Clean Energy News

How interesting that all of those came from Murdoch "news" outlets (Fox, WSJ).

What can you expect from an organisation that has been to court to defend its "right" to lie, misinform and disinform.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8816870].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

How interesting that all of those came from Murdoch "news" outlets (Fox, WSJ).

What can you expect from an organisation that has been to court to defend its "right" to lie, misinform and disinform.

That was back in 2003, I think -- one seriously disastrous precedence. I just shake my head over crap I see on TV.

What's adds to that fun is subliminal ads were never outlawed. There was a lawsuit and people "assumed" that subliminals were legislated against. They were not.

Hey, Whatever........
Ever watch people watch TV? They're not there. Seriously. Some of us hooked a TV up in an entryway of a fairly large building - and watched people come in the front door and see a TV with news playing. Boom - blank stare and walking to the TV. Standing completely stupid in front of it and completely blind to anything going on around them. It was pretty revealing. It was pretty scary, too.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8819778].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Hey, Whatever........
Ever watch people watch TV? They're not there. Seriously. Some of us hooked a TV up in an entryway of a fairly large building - and watched people come in the front door and see a TV with news playing. Boom - blank stare and walking to the TV. Standing completely stupid in front of it and completely blind to anything going on around them. It was pretty revealing. It was pretty scary, too.

I noticed something similar to that way back in the late 80's.

I'd been invited over to dinner at a friends place (a young couple). I took a video with me for us to watch after the meal.

I noticed that while watching it, every 15 minutes or so, they would both get up and start making a coffee/tea, going for a pee, and other activities.

The only reason I could think of for them to miss part of the action was that they had been "programmed" (no pun intended) to have a break at around that mark because that's when TV shows are interrupted by adverts.

Nowadays, if there's a good show on the box, I'll wait for 6-12 months until it comes out on DVD and watch it when I want, how I want, uninterrupted..

Thanks

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8826113].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Daily Kos: ALEC Conspires to Tax Private Solar Panel "Freeriders"

Wow! That organization of a lot of major financial concerns is in the middle of a lot of stuff.

The group is lead by a couple of wealthy brothers who aren't exactly the Smothers.

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8818323].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

1. Thermal energy is inefficient here for several reasons!
2. That is FAR from a new concept, but tapping into an ELECTRIC car's battery? Batteries and motors aren't so efficient that that is a good use of power! IMAGINE, you need power, it saps your battery, you decide to go out to get fuel or something, and find you are STRANDED!
3. I thought they were ALREADY doing this! I mean a good system will always give you more than you need, since outages and lags occur!
4. Yeah, I wonder when this will REALLY catch on. I was surprised to see that the pentagon actually has a photovoltiac farm! And that was almost a decade ago!
5. WOW, they were talking about doing this when I was a kid. It would be interesting to see pictures and specs.
8. So why aren't they using this in CARS!?!?!?!? The TESLA, for example, has bad problems with THEIR batteries!
11. Thermopiles would be cleaner! You decompose materials for plants, mulching, recycling, etc.... and have the heat generate electricity. NO extra pollution!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8819445].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

I'll have to check out those 2003 claims. Regarding the 8 "absurd" whatevers, I only heard ONE of them on fox news. I have heard it on MANY channels! And that is that tesla IS suffering financially. HECK, they referred to it AGAIN after the battery problems.

They have had electric cars for a LONG time! I went to an electric car manufacturer when I was like 7. LATER, when I went to denmark in 1989 I saw some electric DANISH cars by the side of the road. HECK, I had an issue of Popular mechanics(probably like 30 years ago) that spoke of the GM magnaquench(IIRC)! HERE it is TODAY: The Saga of Magnequench » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names It began in 1986.

As I recall, one of the goals for this was to create a small and powerful motor that created a lot of power with less of a drain. As I said earlier, Lithium, at least from what I remember, was discussed for electric cars. That was BEFORE lithium batteries, BEFORE the IBM PC, BEFORE CELL PHONES, And I believe even before the microprocessor that even makes computers like the IBM PC possible!

Yeah, they have been thinking about electric vehicles a LONG time. The primary reason why we are still using the more complicated, less versatile, and dangerous internal combustion engines is because we haven't managed to make batteries and motors that are small enough, light enough, and powerful enough to get enough of the benefits of gas. And there is the problem of the cost.

As for solar? seriously, there are LOTS of problems with that right now, unless people use it LOCALLY, or conserve. Too few will conserve, and they kind of complicate it locally, so it isn't as popular as it should be. They could keep the electricity laws as they are so people can sell the excess back to the electric companies, so NON solar homes would STILL end up being cleaner. I DON'T agree with having HUGE farms someplace, and moving the power to the home. It is too expensive, uses too much land, subject to blackouts, etc... Having home owners and apartment owners pay for it makes the cost effectively ZERO, uses NO extra land, and clouds, snow, low flying aircraft, vandalism, etc... will have virtually NO effect!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820348].message }}

Sarevok

10 years ago

Did they make cold fusion yet

Thanks

Signature

Check Out My Legendary Marketing Blog By Clicking This Beautiful Text.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8820700].message }}

yukon

Banned 10 years ago

Kinetic energy from roads has to be one of the easiest solutions for alternative energy. High traffic intersections should have these things installed.

Electricity from road with kinetic energy. video...

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8821028].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

Kinetic energy from roads has to be one of the easiest solutions for alternative energy. High traffic intersections should have these things installed.

Electricity from road with kinetic energy. video 2.flv - YouTube

Very interesting!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8821182].message }}

tagiscom 10 years ago

Don't know why this thread is popular?

There is no mention of zero point energy anywhere here, that is or would be a breakthrough!

Everything else mentioned here, would help, but l don't see any revolutionary stuff here?

Solar panels for a fraction of their current price is probably the best, but l suspect that they wouldn't last long, (being so thin) and they have the usual won't work at night issue!

Fission, (the multibillion super heated plasma from sea water) is similar to medical products.

Hideously expensive, and out of the reach of an individual to repeat it in their back yard!

Or in the case of medical, it is always created by dodgy geans.

So the patient feels that it is out of their hands, and they have to sell their house!

Shane
- Thanks
Signature
Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8821449].message }}

travlinguy

10 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

Kinetic energy from roads has to be one of the easiest solutions for alternative energy. High traffic intersections should have these things installed.

Electricity from road with kinetic energy. video 2.flv - YouTube

Okay, something like this just makes me nuts. We talk about climate change here a lot. We're supposedly in a warming trend partially due to excessive CO2 being released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. With this technology we could literally harvest billions of watts of power and put hundreds of thousands of people to work.

The power would be fed directly back into the grid without burning any additional fossil fuel, resulting in a massive decline of CO2 released into the atmosphere. So why aren't we doing it?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8826699].message }}

whateverpedia 10 years ago

Originally Posted by travlinguy

So why aren't we doing it?

Politicians paid for by the fossil fuel industry.
- [ 4 ] Thanks
Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
So that blind people can hate them as well.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8860214].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

The graph shows the price per watt, starting in 1977 at over $76/watt all the way down to $0.74/watt in 2013.

While already competitive with dirty energy in many areas of the world, just a few more years will show solar taking over the world!

http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-...ver-world.html

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8824831].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

The graph shows the price per watt, starting in 1977 at over $76/watt all the way down to $0.74/watt in 2013.

While already competitive with dirty energy in many areas of the world, just a few more years will show solar taking over the world!

This graph shows why solar power will take over the world : TreeHugger

Actually, if you really shop around, you can get solar panels for under 50 cents a watt now.

And if you factor in the projected increase in carbon based energy costs 10-20 years from now, solar and wind is an even better investment.

BTW, there's some that called Denver's popular public bike system "socialism".

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8824961].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Actually, if you really shop around, you can get solar panels for under 50 cents a watt now.

And if you factor in the projected increase in carbon based energy costs 10-20 years from now, solar and wind is an even better investment.

BTW, there's some that called Denver's popular public bike system "socialism".

Thinking about putting solar power in my house. I know a few people who did this and love the savings.

Any advice?

NYC is trying a public bike system. Not sure how well it's doing though...

New York City Bike Share | NYC's new transit option

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8825147].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

Thinking about putting solar power in my house. I know a few people who did this and love the savings.

Any advice?

NYC is trying a public bike system. Not sure how well it's doing though...

New York City Bike Share | NYC's new transit option

First, make sure you have enough sunlight in your area to make it worthwhile. There are a few charts online. Also consider that even if your general area gets enough sun, your particular home may not. It could be because of trees, buildings, etc.

If you want to have someone install solar panels for you, make sure they will let you purchase your own panels. Many installers mark up the price of the panels.

Check this site for prices and use it as a shopping guide, their prices will likely be hard to beat:
Solar Panels, Systems, Inverters | Residential & Commercial

When calculating how long it will take to get your investment back, remember that power bills generally are increasing at a higher rate than general inflation. In 10 years, your power bill may be more than twice as much as it is now.

Do you want the panels installed on your roof or in your yard, or a combo? On the roof doesn't take up any of your yard space. But if you install them on the ground, they are easier to clean, brush snow off and align them every few weeks by hand to match the angle of the sun.

Also, research if an automatic heliostat/solar tracker is worth the investment. Always having the cells pointing directly at the sun will greatly increase their efficiency.

IMO, the most under-used strategy with solar panels is the concept of reflection. Reflective mylar is very cheap, or you may be able to find mirror for free on Craiglist or cheap at a Habitat for Humanity "ReStore". You can greatly increase the wattage of your panels by reflecting more sun on them, however you need to be very careful that you don't overheat them, or even start a fire.

