploration) or have no current incentive to do (find a clean, renewable source of energy).

Right now, with oil still plentiful and efficient, there's no great profitability in other things, but I think it's still important to develop so that it's in place when we need it.

 

[blazerboy30]

In most cases, I agree. I think some markets need to be forced forward, because the market forces value only the present. Which is generally the right focus, but just because oil is the most efficient form of energy right now doesn't mean that other things shouldn't be developed for the future, even if it is not profitable now. That is where I feel government has an investing role...things that are important that private investors either can't do (space exploration) or have no current incentive to do (find a clean, renewable source of energy).

Right now, with oil still plentiful and efficient, there's no great profitability in other things, but I think it's still important to develop so that it's in place when we need it.

Mostly agreed.

However, given the option, I would prefer for the government to reduce the incentive for oil profitibility, rather than try to force a certain market to advance. I just don't have faith in the government to be smart enough, or ethical enough to make the decision.

For example, could something like this work? A large tax increase on gas. Increase the gas tax so that it is painful to continue using foreign oil. With the increased tax revenue from gas tax, provide an income tax reduction, and reduce the corporate tax rate. This would attempt to make it minimal change on individuals finances, and this would put the money back to the private industries, while starting to level the playing field with the oil companies.

 

[Minstrel]

Mostly agreed.

However, given the option, I would prefer for the government to reduce the incentive for oil profitibility, rather than try to force a certain market to advance. I just don't have faith in the government to be smart enough, or ethical enough to make the decision.

I think it should be based on the science. I suppose we could say that we're not sure that the government will tap the right scientists, will politicize it...it's a risk. But at least conceptually, the money shouldn't be forced blindly into anything, but into the proposals with the best scientific merit and feasibility.

For example, could something like this work? A large tax increase on gas. Increase the gas tax so that it is painful to continue using foreign oil. With the increased tax revenue from gas tax, provide an income tax reduction, and reduce the corporate tax rate. This would attempt to make it minimal change on individuals finances, and this would put the money back to the private industries, while starting to level the playing field with the oil companies.

Hmm, perhaps I'm missing something, but if you drastically increase tax on gas, but pump those collected taxes back into companies and individuals, aren't you just subsidizing them to keep using the (now much more expensive) gas?

 

[PapaG]

Mostly agreed.

However, given the option, I would prefer for the government to reduce the incentive for oil profitibility, rather than try to force a certain market to advance. I just don't have faith in the government to be smart enough, or ethical enough to make the decision.

For example, could something like this work? A large tax increase on gas. Increase the gas tax so that it is painful to continue using foreign oil. With the increased tax revenue from gas tax, provide an income tax reduction, and reduce the corporate tax rate. This would attempt to make it minimal change on individuals finances, and this would put the money back to the private industries, while starting to level the playing field with the oil companies.

That's a totally regressive tax scheme. Hell, even I would be opposed to it, plus it would accelerate our path to the upcoming period of inflation.

 

[cloudydays]

I don't like the government depending upon scientific breakthroughs.

No way in hell 25 percent of the country's power will come from Wind, Solar, and Geothermal energy unless they become way more efficient.

 

[barfo]

Hmm, perhaps I'm missing something, but if you drastically increase tax on gas, but pump those collected taxes back into companies and individuals, aren't you just subsidizing them to keep using the (now much more expensive) gas?

You are, but you are giving them the opportunity to save more money by not using gas than they could save now by not using gas. So they are more motivated to conserve. At least at the beginning. After many people give up gas, the incentive goes down because the payments from the gas tax go down (assuming there is an observable link between the gas tax receipts and individual taxes, which isn't so obviously true).

barfo

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I don't like the government depending upon scientific breakthroughs.

No way in hell 25 percent of the country's power will come from Wind, Solar, and Geothermal energy unless they become way more efficient.

Agree. Same way I feel about stem cells, i think private funding and gates should be opened but to have government expend billions themselves when it could be used to fix hospitals or improve the state, that's the main role of government...to fix infrastructure, not explore breakthroughs in technology.