Is wind an option? A combo of wind and solar is often a good choice as usually when there's no sun there's wind and vice versa. And wind and solar can share many of the same resources such as batteries, inverters, etc.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8825193].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

First, make sure you have enough sunlight in your area to make it worthwhile. There are a few charts online. Also consider that even if your general area gets enough sun, your particular home may not. It could be because of trees, buildings, etc.

If you want to have someone install solar panels for you, make sure they will let you purchase your own panels. Many installers mark up the price of the panels.

Check this site for prices and use it as a shopping guide, their prices will likely be hard to beat:
Solar Panels, Systems, Inverters | Residential & Commercial

When calculating how long it will take to get your investment back, remember that power bills generally are increasing at a higher rate than general inflation. In 10 years, your power bill may be more than twice as much as it is now.

Do you want the panels installed on your roof or in your yard, or a combo? On the roof doesn't take up any of your yard space. But if you install them on the ground, they are easier to clean, brush snow off and align them every few weeks by hand to match the angle of the sun.

Also, research if an automatic heliostat/solar tracker is worth the investment. Always having the cells pointing directly at the sun will greatly increase their efficiency.

IMO, the most under-used strategy with solar panels is the concept of reflection. Reflective mylar is very cheap, or you may be able to find mirror for free on Craiglist or cheap at a Habitat for Humanity "ReStore". You can greatly increase the wattage of your panels by reflecting more sun on them, however you need to be very careful that you don't overheat them, or even start a fire.

Is wind an option? A combo of wind and solar is often a good choice as usually when there's no sun there's wind and vice versa. And wind and solar can share many of the same resources such as batteries, inverters, etc.

Thanks Kurt - VERY helpful.

My house gets very good sunlight 3/4 of the day, but I will certainly look for a chart for my area.

My preference is installed on the roof. I would definitely look in to the solar tracker as me and rooftops don't get along too well

. Cleaning snow is something I would need to figure out. I do have one friend about 30 minutes away with panels on his roof - I'll check with him on what he does.

I never thought of the wind option to go with the solar...we do tend to get some good wind - especially when it's overcast. Not sure what the town says about that - I'll have to check. They're pretty meddlesome...

Time to do some research...

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8826309].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Actually, if you really shop around, you can get solar panels for under 50 cents a watt now.

And if you factor in the projected increase in carbon based energy costs 10-20 years from now, solar and wind is an even better investment.

BTW, there's some that called Denver's popular public bike system "socialism".

Yeh, some people seem to be against anything that's "public" and I bet some of them also say stuff like...

"Keep your government hands off my Medicare"...

... and other seriously gross misunderstanding of public policy/program statements.

Do you know if the initiative is paying for itself?

I'm not saying it has to pay for itself because many public initiatives do not show any apparent public financial gain but do provide other benefits to the population.

They (the anti-socialism crowd) should be at least happy that its a only a local issue.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8944887].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

The bigger problem with some of the regulatory control of fossil fuels and pushing to alternative energies it that is increases cost of energy.

There's no argument that happens - it's documented and the answer given is "but it's best for all in the long run".

That may be true - but in a struggling economy with so many regular people barely getting from one paycheck to the next....rising energy costs place a heavy burden on lower middle class and poor families.

They pay a higher percentage of their income for energy - and these stringent regulatory policies drive that percentage even higher.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000780].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

The bigger problem with some of the regulatory control of fossil fuels and pushing to alternative energies it that is increases cost of energy.

There's no argument that happens - it's documented and the answer given is "but it's best for all in the long run".

That may be true - but in a struggling economy with so many regular people barely getting from one paycheck to the next....rising energy costs place a heavy burden on lower middle class and poor families.

They pay a higher percentage of their income for energy - and these stringent regulatory policies drive that percentage even higher.

And many people struggle with the concept of intangible costs.

What's the additional cost for health care from burning fossil fuels due to the known health issues air pollution causes? How much is an extra few years of life for a loved one or yourself worth?

What's the cost of polluting the Gulf from the BP oil spill?

What's the cost of having your tap water being flamable due to fracking when you try to sell your home at a much lower price?

It's ironic that those that live close to fracking, including Big Oil execs themselves, want more regulations for fracking. They're all for fracking, but not in their backward.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000799].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

New York Governor Announces $1 Billion For Solar Energy | ThinkProgress

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8855885].message }}

ThomM 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

New York Governor Announces $1 Billion For Solar Energy | ThinkProgress

Interesting article. I noticed it didn't mention who would be delivering the power or who would be getting the money.
It also didn't mention how he allowed National Grid to raise their rates this year causing my electric bill to go up $100 a month.
I like the idea of solar energy, but I'd like it more if instead of the electric company profiting from it, the people could save some money from it.
I wonder how many homes in upstate could be set up with solar panels, taking them off the grid with a billion dollars.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8855908].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Firm Takes Millions, Goes Bankrupt and Leaves Toxic Mess Behind | TheBlaze.com

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8855915].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Daily Kos: Climate Scientists Lawyering Up

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8858419].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Daily Kos: Climate Scientists Lawyering Up

Here's a "Climate researcher" begging for funds - I found this in the article you just posted...

"Climate researchers are in need of immediate legal assistance to prevent their private correspondence from being exposed to Chris Horner and the American Tradition Institute who are using Freedom of Information (FOI) to harass researchers."

LOL - wow classic. Who needs protection from their own information, unless they are not on the up and up?

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8858547].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Here's a "Climate researcher" begging for funds - I found this in the article you just posted...

“Climate researchers are in need of immediate legal assistance to prevent their private correspondence from being exposed to Chris Horner and the American Tradition Institute who are using Freedom of Information (FOI) to harass researchers.”

LOL - wow classic. Who needs protection from their own information, unless they are not on the up and up?

I'll pretend you've never heard of legal harassment by a well funded opponet and/or don't understand the concept.

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8860160].message }}

Michael Ten

10 years ago

Nice! Clean, green and sustainable energy are definitely good!

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

New Book! Radical Life Extension. Help me to hasten the defeat of aging.
Michael Ten . Do Nothing Does . All Books by Michael Ten

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8861606].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

A solar energy system is installed in U.S. every four minutes!

Story here...

Daily Kos: A solar energy system is installed in U.S. every four minutes

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8869798].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Renewable energy gets help from an unexpected place - Salon.com

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8878115].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

World's Largest Wind Turbine Starts Generating Power For First Time | ThinkProgress

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8909364].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

17 major foundations declare they’re divesting from fossil fuels - Salon.com

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8918877].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Great news and not so great news...

How the U.S. Exports Global Warming | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8943195].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Daily Kos: Trump Unable to Sway Scotland to Reject Wind Energy in Favor of the View from his Fairway

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8947180].message }}

Kurt 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Daily Kos: Trump Unable to Sway Scotland to Reject Wind Energy in Favor of the View from his Fairway

You'd think Trump and the wind power industry could work something out. Maybe use Trump's comb-over as a wind vane to measure the direction and speed of the wind?

Donald Trump's hair blowing in the wind...
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8947262].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

This seems like a very nice development...

Cracking down on gasoline: EPA announces tough new pollution rule - Salon.com

American Lung Association:

Rule Will Save Up To 2,000 Lives Per Year. The American Lung Association wrote in a press release about the rule that it "will save up to 2,000 lives, and prevent 19,000 asthma attacks and nearly 300,000 missed days of work and school each year by 2030":

http://mediamatters.org/research/201...-pollut/198317

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000354].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Maybe you missed this bit of great news from Sal...

http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...re-planet.html

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000376].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

PS. Here's some tangible costs...

Why does Big Oil only pay 9% corp tax rate, while all other industries pay 25%?

Why does the most profitable industry in the history of mankind need a tax break other forms of energy doesn't get?

Why isn't this difference calculated into the true cost of carbon fuels?

Why doesn't Big Oil pay for it's own protection and security in the Middle East? Why aren't these costs included in the price of oil?

If Big Oil paid the same tax rate as all other industries and paid for their own security in foreign lands, the real price of a gallon of gas would be closer to $7 a gallon.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000849].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

If Big Oil paid the same tax rate as all other industries and paid for their own security in foreign lands, the real price of a gallon of gas would be closer to $7 a gallon.

If Big Oil were regulated like the other industries, we'd be paying closer to $2 per gallon - because we'd be drilling closer to home.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000917].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

If Big Oil were regulated like the other industries, we'd be paying closer to $2 per gallon - because we'd be drilling closer to home.

Blatantly WRONG. Here's one of many articles explaining why you are so wrong:

U.S. may be inching toward oil independence

We are drilling closer to home and soon we will be a major oil exporter. Where's this savings you're talking about?

BTW, you forget to explain why Big Oil pays less tax than any other industry, despite being the most profitable?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000969].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Blatantly WRONG. Here's one of many articles explaining why you are so wrong:

U.S. may be inching toward oil independence

You must have missed these parts of that article:

"U.S. crude oil production has played a major role in offsetting disruptions elsewhere," says Jim Burkhard, an analyst with research firm IHS CERA.

Meaning prices would have been much higher right now.

You also missed this from your article:
"Rising production has led to recent calls by the oil industry to lift a 40-year-old ban on most crude oil exports. Last week, the Senate held its first hearing on the issue in 25 years."

There's still a ban on "most crude oil exports".

So no sir - you are wrong.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001001].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

You must have missed these parts of that article:

"U.S. crude oil production has played a major role in offsetting disruptions elsewhere," says Jim Burkhard, an analyst with research firm IHS CERA.

Meaning prices would have been much higher right now.

You also missed this from your article:
"Rising production has led to recent calls by the oil industry to lift a 40-year-old ban on most crude oil exports. Last week, the Senate held its first hearing on the issue in 25 years."