 

[barfo]

For example, could something like this work? A large tax increase on gas. Increase the gas tax so that it is painful to continue using foreign oil. With the increased tax revenue from gas tax, provide an income tax reduction, and reduce the corporate tax rate. This would attempt to make it minimal change on individuals finances, and this would put the money back to the private industries, while starting to level the playing field with the oil companies.

Isn't that pretty much what the Europeans do?

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

Isn't that pretty much what the Europeans do?

barfo

I don't know. But I assume, since they are Europeans, that they hike up the gas tax, but don't give the people and corporations a tax break. Instead just keep the revenues to spend on other crap.

 

[barfo]

I don't know. But I assume, since they are Europeans, that they hike up the gas tax, but don't give the people and corporations a tax break. Instead just keep the revenues to spend on other crap.

It's pretty hard to say whether other taxes would be higher w/o the gas tax, or not.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Another Chicken Little thread by PapaG, what a surprise.

Many people here in Beautiful Central Oregon live completely off the grid, with Solar and Wind technology providing all the power they need to run their household. The cost actually ends up being quite a bit cheaper than gas or oil or electricity from a conglomerate provider if you do the math over 20 years or so. And it's so much healthier and so much less polluting.

Some people just can never accept change, no matter how large the benefit to them.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Another Chicken Little thread by PapaG, what a surprise.

Many people here in Beautiful Central Oregon live completely off the grid, with Solar and Wind technology providing all the power they need to run their household. The cost actually ends up being quite a bit cheaper than gas or oil or electricity from a conglomerate provider if you do the math over 20 years or so. And it's so much healthier and so much less polluting.

Some people just can never accept change, no matter how large the benefit to them.

Yes, it takes 20-30 years to recoup the costs...that is assuming of course, costs stay the same. As technology develops it should get cheaper, so if you're an early adoptee, you're getting ripped off!

 

[MARIS61]

Yes, it takes 20-30 years to recoup the costs...that is assuming of course, costs stay the same. As technology develops it should get cheaper, so if you're an early adoptee, you're getting ripped off!

That would be true except that gas, oil, and electricity keep getting more costly to the consumer.

20-30 years from now it is unlikely they will be affordable enough to be used by most Americans on a daily basis.

I remember filling my Rambler's gas tank for $3.00 and paying $60 for a winter's worth of oil for the furnace while making $14 an hour driving a forklift back in the early 70's as a teenager in my first union job.

You'd be lucky to find the same wage ($14 hr) nowadays for that job let alone find a forklift job whose pay has increased proportionately (to roughly $140 an hour). Thank Reagan for busting the unions and enslaving hundreds of millions of Americans for generations to come.

If you're 18 or so right now, know that you would/should be making $140 hour right now, fresh out of high school, as long as you showed up for work and were willing to do your very best. You could afford to take your girl to a concert for $4 a ticket, support your 35 cents-a-pack cigarette habit, buy a dozen LP's a week, trick out your ride, get a guitar or a new stereo, pay for college, all the while saving for your retirement on top of the nice retirement package from your loyal employer. You could see a Dentist about that toothache right away.

That is how far the scales of avarice and treason have tilted your fate over the last 4 decades, and the people who withhold/supply energy to you are the same people who tilted the scales so unjustly. From Standard Oil's Vietnam to Halliburton's Iraq they've made a mockery of America and of Americans. They've murdered by proxy and they've billed the victims handsomely for the privilege.

And it's all been done with smoke and mirrors, because the Sun actually supplies by itself all the energy required to operate the entire planet. Always has. That is it's job.

Solar and wind technology are very simple, very basic, and will be pretty much DYI kits everyone buys and assembles in the near future. I know people who have already designed and built their own. It's not rocket science. They should be common classroom science projects in schools. Wind tech. isn't at a practical stage IMO, and won't be until it can provide much more energy with tiny windblades on your roof, because otherwise it's a butt-ugly blight on the landscape.

Solar is there, and we can harness it fine, but battery development is actually all that is holding it back for vehicles.

Combined with basic passive solar designed homes, current technology is more than enough to run homes in many climates/ares. Germany is kicking ass with solar, because their government got behind it.

I'm liking this President more every day.

 

[blazerboy30]

in my first union job.