There's still a ban on "most crude oil exports".

So no sir - you are wrong.

Sorry, but your post doesn't follow. The point is that our domestic oil production has increased, you just said so yourself in your quote just above.

Therefore your contention that "because we'd be drilling closer to home." is invalid, because we ARE drilling closer to home.

You also said that gas would be $2 a gallon if we drilled more at home. It isn't $2 a gallon. You're wrong again, despite quoting reasons why oil/gas isn't more expensive. That's not the point you made. You said "$2 a gallon" and didn't say it would be cheaper that it would have been.

Your straw man fallacy is that you now argue that I implied or thought that gas wouldn't be more expensive than it is now, even if we drilled more. I never said this or implied this. Of course, domestic oil will help keep prices more stable. But that doesn't mean it will be $2 a gallon, which is what you said. And it doesn't mean gas wouldn't be $7 a gallon if Big Oil paid for their own security and an equal tax rate.

BTW, you still dodged my question about special tax rates for the most profitable industry in the history of mankind. I'll now take it as a question you don't want to answer.

And for those that haven't kept up, Big Oil has had a couple of dramatic developments in the past 5 years, specifically with fracking and horizontal drilling. These new techniques have given access to vast amounts of oil in the US that couldn't be reached before.

There's many economic benefits to more domestic oil production, such as jobs and a need for a smaller military to protect our energy interests in the Middle East.

However, these obvious benefits come at a cost to our environment and health. And these costs aren't as easy to calculate.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001076].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Sorry, but your post doesn't follow. The point is that our domestic oil production has increased, you just said so yourself in your quote just above.

Therefore your contention that "because we'd be drilling closer to home." is invalid, because we ARE drilling closer to home.

Ok - let me add this qualifier for those who can't seem to understand leaving out specific detail because of context... In other words - I assumed you already knew that we were drilling closer to home. So since you're forcing me to add the qualifier here it is:

We'd be doing "MORE" drilling closer to home. There understand that? And NO we are not doing MORE drilling closer to home. The article you posted even admits that there is a "ban on most crude oil exports". That is the regulation I'm referring to. Don't know how I can explain it much more clear than that. Lifting a ban on oil exports will definitely mean MORE DRILLING closer to home... get it now? sheesh.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001575].message }}

JustR

Banned 10 years ago

Well.. Drilling wont count if there is no Oil at all...

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9000930].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Oh and by the way, while Exxon averages nearly $600million over the last few years in tax breaks - Apple's tax break over the last several years was twice that.

One Tax Loophole Apple's Tim Cook And Lawmakers Didn't Talk About

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9001610].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Climate buffoons’ real motives: 5 reasons they still spout debunked garbage - Salon.com

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9010204].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Climate buffoons' real motives: 5 reasons they still spout debunked garbage - Salon.com

Greenpeace co-founder says 'no scientific proof' humans cause climate change - Washington Times

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9010250].message }}

ThomM 10 years ago

Here's something about the Cali. drought.
EPA Regulations Cause Drought in California - WSJ.com
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9010258].message }}
- TLTheLiberator 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by ThomM
  
  Here's something about the Cali. drought.
  EPA Regulations Cause Drought in California - WSJ.com
  
  Wow, I thought the article was saying the EPA caused the horrific present day drought in the entire state of California but its talking about a drought in the San Joaquin Valley of California back in 2009 - when the article was written.
  
  There's a whole lot of smoke indicating the EPA didn't do a great job (to put it lightly) and only made things worse in that situation because of a smelt. A smelt.
  
  BTW... Nixon gets the credit for creating the EPA and I think the nation needs a E.P. type of federal department but it must do a much better job than it seems to have done in that valley in California.
  
  There's tremendous amount of pressure and a whole lot of money being spent to dissuade the EPA from properly doing its job and getting rid of it would in practice cut the polluters loose on the public and environment.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9011521].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Greenpeace co-founder says 'no scientific proof' humans cause climate change - Washington Times

He was mentioned in the article I just posted.

They said he was a co-founder of the Canadian branch, not Greenpeace itself and he's been a paid spokesman for the fossil fuel industry for quite some time.

It didn't mention whether he was a climate scientist or even a scientist and he's also bucking the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.

But to each its own.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9010356].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

He was mentioned in the article I just posted.

They said he was a co-founder of the Canadian branch, not Greenpeace itself and he's been a paid spokesman for the fossil fuel industry for quite some time.

It didn't mention whether he was a climate scientist or even a scientist and he's bucking the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.

But to each its own.

What's Lindsay Abrams credentials?
That article really had little to do with climate change and everything to do with attacking the right.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9010435].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

What's Lindsay Abrams credentials?
That article really had little to do with climate change and everything to do with attacking the right.

Its an undeniable fact that lots more influential folks on the right are bucking the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community and leading a whole lot of others along the way.

Can he help it if he wants to discuss who's who with man made climate change deniers and powerhouses and...

... 99% of them happen to be on the right and also happen to share your economic philosophy?

Is that his fault?

BTW...

Are you in league with the the Fox News Channel, the honorable Rush -(who's so toxic, even the NFL wants no parts of him), the super patriotic Koch brothers and the one and only Trumpster on this issue?

Are you one of them - those bucking the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community on this very important issue?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9011178].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Its an undeniable fact that lots more influential folks on the right are bucking the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community and leading a whole lot of others along the way.

Can he help it if he wants to discuss who's who with man made climate change deniers and powerhouses and...

... 99% of them happen to be on the right and also happen to share your economic philosophy?

Is that his fault?

BTW...

Are you in league with the the Fox News Channel, the honorable Rush -(who's so toxic, even the NFL wants no parts of him), the super patriotic Koch brothers and the one and only Trumpster on this issue?

Are you one of them - those bucking the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community on this very important issue?

If you don't think those on the left supporting man made climate change are just as corrupt as those on the right, then there is no hope for you

Am I in league with Fox, Rush, and the Koch Bros.? Yea I get up every morning and have a conference call with them:rolleyes:

Wow, I thought the article was saying the EPA caused the horrific present day drought in the entire state of California but its talking about a drought in the San Joaquin Valley of California back in 2009 - when the article was written.

There's a whole lot of smoke indicating the EPA didn't do a great job (to put it lightly) and only made things worse in that situation because of a smelt. A smelt.

BTW... Nixon gets the credit for creating the EPA and I think the nation needs a E.P. type of federal department but it must do a much better job than it seems to have done in that valley in California.

There's tremendous amount of pressure and a whole lot of money being spent to dissuade the EPA from properly doing its job and getting rid of it would in practice cut the polluters loose on the public and environment.

Nixon may get credit for creating the EPA, but they are now in the pocket of Monsanto and the bio-tech industry just like the USDA and FDA are.
Just more proof that both sides of the aisle are corrupt and working for the corporations and not for us or the environment.
While the left is preaching about how dangerous climate change is, they are allowing companies like Monsanto to increase the amount of round-up residue in our foods and naturally in our soils, among other things. It was your guy who put the vice-president of Monsanto in charge of our food safety in the FDA. Same guy put the former governor who was named Bio-tech gov of the year and used a monsanto private jet in charge of the USDA. Same guy put a top level monsanto exec. in the EPA in a position to regulate things like round-up levels, etc.
If you believe in man made climate change then you should know it starts in the ground and not in the sky.
So while your side has everyone focused on CO2 levels, they're working with the companies that are destroying our soil, water, and air. In other words they are killing the earth, the earths environment, and us. The sad thing is when the other side takes over, nothing will change. It will still be about the climate at the expense of everything else.
But stay focused on your man made climate change, they (both sides) love it when your looking at the sky and not the ground where it all starts.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012064].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

There's tremendous amount of pressure and a whole lot of money being spent to dissuade the EPA from properly doing its job and getting rid of it would in practice cut the polluters loose on the public and environment.

And exactly the same thing happening on the other side when it comes to EPA.

To me, the problem is the same we have on other important issues. There's a good chance the truth of climate change lies somewhere in between the two planes of opinion.

Both sides are so entrenched in proving THEIR side is right - both sides ignore new evidence or opinions that don't suit their political stance.

Whether it is warming or change - whether it's man-made, natural or nothing - the emerging science behind climate changes should be the evolving focus. That's not happening because this has turned into purely a political argument with people quoting ONLY the research and facts that fit their belief.

There's a good chance both sides are wrong in some areas and right in others. Much better to evaluate facts and new scientific studies and theories and THINK about them as they relate to your previously held beliefs.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012104].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

And exactly the same thing happening on the other side when it comes to EPA.

To me, the problem is the same we have on other important issues. There's a good chance the truth of climate change lies somewhere in between the two planes of opinion.

Both sides are so entrenched in proving THEIR side is right - both sides ignore new evidence or opinions that don't suit their political stance.

Whether it is warming or change - whether it's man-made, natural or nothing - the emerging science behind climate changes should be the evolving focus. That's not happening because this has turned into purely a political argument with people quoting ONLY the research and facts that fit their belief.

There's a good chance both sides are wrong in some areas and right in others. Much better to evaluate facts and new scientific studies and theories and THINK about them as they relate to your previously held beliefs.

Not that I don't like to compromise but...

There is no middle ground on this issue.

The scientists have spoken and there's overwhelming consensus on this issue.

People can believe the scientists or they can believe Rush Limbaugh and the Koch brothers.

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012133].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

If you don't think those on the left supporting man made climate change are just as corrupt as those on the right, then there is no hope for you

Am I in league with Fox, Rush, and the Koch Bros.? Yea I get up every morning and have a conference call with them:rolleyes:

Nixon may get credit for creating the EPA, but they are now in the pocket of Monsanto and the bio-tech industry just like the USDA and FDA are.

Just more proof that both sides of the aisle are corrupt and working for the corporations and not for us or the environment.

While the left is preaching about how dangerous climate change is, they are allowing companies like Monsanto to increase the amount of round-up residue in our foods and naturally in our soils, among other things. It was your guy who put the vice-president of Monsanto in charge of our food safety in the FDA. Same guy put the former governor who was named Bio-tech gov of the year and used a monsanto private jet in charge of the USDA. Same guy put a top level monsanto exec. in the EPA in a position to regulate things like round-up levels, etc.

If you believe in man made climate change then you should know it starts in the ground and not in the sky.

So while your side has everyone focused on CO2 levels, they're working with the companies that are destroying our soil, water, and air. In other words they are killing the earth, the earths environment, and us. The sad thing is when the other side takes over, nothing will change. It will still be about the climate at the expense of everything else.

But stay focused on your man made climate change, they (both sides) love it when your looking at the sky and not the ground where it all starts.

I am also troubled by a few of 44's appointments especially in the EPA area of things.

The left has a pretty strong progressive wing that does play a role on the left and there's always a chance to turn things around but folks on your side of the border...

... won't even acknowledge the problem in the sky or the ground.

If your friends like rush etc. would change their minds things they would change a lot of people's minds and the negative situation could get solved a whole lot quicker and easier.

Like I've said before, if the powerful health care industry could undergo a massive change that they didn't want, then solving any major problem area is a distinct possibility.

Note: I'm not trying to start a discussion about the health care industry and the ACA.

I'm just using it as an example of a powerful industry that has undergone a major change and if that's possible anything is possible.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012113].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I am also troubled by a few of 44's appointments especially in the EPA area of things.

The left has a pretty strong progressive wing that does play a role on the left and there's always a chance to turn things around but folks on your side of the border won't even acknowledge the problem in the sky or the air.

If your friends like rush etc. would change their minds things they would change a lot of people's minds and the negative situation could get solved a whole lot quicker and easier.

Like I've said before, if the powerful health care industry could undergo a massive change that they didn't want, then solving any major problem area is a distinct possibility.

Note: I'm not trying to start a discussion about the health care industry and the ACA.

I'm just using it as an example of a powerful industry that has undergone a major change and if that's possible anything is possible.

Why do you continue to think I'm on "their side"?
Just because I don't agree with you on certain issues, doesn't automatically put me on the other side.
I honestly am getting fed up with that attitude.
Both sides have agendas I'm against and always have been against.
That's the biggest part of the problem we are having today.
If I'm on any side it's the side of nature, the environment and human rights.
Both your side and the other side are destroying all three of those, sometimes in different ways and sometimes in the same way. Meanwhile they have people fighting over which side is right and "protecting" their party instead of calling out their party when they get it wrong.
Both sides are in it for the money and controlled by corporations, they're experts at misdirection and getting people to argue over things they want you "think" they care about.
Lets promote clean energy while at the same time we support polluting our soil, water, and food. But we'll convince our people to talk about energy so they will ignore the pollution of our environment.
If either side gave a rat's butt about us and the environment they wouldn't be raising the amount of Glyphosate residue in our foods or would they have deregulated the bio-tech industry in the first place. By the way it was the other side (to you) that deregulated the industry giving them a green light to poison us and the environment to protect their profits.
So spare me the right vs. left crap and quit trying to show how great your side is and how bad the other side is. As far as I'm concerned, both sides are the same, both sides are corrupt, and neither side is truly for the people or the environment.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012212].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Why do you continue to think I'm on "their side"?
Just because I don't agree with you on certain issues, doesn't automatically put me on the other side.
I honestly am getting fed up with that attitude.
Both sides have agendas I'm against and always have been against.
That's the biggest part of the problem we are having today.
If I'm on any side it's the side of nature, the environment and human rights.
Both your side and the other side are destroying all three of those, sometimes in different ways and sometimes in the same way. Meanwhile they have people fighting over which side is right and "protecting" their party instead of calling out their party when they get it wrong.
Both sides are in it for the money and controlled by corporations, they're experts at misdirection and getting people to argue over things they want you "think" they care about.
Lets promote clean energy while at the same time we support polluting our soil, water, and food. But we'll convince our people to talk about energy so they will ignore the pollution of our environment.
If either side gave a rat's butt about us and the environment they wouldn't be raising the amount of Glyphosate residue in our foods or would they have deregulated the bio-tech industry in the first place. By the way it was the other side (to you) that deregulated the industry giving them a green light to poison us and the environment to protect their profits.
So spare me the right vs. left crap and quit trying to show how great your side is and how bad the other side is. As far as I'm concerned, both sides are the same, both sides are corrupt, and neither side is truly for the people or the environment.

Since you share the same economic philosophy as Rush and the Koch brothers I got a little confused.

Actually I meant to say that the leaders and therefore the people on the right won't even acknowledge the problem not you in particular.

That is my mistake and I stand corrected.

But your stuff about both sides being equally bad doesn't make a lot of sense when one side is all the way live and the other at least has acknowledged the problem.

At least with one side there is a chance of positive change no matter how small you may think it is when with the other side - there is no chance of change as long as they won't even acknowledge the problem.

That is a big difference.

Its like combating alcoholism and the first step to fixing or controlling the problem is acknowledgement of the problem.

If those followers on the right got amped up about cleaning up the environment real progress could be made on this issue much faster and easier.

Once again I got a little confused since you share the same economic philosophy as Rush & the Koch brothers and you have my humblest apologies for associating you with them on the issue of the environment etc.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012256].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Since you share the same economic philosophy as Rush and the Koch brothers I got a little confused.

Actually I meant to say that the leader and therefore the people on the right won't even acknowledge the problem not you in particular.

That is my mistake and I stand corrected.

But your stuff about both sides being equally bad doesn't make a lot of sense when one side is all the way live and the other at least has acknowledged the problem.

At least with one side there is a chance of positive change no matter how small you may think it is when with the other side - there is no chance of change as long as they won't even acknowledge the problem.

That is a big difference.

Its like combating alcoholism and the first step to fixing or controlling the problem is acknowledgement of the problem.

If those followers on the right got amped up about cleaning up the environment real progress could be made on this issue much faster and easier.

Once again I got a little confused since you share the same economic philosophy as Rush & the Koch brothers and you have my humblest apologies for associating you with them on the issue of the environment etc.

Tl, I don't even know what their economic philosophy is.
A few years ago I listened to Rush once for about 5 mins. to see why people hated him. 5 mins. was all I could stand and I've never listened to him since. All I know about the Koch bros. is what I hear from you guys on the left, same as all I know about Soros is what I've heard from people on the right. I tend not to listen to that type of drivel from either side.
It takes both sides to get amped up about cleaning the environment for any true change to take place. As long as both sides are protecting companies like monsanto and allowing the destruction of our environment, they get no credit from me for being for or against climate change or promoting clean energy.
The climate will change no matter what we think we're doing to prevent it, it always has and always will.
What good is taking a little carbon out of the atmosphere when we are turning the planet into a toxic waste land that eventually won't support life.
What good is regulating the amount of carbon emissions when we allow the destruction of the very things that can off set those emissions?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9012294].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Tl, I don't even know what their economic philosophy is.
A few years ago I listened to Rush once for about 5 mins. to see why people hated him. 5 mins. was all I could stand and I've never listened to him since. All I know about the Koch bros. is what I hear from you guys on the left, same as all I know about Soros is what I've heard from people on the right. I tend not to listen to that type of drivel from either side.
It takes both sides to get amped up about cleaning the environment for any true change to take place. As long as both sides are protecting companies like monsanto and allowing the destruction of our environment, they get no credit from me for being for or against climate change or promoting clean energy.
The climate will change no matter what we think we're doing to prevent it, it always has and always will.
What good is taking a little carbon out of the atmosphere when we are turning the planet into a toxic waste land that eventually won't support life.

What good is regulating the amount of carbon emissions when we allow the destruction of the very things that can off set those emissions?

The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step and I do respect your positions when it comes to environmental issues.

Its going to be a long tough uphill fight to get things in order but at least some progress is being made on some of the fronts and for me - hope springs eternal.

So, I've discovered you're not on the same page as Rush & the K-Brothers when it comes to environmental issues. I got it now and will never make the same mistake again.

But...

Regarding you and Rush & THE K-Brothers being on the same page when it comes to economic issues...

Here's their economic philosophy/attitudes in a nutshell:

1: No min wage at all.

2: Federal government stay out of anything economic.

3: No ACA.

4: No gov has any business regulating relations between business and workers.

5: The national debt and yearly deficit are still out of control and big cuts to social programs need to be made asap to stabilize the situation before we turn into Greece.

Thom, please let me know where you differ with the above positions that are well documented of Rush and the K-Brothers.

Thanks!

TL

Ps. If I remember correctly you moved from a position of no citizenship for undocumented workers (AKA IA's) to saying some sort of path to citizenship would be Ok in your book.

Am I correct in that memory?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9013883].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step and I do respect your positions when it comes to environmental issues.

Its going to be a long tough uphill fight to get things in order but at least some progress is being made on some of the fronts and for me - hope springs eternal.

So, I've discovered you're not on the same page as Rush & the K-Brothers when it comes to environmental issues. I got it now and will never make the same mistake again.

But...

Regarding you and Rush & THE K-Brothers being on the same page when it comes to economic issues...

Here's their economic philosophy/attitudes in a nutshell:

1: No min wage at all.

2: Federal government stay out of anything economic.