Ahhh. This explains a lot.

 

[MARIS61]

Ahhh. This explains a lot.

Care to expand on that?

 

[maxiep]

Personally, I think we should increase our country's dependence on oil so we can continue our addiction to the only natural resource the Middle East offers. I actually love relying on their political and economic stability to keep the engine of our economy running. Not to mention we get to continue to invest in 19th Century technology in a 21st Century economy.

Holla back if you with me!

-Pop

Well, considering that we get the majority of our oil from non-Middle East countries, I don't see what your problem is.

http://perotcharts.com/2008/07/united-states-oil-imports-by-country-march-2008/

Also, we're the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have vast shale oil deposits. We have terrific nuclear technology and large uranium deposits in the Southwest. Why aren't those proven reserves tapped at a higher rate? If the goal is self-reliance, it's more than possible. If the goal is to produce clean energy, go all nuclear.

As for 19th century technologies, plenty of them still work and work well. Just because an idea is old doesn't make it bad.

This bill is a feel-good measure based on unproven technologies.

 

[maxiep]

I don't see that as clearly a mistake. There's no way wind and solar could account for 25% of our power needs today, but 15 years is an eternity in terms of technology life cycle, especially since the pace of innovation has been accelerating exponentially. In 15 years, with proper funding, solar and wind could very well be far superior technologies to the solar and wind technologies of today.

Shouldn't the "proper funding" come from the private sector? If it has the capability to make money, VC folks will find it. The paucity of VC investment in these technologies shows that the private sector thinks its a money loser.

 

[maxiep]

I remeber when hybrid vehicles were used as a punchline to a joke . . . and some of the hybrid cars back then were jokes.

Today's hybrid vehicles are no joke and not a step back into the stone ages.

Until you have to replace the batteries and find a place to dispose of them.

 

[maxiep]

That would be true except that gas, oil, and electricity keep getting more costly to the consumer.

20-30 years from now it is unlikely they will be affordable enough to be used by most Americans on a daily basis.

I remember filling my Rambler's gas tank for $3.00 and paying $60 for a winter's worth of oil for the furnace while making $14 an hour driving a forklift back in the early 70's as a teenager in my first union job.

You'd be lucky to find the same wage ($14 hr) nowadays for that job let alone find a forklift job whose pay has increased proportionately (to roughly $140 an hour). Thank Reagan for busting the unions and enslaving hundreds of millions of Americans for generations to come.

If you're 18 or so right now, know that you would/should be making $140 hour right now, fresh out of high school, as long as you showed up for work and were willing to do your very best. You could afford to take your girl to a concert for $4 a ticket, support your 35 cents-a-pack cigarette habit, buy a dozen LP's a week, trick out your ride, get a guitar or a new stereo, pay for college, all the while saving for your retirement on top of the nice retirement package from your loyal employer. You could see a Dentist about that toothache right away.

That is how far the scales of avarice and treason have tilted your fate over the last 4 decades, and the people who withhold/supply energy to you are the same people who tilted the scales so unjustly. From Standard Oil's Vietnam to Halliburton's Iraq they've made a mockery of America and of Americans. They've murdered by proxy and they've billed the victims handsomely for the privilege.

And it's all been done with smoke and mirrors, because the Sun actually supplies by itself all the energy required to operate the entire planet. Always has. That is it's job.

Solar and wind technology are very simple, very basic, and will be pretty much DYI kits everyone buys and assembles in the near future. I know people who have already designed and built their own. It's not rocket science. They should be common classroom science projects in schools. Wind tech. isn't at a practical stage IMO, and won't be until it can provide much more energy with tiny windblades on your roof, because otherwise it's a butt-ugly blight on the landscape.

Solar is there, and we can harness it fine, but battery development is actually all that is holding it back for vehicles.

Combined with basic passive solar designed homes, current technology is more than enough to run homes in many climates/ares. Germany is kicking ass with solar, because their government got behind it.

I'm liking this President more every day.

I now understand your bitterness. Labor is a commodity like anything else. In the long term, all profits go to zero. Brainpower now captures the wealth in the value chain. Muscle is paid what it's worth--not much.