3: No ACA.

4: No gov has any business regulating relations between business and workers.

5: The national debt and yearly deficit are still out of control and big cuts to social programs need to be made asap to stabilize the situation before we turn into Greece.

Thom, please let me know where you differ with the above positions that are well documented of Rush and the K-Brothers.

Thanks!

TL

Ps. If I remember correctly you moved from a position of no citizenship for undocumented workers (AKA IA's) to saying some sort of path to citizenship would be Ok in your book.

Am I correct in that memory?

I'll start with your P.S. and work back.
There are already paths to citizenship for IA's.
4 Ways to Become a US Citizen - wikiHow
Many people enter the US every year and become citizens legally.
Why should we reward someone who breaks our laws?
If you or I break a law, will we be rewarded or punished?

5: The national debt and yearly deficit are still out of control and big cuts to social programs need to be made asap to stabilize the situation before we turn into Greece.

I think any social program should be voluntary.
I think the debt and yearly deficit are out of control, but not because of the social programs. There are plenty of cuts that can be made like in defense, subsidies, foreign aid, etc.

4: No gov has any business regulating relations between business and workers.

That is something that has to be looked at regulation by regulation. I don't know what all the regulations are so I can't say if they should all be kept or they should all be abolished.

3: No ACA.

AS you know my biggest issue with the ACA is that it is mandated that we all have insurance. Common sense tells me if it was as good as it was first made out to be people wouldn't be forced into the system. All the delays and changes O has made to it recently tells me it's not as good as it was advertised. More problems with the ACA are surfacing everyday. It may benefit a small percentage of the population, but to most it's not.

2: Federal government stay out of anything economic.

Minimum involvement at best. They have been running our economy for years now and look at the state it's in.

1: No min wage at all.

I'm not a big fan of a min. wage. All it really does is raise the tax base for the govt. I don't see how it helps creating jobs. If a company doesn't pay well then it won't attract good quality workers. So it has two options. Either offer better pay or put up with shoddy work. For the most part companies that pay min. wage used to hire retirees and kids either just out of school or in school working part-time. I've worked for companies in the past who paid a min. wage for a probation period and then raised your salary to a more prevailing wage. If you proved you where a good fit for that company. My point is if you are an asset to a company, that company (if smart) will treat you as such, knowing if they don't they will lose you to their competitor. I've also applied for jobs that didn't pay well and turned them down because of the pay. Nobody is forced to take a job they don't want and when they refuse because of the pay it forces a company to rethink what they are paying.

I don't know how much of all that is the same as Rush and the Koch's and honestly I don't care.
My whole life I've made my own decisions and lived with the results, good or bad. That's all I want to be able to do for myself and everyone else.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014121].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I'll start with your P.S. and work back.
There are already paths to citizenship for IA's.
4 Ways to Become a US Citizen - wikiHow

Many people enter the US every year and become citizens legally.
Why should we reward someone who breaks our laws?

If you or I break a law, will we be rewarded or punished?

I think any social program should be voluntary.

I think the debt and yearly deficit are out of control, but not because of the social programs. There are plenty of cuts that can be made like in defense, subsidies, foreign aid, etc.

That is something that has to be looked at regulation by regulation. I don't know what all the regulations are so I can't say if they should all be kept or they should all be abolished.
AS you know my biggest issue with the ACA is that it is mandated that we all have insurance.

Common sense tells me if it was as good as it was first made out to be people wouldn't be forced into the system. All the delays and changes O has made to it recently tells me it's not as good as it was advertised.

More problems with the ACA are surfacing everyday. It may benefit a small percentage of the population, but to most it's not.

Minimum involvement at best. They have been running our economy for years now and look at the state it's in.

I'm not a big fan of a min. wage. All it really does is raise the tax base for the govt. I don't see how it helps creating jobs. If a company doesn't pay well then it won't attract good quality workers. So it has two options.

Either offer better pay or put up with shoddy work. For the most part companies that pay min. wage used to hire retirees and kids either just out of school or in school working part-time.

I've worked for companies in the past who paid a min. wage for a probation period and then raised your salary to a more prevailing wage. If you proved you where a good fit for that company. My point is if you are an asset to a company, that company (if smart) will treat you as such, knowing if they don't they will lose you to their competitor. I

've also applied for jobs that didn't pay well and turned them down because of the pay. Nobody is forced to take a job they don't want and when they refuse because of the pay it forces a company to rethink what they are paying.

I don't know how much of all that is the same as Rush and the Koch's and honestly I don't care.

My whole life I've made my own decisions and lived with the results, good or bad. That's all I want to be able to do for myself and everyone else.

- Min wage = Same page.

- ACA = Same page.

- Immigration = Same page.

About a year ago we were talking about immigration and I thought you and Patrian had both moved to a position that some path to citizenship should be forged for the 12-20 million illegals aliens now in the country.

But I guess my memory has failed me.

- Debt & deficit situation = same page

- ACA = same page.

- Fed Govt stay out of everything: Same page.

So I was correct that you are on the same page with Rush on economic matters. You do split with him on the environment and I will remember that.

Got it!

Thanks,

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014749].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

- Min wage = Same page.

- ACA = Same page.

- Immigration = Same page.

About a year ago we were talking about immigration and I thought you and Patrian had both moved to a position that some path to citizenship should be forged for the 12-20 million illegals aliens now in the country.

But I guess my memory has failed me.

- Debt & deficit situation = same page

- ACA = same page.

- Fed Govt stay out of everything: Same page.

So I was correct that you are on the same page with Rush on economic matters. You do split with him on the environment and I will remember that.

Got it!

Thanks,

I could of said what you think about immigration about a year ago. Don't really know.

But I guess my memory has failed me.

- Debt & deficit situation = same page
I thought Rush was for cutting out the social programs?
- ACA = same page.

- Fed Govt stay out of everything: Same page.
I said min. envolement

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014765].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I could of said what you think about immigration about a year ago. Don't really know.

The important thing about the debt and deficit situation is that you and Rush both think its out of control. You only differ on what to cut first and foremost.

Believing its out of control prompts certain policy/attitude responses such as...

1: Even though rates are at historic lows - like nothing, we shouldn't borrow any money to upgrade our infrastructure, electrical grid, or to go green which would generate many economic benefits on the way to a 21st century American economy.

2: Let the long term unemployed twist in the wind even though we've historically supported them until the economy got better enough to justify not helping them.

Economically its a counterproductive move because those folks will spend that money immediately into the economy and create and/or sustain jobs. And right now there are at least 3 people looking for 1 job.

3: Kick hungry kids off food stamps or reducing payments.

Economically its a counterproductive move because those folks will spend that money immediately into the economy and create and/or sustain jobs.

The real job creators in the American economy are consumers spending money and sometimes it doesn't matter where the money comes from - just that its being spent into the economy.

4: Basically deficit harpers say we can't afford to make any long term investments in our folks or the country because the national debt and yearly deficit is out of control and shouldn't address long term concerns until the national debt is under control.

5: Most deficit harpers focus on the big number national debt 17 odd Trillion - which nothing is going to be done about it for quite some time, ...

... and choose to ignore the trend of how the yearly deficit has gone from 1.4 trill in 2009 and now down to 500 odd billion by the end of 2014, and harp on the larger number to justify their positions.

Their (deficit harpers) concerns were justified when we were running trillion dollar yearly deficits but IMHO - not any longer.

We can't even start working on the larger number until we get the yearly budget in order and the best way to do that is to get the economy going again and also rescind those gravy tax giveaways in the tax code.

6: And most deficit harpers don't want to talk about rescinding that 200-400 billion dollars per year in gravy tax giveaways to the already wealthy and corps that could be used to either help reduce the yearly deficit or used to invest in America or both.

BTW...

Most deficit harpers neither want to borrow money at historically low rates for national investments or rescind those gravy tax giveaways to be applied to deficit reduction.

Its a lot of debt but our economy is so huge - we can handle it. We'll just be saddled with it for the next 20 years or so and longer if we don't get the economy going.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014837].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

The important thing about the debt and deficit situation is that you and Rush both think its out of control. You only differ on what to cut first and foremost.

Believing its out of control prompts certain policy/attitude responses such as...

1: Even though rates are at historic lows - like nothing, we shouldn't borrow any money to upgrade our infrastructure, electrical grid, or to go green which would generate many economic benefits on the way to a 21st century American economy.

2: Let the long term unemployed twist in the wind even though we've historically supported them until the economy got better enough to justify not helping them.

Economically its a counterproductive move because those folks will spend that money immediately into the economy and create and/or sustain jobs. And right now there are at least 3 people looking for 1 job.

3: Kick hungry kids off food stamps or reducing payments.

Economically its a counterproductive move because those folks will spend that money immediately into the economy and create and/or sustain jobs.

The real job creators in the American economy are consumers spending money and sometimes it doesn't matter where the money comes from - just that its being spent into the economy.

4: Basically deficit harpers say we can't afford to make any long term investments in our folks or the country because the national debt and yearly deficit is out of control and shouldn't address long term concerns until the national debt is under control.

5: Most deficit harpers focus on the big number national debt 17 odd Trillion - which nothing is going to be done about it for quite some time, ...

... and choose to ignore the trend of how the yearly deficit has gone from 1.4 trill in 2009 and now down to 500 odd billion by the end of 2014, and harp on the larger number to justify their positions.

Their (deficit harpers) concerns were justified when we were running trillion dollar yearly deficits but IMHO - not any longer.

We can't even start working on the larger number until we get the yearly budget in order and the best way to do that is to get the economy going again and rescind those gravy tax giveaways in the tax code.

6: And most deficit harpers don't want to talk about rescinding that 200-400 billion dollars per year in gravy tax giveaways to the already wealthy and corps that could be used to either help reduce the yearly deficit or used to invest in America or both.

BTW...

Most deficit harpers neither want to borrow money at historically low rates for national investments or rescind those gravy tax giveaways to be applied to deficit reduction.

Its a lot of debt but our economy is so huge - we can handle it. We'll just be saddled with it for the next 20 years or so and longer if we don't get the economy going.

And hows all that working out for you?
How long has the federal reserve kept interest rates artificially low to improve the economy? Yet we have a real unemployment rate of 12.7. Chart: What's the real unemployment rate?
How many stimulus packages have we had in recent years that have failed?
Sorry I don't buy into what's going on, but that's the way it is.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9014895].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

And hows all that working out for you?
How long has the federal reserve kept interest rates artificially low to improve the economy? Yet we have a real unemployment rate of 12.7. Chart: What's the real unemployment rate?
How many stimulus packages have we had in recent years that have failed?
Sorry I don't buy into what's going on, but that's the way it is.

Yes we have a big and persistent problem with the economy. We're still missing at least 10 million pre-recession consumers who had decent paying jobs.

The fed is doing what it can to help the investment world and I'm glad its keeping interest rates low because it sets the table for the rest of the rates in the society.

The recovery could have been much further along had it not been for economic obstruction from an austerity loving house of reps since 2010.

And I know what the real employment rate is. There are no delusions with me on that point.

I can only remember one stimulus package, the one from early 2009 which did its job and prevented the economy from a freefall and getting much, much worse after we had been losing 600-800K jobs per month for several months prior to its passage.

It wasn't enough to jump start the economy but it was enough to prevent the great recession from becoming another great depression.

With your economic positions and attitudes I'm not surprised you're not buying into what's going on.

From what I've heard from you, you're with Rush on the Gay/Religious Freedom Arizona stuff, but not his ugly, racist social stuff. (which is what makes him so toxic)

He won't even acknowledge a problem with the environment as you do, and you also just happen to share his economic philosophy for the USA.

As you said... "that's the way it is".

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9015752].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Richard Branson: Businesses Should Stand Up to Climate Change Deniers

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richar...tml]Businesses

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9018151].message }}

garyv 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Richard Branson: Businesses Should Stand Up to Climate Change Deniers

Businesses]Businesses Should Stand Up to Climate Change Deniers*|*Richard Branson

There's no such thing as a "climate change" denier. Have you ever looked up the words "climate" and "change". Of course there's climate change. It's a natural part of nature. The climate has been changing for way longer than we've been here, and will continue to do so.

No we are not "climate change" deniers. We are BS fund deniers. We don't jump on the funds bandwagon of every BS artist that comes along and wants funds to "save the planet" - while they jet around averaging a MUCH larger carbon footprint than 99% of any individual on the planet. There are plenty of gullible people out there that fall for it every time in whatever form it comes at them.

By the way it was just a few years ago that I was called a "global warming" denier. Back when I was saying - "Let's just wait, the planet has always had some cycles that are warmer than others. That's the nature of this unpredictable planet." To which people said - "You're a crazy global warming denier".

But no - most people do not deny that there is some effect caused by man. But not to the severity that these BS artists would guilt the gullible into believing.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9018232].message }}

yukon

Banned 10 years ago

This started out to be a decent thread now it's the usual climate change rant.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9018238].message }}

TLTheLiberator 10 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

This started out to be a decent thread now it's the usual climate change rant.

You're right.

IMHO, it should be a settled issue - even in here.

I will focus this thread on Clean & Alternative Energy News and ignore all other postings from now on.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9018280].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Media Has To Stop Giving Climate Deniers Equal Time | Video | Media Matters for America

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9018279].message }}

garyv

10 years ago

Climate Change Scammers' Worst Week Ever - Kurt Schlichter - Page full

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9018284].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Commercial Rooftop Solar Vast Untapped Resource?

http://www.bluenc.com/commercial-roo...apped-resource

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9035706].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

This one is quite interesting...

Poop power: Sol-Char, a solar powered toilet that turns feces into fuel (and saves lives)

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9060740].message }}

yukon Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

This one is quite interesting...

Poop power: Sol-Char, a solar powered toilet that turns feces into fuel (and saves lives)

A solar powered toilet that turns your poop into little charcoal-like pellets that can be used as fertilizer or fuel.

It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase, throw a log on the fire.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9061949].message }}

lcombs

10 years ago

From a close friend in my home town...

That's him pointing at the damn dam.

Hamilton

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fresh...55326481208883

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9061984].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Report: Extreme weather-related blackouts are on the rise - Salon.com

Nearly 100 Harvard faculty members join the campaign to divest from fossil fuels - Salon.com

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9097969].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Solar power is big enough to now have some very powerful enemies...

The Koch brothers are going after solar panels - Salon.com

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9127236].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Solar power is big enough to now have some very powerful enemies...

The Koch brothers are going after solar panels - Salon.com

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9127237].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

You posted it twice because there are two brothers?

That stuff is getting funny but whatever. I'st choosing a target to attack and argue about rather than a discussion of an issue but whatever.

Most interesting energy news this week is from a $500k federal study that found biofuels (ethanol) create more greenhouse gases than the fossil fuel does.

Gasoline better for environment than corn biofuels, study says â€" RT USA

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9127475].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

You posted it twice because there are two brothers?

That stuff is getting funny but whatever.

I'st choosing a target to attack and argue about rather than a discussion of an issue but whatever.

Most interesting energy news this week is from a $500k federal study that found biofuels (ethanol) create more greenhouse gases than the fossil fuel does.

Gasoline better for environment than corn biofuels, study says â€” RT USA

That's very interesting news regarding bio-fuels and I'm not surprised you think the bio-fuel info is more interesting than billionaires and their friends trying to buy up state houses in order to make solar energy much more expensive to the people of this country - especially in states that are amenable to their advances.

They happen to be a leading light and funder in the attempt to denying alternate energy sources from becoming a reality in the USA.

Alternative energy sources conflict with their business model and they also just happen to be one of the biggest polluters in the nation.

Koch Industries: The 100-Million Ton Carbon Gorilla | ThinkProgress

But to each its own.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9133365].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

Kochs vs Steyer and Soros Jr - it's a wash no matter what the talking points are.

This is interesting because it's a taxpayer funded study conducted with scientific protocols missing in previous smaller studies....according to what has been written about it.

People who referenced this study while it was under way expected it to prove their theory about biofuels. When the study did not support claims - the same people are now claiming the "study is wrong ".

We are being forced to use ethanol by the govt who claims it is better for the environment. This has driven up corn production and reduced other grains that we need. It is not good for our cars and we know that - and now a scientific study shows it's not better for the environment either.

This needs to be evaluated - not dismissed as "wrong because it's not what I want it to prove".

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9133670].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Kochs vs Steyer and Soros Jr - it's a wash no matter what the talking points are.

This is interesting because it's a taxpayer funded study conducted with scientific protocols missing in previous smaller studies....according to what has been written about it.

People who referenced this study while it was under way expected it to prove their theory about biofuels. When the study did not support claims - the same people are now claiming the "study is wrong ".

We are being forced to use ethanol by the govt who claims it is better for the environment.

This has driven up corn production and reduced other grains that we need. It is not good for our cars and we know that - and now a scientific study shows it's not better for the environment either.

This needs to be evaluated - not dismissed as "wrong because it's not what I want it to prove".

I didn't dismiss it as wrong - I said it was interesting but not as significant or interesting as someone holding back the whole clean energy initiative.

I guess it just went public so how can we be so sure its been dismissed outright by the people who can act on it?

And...

Is the science absolutely, positively settled - (like man made climate change), on this issue also?

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9134485].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

You posted it twice because there are two brothers?

That stuff is getting funny but whatever. I'st choosing a target to attack and argue about rather than a discussion of an issue but whatever.

Most interesting energy news this week is from a $500k federal study that found biofuels (ethanol) create more greenhouse gases than the fossil fuel does.

Gasoline better for environment than corn biofuels, study says â€" RT USA

The keyword being "corn" biofuels. Sawgrass, which is the native grass of the Great Plains has 7(?) times the energy as corn when used as biofuel and doesn't take any maintainence or farming and is drought resistant.

If we are going to read reports about biofuel, let's also look at the other side. Here's what we're doing to Canada and other countries to get "cheap" oil from Canada's oil sand.

Canada's Tar Sands: The most destructive project...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9133771].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

So - the answer is "if you think that's bad, look at this"????

Newsflash:

If you are forcing an additive to gasoline on the public with the claim you are saving the environment....and a study you have anticipated shows that may not be the case....don't you want to know that?

Are we so wedded to ethanol after a few years that we don't want to know if it makes sense or not to force it on the public?

Various grasses have been tested/proposed as replacement for corn ethanol. None have been proven so far to be of enough use...they are part of what some call the "no pain" solution to energy problems.

One energy specialist wrote the problem with using sawgrass and other grasses is simple - the grasses don't have lobbyists.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9133842].message }}

Kurt

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

So - the answer is "if you think that's bad, look at this"????

Yes, that's the point. If one thing is worse than another, I suggest you go with the lesser of two evils. You want your cake and to eat mine too. I suggest you actually LOOK at what is happening to this planet.

The conclusion of your report is hardly new and it fails to mention how a city like Denver has cleaned up its air pollution dramatically using corn based ethynol. I like clean air.

Newsflash:

If you are forcing an additive to gasoline on the public with the claim you are saving the environment....and a study you have anticipated shows that may not be the case....don't you want to know that?