I'm sorry our society has evolved beyond you.

 

[Minstrel]

Shouldn't the "proper funding" come from the private sector? If it has the capability to make money, VC folks will find it. The paucity of VC investment in these technologies shows that the private sector thinks its a money loser.

I already responded to that point to blazerboy.

In most cases, I agree. I think some markets need to be forced forward, because the market forces value only the present. Which is generally the right focus, but just because oil is the most efficient form of energy right now doesn't mean that other things shouldn't be developed for the future, even if it is not profitable now. That is where I feel government has an investing role...things that are important that private investors either can't do (space exploration) or have no current incentive to do (find a clean, renewable source of energy).

Right now, with oil still plentiful and efficient, there's no great profitability in other things, but I think it's still important to develop so that it's in place when we need it.

It may not be profitable at the moment. That doesn't mean it isn't important for the future.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Another Chicken Little thread by PapaG, what a surprise.

Many people here in Beautiful Central Oregon live completely off the grid, with Solar and Wind technology providing all the power they need to run their household. The cost actually ends up being quite a bit cheaper than gas or oil or electricity from a conglomerate provider if you do the math over 20 years or so. And it's so much healthier and so much less polluting.

Some people just can never accept change, no matter how large the benefit to them.

Didn't I read somewhere that Beautiful Central Oregon gets 300 days of bright, clear sunshine a year. To compare, Seattle and Portland get around 55-65 days (depending on the source...and Portland gets more). And isn't Beautiful Central Oregon on a high plateau, meaning that more direct sunlight is received at the panels rather than being scattered through another 3-5k feet of atmosphere?

I'm not an expert in solar technology, but isn't relatively direct sunlight a requirement for efficient use?

 

[BrianFromWA]

COuple of random thoughts after reading through this thread...

Hasn't GM (which is now going bankrupt) been the company that has invested the most heavily in electric car technology? In Dr. Phil's terms....how's that working for ya?

Why is it that people keep bringing up European countries as models for energy use, when by-and-large they use the following: geothermal, nuclear, oil, diesel. It's not like there are wind farms scattered all over France that light up the Eiffel Tower each night.

Wind's unpredictable. So is sun. If you want a "renewable" source of energy...harness tides. Anyone can look up what and when the tides will be at almost any place on earth at almost any date in the relatively long future. It happens 2 (or 4) times per day. The earth and moon do it for us. How about harnessing that?

But nope....solar and wind are the new buzzwords. And unless someone can help me with my error, neither the President nor anyone in his cabinet (other than SoE) has a technical degree and a body of work in the job they're in, though the Director of EPA is a chemical engineer by education. Shaun Donovan with HUD had a BS in Engineering on his way to being an architect. The rest are PoliSci, history, economics, etc.

I'm happy that the Pres picked a scientist guy for SecEnergy. Actually, I'm reading more googled stuff on Dr. Chu. He didn't advocate against "climate change", it was against "global warming", which I'll leave to Denny to explain the difference between. He led LBNL over the last few years while they looked into biofuels and renewable solar energy stuff. He said California farms could be wiped out by global warming within the century, and advocates that nuclear power is a way to go.

 

[maxiep]

I already responded to that point to blazerboy.

In most cases, I agree. I think some markets need to be forced forward, because the market forces value only the present. Which is generally the right focus, but just because oil is the most efficient form of energy right now doesn't mean that other things shouldn't be developed for the future, even if it is not profitable now. That is where I feel government has an investing role...things that are important that private investors either can't do (space exploration) or have no current incentive to do (find a clean, renewable source of energy).

Right now, with oil still plentiful and efficient, there's no great profitability in other things, but I think it's still important to develop so that it's in place when we need it.

It may not be profitable at the moment. That doesn't mean it isn't important for the future.

Every time I hear this point of view, I think of the words of Jonas Salk. He said if the government had driven polio research, we would have had the world's best iron lung instead of a vaccine.

The problem when you have one entity that doesn't have competition, one group of people, generally less qualified, pick a winner. I prefer to let the market do it. If the market decides now is not the time, then there are times when bureaucrats just have to let people live and make what they perceive to be mistakes.