I already knew corn wasn't the best option. Again, nothing in your "newsflash" report is new.

Are we so wedded to ethanol after a few years that we don't want to know if it makes sense or not to force it on the public?

It's too bad so many are wedded to Big Oil that they try to supress any alteratives. And when much of the developement of biofuels was made, it was because we were importing so much foreign oil and were dependant on foreign oil. At that time, there was more motivation for biofuel than simply being clean.

With fracking, we aren't dependent on foreign oil. But what's fracking's cost to the environment? What chemicals are used? And please tell us, how many fracking wells were flooded when Colorado had our floods last year, and what happened to all those chemicals that WERE in the wells that the flood waters took out and put into the water system?

BTW, when you calculate the cost of oil based energy, do you also include the known and verifiable health costs associated with it?

Various grasses have been tested/proposed as replacement for corn ethanol. None have been proven so far to be of enough use...they are part of what some call the "no pain" solution to energy problems.

Oil-based energy has been proven to be a very painful way to produce energy, except for the profiteers who make their fortunes from it.

One energy specialist wrote the problem with using sawgrass and other grasses is simple - the grasses don't have lobbyists.

Now you got it.

However, I'm not a huge fan of biofuels, as it does take land away from farming/food production. I prefer wind, geothermal and solar.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9133906].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

I'm not a fan of ethanol myself.
If the plants that make it used solar power it would be little better, but they don't. Most of the electricity used comes from coal or gas powered power plants, polluting the environment.
The corn used is primarily gmo's, poisoning the environment.
Then there is the subsidies to the farmers growing the toxic corn that goes to the ethanol plants.
Makes me wonder if all the pollution and poison used to make ethanol is really worth it.
Seems to me if the govt. was really concerned about the environment they would take the subsidy money and put it towards installing solar and other alternative energy sources on buildings and houses. I'd rather see my tax dollars going towards taking my house and everyone else's house off the grid with a lifetime supply of free clean energy.

Bu the way TL the Koch bros. donate to your party also, but I guess that's fine with you.
The Koch Brothers Give to Democrats Too - Heather Ginsberg

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9134096].message }}

Kay King 10 years ago

Makes me wonder if all the pollution and poison used to make ethanol is really worth it.

That is the only point I'm making here. Questioning whether some alternative energy sources make sense doesn't equate to loving "big oil" no matter how some want to make it seem that way.

What I dislike is spending money on a study that is following proper protocols - and then dissing the study because it doesn't agree with your belief system.
If we don't learn and adjust based on the studies we pay for - why bother to do the studies.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9134131].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I'm not a fan of ethanol myself.
If the plants that make it used solar power it would be little better, but they don't. Most of the electricity used comes from coal or gas powered power plants, polluting the environment.
The corn used is primarily gmo's, poisoning the environment.
Then there is the subsidies to the farmers growing the toxic corn that goes to the ethanol plants.
Makes me wonder if all the pollution and poison used to make ethanol is really worth it.
Seems to me if the govt. was really concerned about the environment they would take the subsidy money and put it towards installing solar and other alternative energy sources on buildings and houses. I'd rather see my tax dollars going towards taking my house and everyone else's house off the grid with a lifetime supply of free clean energy.

Bu the way TL the Koch bros. donate to your party also, but I guess that's fine with you.
The Koch Brothers Give to Democrats Too - Heather Ginsberg

Regarding the amount given to Dems (according to that article) by the brothers, it is a mere pittance compared to the efforts with the other side of the pond.

They ain't been giving nearly enough because the Dems and their friends are still a major threat to the continuing profit levels of Koch Industries.

- Their industries will face a new round of costs if clean energy efforts truly get off the ground.

- The brothers are going to be really pisssed off if/when the Keystone pipeline is rejected since I heard they are seriously invested.

- The friends of the dems have recently launched a boycott of Koch products.

Lots of stuff deleted because I don't want this thread deleted or locked.

And when you talk about opposition to clean energy, the brothers are right up there with the best of them - maybe the leaders of the pack.

And that is the reason they were mentioned in this thread by yours truly because folks interested in clean energy should be well aware of their role in fighting it.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9136616].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

So - it's not really about energy or clean energy? And never was?

Just another political rant? You manage to throw in every single politically correct phrase into one post...including "stand your ground"?

Whatever.

Both parties jeer embrace of fraudulent voter

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9136829].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

So - it's not really about energy or clean energy? And never was?

Just another political rant? You manage to throw in every single politically correct phrase into one post...including "stand your ground"?

Whatever.

Both parties jeer embrace of fraudulent voter

If you say so Kay. Whatever is right.

I was simply responding to Thom and at times I get sidetracked.

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not the brothers are a major force in American society and not only when it comes to clean energy resistance.

But I understand you getting upset when their activities are spotlighted....

... because you just happen to support many of their activities.

- You're ambivalent on man-made climate change or at least you keep trying to suggest the science is not clear.

- Billionaires trying to buy state houses in order to hurt clean energy initiatives doesn't seem to be a problem to you.

They're involved in other activities that you support but I won't detail them here.

These brothers and their kaleidoscope of organizations are heavily involved in all those activities.

If the brothers have their way, folks with solar panels on their roofs (in some states) will be taxed even though they are bringing energy into the grid.

The goal is to get states to tax solar panel owners to the point where solar panels/energy are not cost effective and some states will fall prey to their shenanigans and some won't.

Take a wild guess at which states are more susceptible to their advances than others.

Talking about clean energy initiatives without mentioning the anti-clean energy efforts doesn't make a lot of sense no matter who's involved.

Now if you don't mind...

Back to Clean Energy News:

A 250 million dollar initiative...

Google and SunPower partner up on funding home solar roofs — Tech News and Analysis

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9136910].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

I don't know much about them - don't much care about them - I'm not into tracking the big names or the big money people on either side.

What I'm seeing recently are a lot of smoke screens and baseless allegations - anything to keep people from looking at where we are and how we're doing.

I see humor on both sides - much of it unintentional - but find I just don't care much any more what happens.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9137215].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

A couple things going on here in NY.
Thus one is about solar energy.
I still think using this money to install solar on houses and getting them off the grid would be better, but this is still good for many homeowners and businesses.
New York
This is a little less then was awarded two years ago. New York gets the importance of trees for the environment and does something about it.
Governor Cuomo Celebrates Arbor Day in New York State by Awarding Nearly $800,000 in Urban Forestry Grants | Governor Andrew M. Cuomo
When you get away from NYC, it's surprising home much forest land we have in NY.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9138108].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

A couple things going on here in NY.
Thus one is about solar energy.
I still think using this money to install solar on houses and getting them off the grid would be better, but this is still good for many homeowners and businesses.
New York
This is a little less then was awarded two years ago. New York gets the importance of trees for the environment and does something about it.
Governor Cuomo Celebrates Arbor Day in New York State by Awarding Nearly $800,000 in Urban Forestry Grants | Governor Andrew M. Cuomo
When you get away from NYC, it's surprising home much forest land we have in NY.

I've had 2 different solar companies at my house in the past week trying to get me on board with solar. I'm researching it now.

I'm with ya on the forest. Lots of great hiking trails, camping, fishing, etc.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9138307].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

I've had 2 different solar companies at my house in the past week trying to get me on board with solar. I'm researching it now.

I'm with ya on the forest. Lots of great hiking trails, camping, fishing, etc.

I've been looking into a DIY solar project for awhile and this winters electric bills have been good motivation

One of the reasons I stay in NY is because of all the wilderness we have.
Today on the news we had a story about Moose sightings about 5 miles from me and Bear sightings around 10 miles from me. Keep in mind I live roughly 10 minutes east of Albany

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9138414].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I've been looking into a DIY solar project for awhile and this winters electric bills have been good motivation

One of the reasons I stay in NY is because of all the wilderness we have.
Today on the news we had a story about Moose sightings about 5 miles from me and Bear sightings around 10 miles from me. Keep in mind I live roughly 10 minutes east of Albany

You're about 90 minutes north of me. My step daughter goes to SUNY Albany.

By next spring (or if things keep going the way they have been - this summer) I'll be taking rides out your way on my Harley

I don't get moose here, but in my developed neighborhood we have a family of deer that sometimes eats off our apple tree. And at least once every summer we get a bear who finds his way into town and climbs up a tree.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9138567].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

You're about 90 minutes north of me. My step daughter goes to SUNY Albany.

By next spring (or if things keep going the way they have been - this summer) I'll be taking rides out your way on my Harley

I don't get moose here, but in my developed neighborhood we have a family of deer that sometimes eats off our apple tree. And at least once every summer we get a bear who finds his way into town and climbs up a tree.

Sounds good Mike.
We ride down around Woodstock and Hunter Mt. a few times every summer. Another thing I like about NYS. There's good riding everywhere.

I see Deer in my yard almost every day.
Fox and Coyote are real common also.
Then there are the Turkey and the world class Trout streams.
Yep I can't deny, I do love New York

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9139981].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

6 of the greenest cities in the world - Salon.com

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9148570].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

White House Solar Panels Are Finally Up

Colorado is smoking with Wind Power

SCOTUS Backs Rule Limiting Coal Pollution:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us...ules.html?_r=1

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9192168].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Lots of people are happy and lots of people are not happy:

New EPA rule would seek to cut carbon emissions 30% by 2030*-*Los Angeles Times

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9241239].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Lots of people are happy and lots of people are not happy:

New EPA rule would seek to cut carbon emissions 30% by 2030*-*Los Angeles Times

Some people are both.
What I liked about it is that the states get to go about it a way that works for that state.
I don't get how it will cost massive jobs lost as some on the right are claiming. I see it as jobs transfered, not lost and possibly jobs added.
A few of the claims about what it will accomplish I thought where a little out there. Saying it will cut our electric bills by 8% by 2030, big friggen deal. Especially when our bills will go up to cover the costs.
But even though I don't believe climate change is totally man made, it's simple logic that we contribute to it.
Cutting emissions by 30% can have nothing but a positive effect on the environment.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9241415].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

As a side, if the EPA and president really cared about the environment and us for that matter, they wouldn't of raised the amount of Glyphosate allowed in our foods and they would be cracking down on companies like Monsanto who are killing our environment with toxic chemicals with the full support of the EPA and president.
Every administration starting with Regan's has done nothing but support Monsanto and have remained quite or done nothing to curb the pollution they inflict on our soils and waters.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9241568].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

Thom -

I agree. I've been one of those who doesn't think the world is ending from climate change at the moment but thinks it's foolish to believe man has no harmful effect on the earth's environment. We KNOW better than that.

But I have a problem with regulations that will cost money and jobs - when so many other countries have no plans to cut back on emissions or anything. We can't create a clean air bubble over the US while China and India and others countries pollute without a care.

I think we should do what we can to limit our damage but should not go far that our citizens pay a cost for cleanups that won't matter in the end.

If you look at the history of the super fund for toxic cleanup - you'll see we talk a better game (and spend on it) than we play in the end.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9241612].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Thom -

I agree. I've been one of those who doesn't think the world is ending from climate change at the moment but thinks it's foolish to believe man has no harmful effect on the earth's environment. We KNOW better than that.

But I have a problem with regulations that will cost money and jobs - when so many other countries have no plans to cut back on emissions or anything. We can't create a clean air bubble over the US while China and India and others countries pollute without a care.

I think we should do what we can to limit our damage but should not go far that our citizens pay a cost for cleanups that won't matter in the end.

If you look at the history of the super fund for toxic cleanup - you'll see we talk a better game (and spend on it) than we play in the end.

China and India may not be doing much, but other countries are. I think as a country, any country, you lead by example.
We certainly don't set a very good one when it comes to the environment. Please don't take that to mean I think this new reg. is even close to showing us leading the way.

I also have a problem with regs. that cost both money and jobs. I think one of the criteria for these types of regs. should be, can the workers who will loose jobs from this be retrained to take the new jobs created and will they be given first choice for those jobs. But it seems the attitude in Washington is someone has to be punished and they ignore the fact of who that really is.
The money is always the tricky part. In the end it's always people like you, me, and everyone else here who pays for it and we're usually the ones who get the least out of it.
The pres. said we would see an 8% savings in our utility bills from this in 2030, among other made up stuff. How much will the utility companies save and where do you think those savings will go? To us or to net profits?

Even if this new reg. does take 30% of the current emissions out of the atmosphere unless we get serious cleaning our soil and water, planting more vegetation especially trees, and stopping the spread of gmo's without serious and strict controls, we're screwed anyways.
In those areas the govt. is going in the wrong direction.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9241689].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Solar energy represents 74% of all new U.S. electricity generation in 1st quarter of 2014

U.S. Residential Solar Just Beat Commercial Installations For The First Time | ThinkProgress

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9241270].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Will some states fight the ruling much like some states have fought the ACA?

If so...

It'll be a shame that some regions will have much worse air quality than other regions of the country.

IMHO...

It'll be just another way the standard of living will be higher or lower in some regions of the country than others.

Myths and Facts About EPA's Carbon Pollution Standards:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201...ta/199516#jobs

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9241902].message }}

ThomM 10 years ago

It depends. None of us here have had a chance to read and understand the regulations, so we don't really know if the regulation is actually good. You can't take Obama or the EPA head at their word.
- Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9241971].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

CSIRO has used solar energy to generate hot and pressurised ‘supercritical’ steam, at the highest temperatures ever achieved in the world outside of fossil fuel sources.

Supercritical solar - new frontier for power generation | CSIRO

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9243696].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Supercritical solar - new frontier for power generation | CSIRO

Great! but how friendly is your gov towards clean energy?

Do you have an entire party against the concept itself like we do over here in America?

If so, do they have the power (at this time) to hold things up like some folks are doing over here?

BTW...

Here's something interesting from the Dutch!

http://www.treehugger.com/wind-techn...ld-energy.html

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9243882].message }}

whateverpedia 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Great! but how friendly is your gov towards clean energy?

Do you have an entire party against the concept itself like we do over here in America?

Good points. Yes we do have a party that is opposed to anything to do with renewable energy. Sadly they are the ones in government at the moment.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
So that blind people can hate them as well.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9244278].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Great! but how friendly is your gov towards clean energy?

Do you have an entire party against the concept itself like we do over here in America?

If so, do they have the power (at this time) to hold things up like some folks are doing over here?

There are two S.A. rules right there folks! When I heard glen beck talk about it, I thought "YEAH RIGHT". I found that book at amazon, and counted 13 stupid rules in it.

They may not know it, or know why, but they will gladly do things like follow a huge group through buildings and camp out a few days. It would have been nice if they could all be vetted, since some with them were in the 1%. and I bet MANY were in the top 20%. You have to then ask WHY?

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9382668].message }}

ForumGuru Banned 10 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9384554].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

The Holy Sea weights in...

Pope Francis Makes Biblical Case For Addressing Climate Change: 'If We Destroy Creation, Creation Will Destroy Us' | ThinkProgress

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9244004].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Solar FREAKIN' Roadways! - YouTube

For more info go here...

Solar Roadways - Introduction

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways

Solar Roadways - FAQ

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9244049].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

The Holy Sea weights in...

That would be Holy See...

“Human action which is not respectful of nature becomes a boomerang for human beings that creates inequality and extends what Pope Francis has termed ‘the globalization of indifference’ and the ‘economy of exclusion’ (Evangelii Gaudium), which themselves endanger solidarity with present and future generations,” the statement read.

I agree with him.

However, have you ever considered we might be going at it from the wrong end?

Why are malls and other shopping/entertainment venues ALLOWED to build huge concrete parking lots that change drainage, cover the land and reflect the sun thus overheating the area? Why aren't they ROUTINELY required to limit the footprint by building multi-story garages that occupy less surface?

Why are home sizes unlimited? Should two people be allowed to build a home of 4000 square feet because they can afford it? Should they be allowed to build a huge property that will use more in power than two people need to comfortably survive?

Why aren't we giving huge benefits to those who build berm or underground homes? Why not huge tax breaks to those who build concrete homes that are energy efficient and also withstand high winds and floods?

We don't go at the climate change problem from the perspective of "if you don't need it, you can't have it" because there's no money in doing that!!!!

Instead we let the rich guy build a mansion using tons of natural rock and stone and marble. He adds a media room and heated pool and heated tile floors in the bathrooms (and there are more bathrooms than people who live there). Then the rich guy donates money to a global warming cause and that cause lobbies the rich guys friends in power to give money to solar and wind product producers and limits the use of fossil fuels by adding regulations that make those fuels unaffordable to produce.

So the rich guy has his big house and tax breaks for charity - the lobby groups are funded and they take care of the pols - and the climate may eventually benefit in some small way.....but middle to little guy just pays more for the energy to heat and cool his home. His taxes go to fund the big guy's "causes".

Today you aren't allowed to build a commercial building or factory that damages the environment in any way. Why should we continue to build homes and subdivisions and mansions that cover the earth with concrete and blacktop with no limit to size or impact?

We watched rain forests be decimated and we complained and did nothing. To me, that would have been a valid reason to invade another country to protect the planet.

Just thinking of the folly of it all....

Thanks

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9244314].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

China pledges to limit carbon emissions for first time:

Absolute cap to come into effect from 2016, Chinese climate adviser says on the day after US announces ambitious carbon plan.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...rbon-emissions

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9244420].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Wind Energy In 2013 Was Equivalent To Taking 20 Million Cars Off The Road | ThinkProgress

Push To Impose Extra Fees On Customers Who Install Solar Panels Sparks Outrage In Utah | ThinkProgress

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9288980].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Solar shingle system comes online from DOW Powerhouse in North Carolina

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9290668].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

A couple of interesting developments...

Story and video here...

"Rollin' Coal" Is Pollution Porn for Dudes With Pickup Trucks | Vocativ

Diesels Rolling Coal on PEOPLE 2014 Compilation -...

Also...

BBC staff told to stop inviting cranks on to science programmes - Telegraph

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9340185].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Military Pollution: The Quintessential Universal Soldier

A growing number of organic consumers, natural health advocates and climate hawks are taking a more comprehensive look at the fundamental causes of global warming.
It has led them to this sobering conclusion: Our modern energy-, chemical- and GMO-intensive industrial food and farming systems are the major cause of man-made global warming.
How did they reach this conclusion? First, by taking a more inclusive look at the scientific data on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions - not just carbon dioxide (CO2), but also methane and nitrous oxide.
Next, by doing a full accounting of the fossil fuel consumption and emissions of the entire industrial food and farming cycle, including inputs, equipment, production, processing, distribution, heating, cooling and waste. And finally, by factoring in the indirect impacts of contemporary agriculture, which include deforestation and wetlands destruction.
When you add it all up, the picture is clear: Contemporary agriculture is burning up our planet, and factory farms or, in industry lingo, Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), play a key role in this impending disaster. How Factory Farms Affect Global Climate

Of course all that is ignored.
Interesting how the president is hell bent on destroying the coal industry, but is in full support of the biotech industry that is a major contributor to climate change.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9340337].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

A major leap backwards: Australia repeals tax on biggest carbon pollutors - Salon.com

NASA To Launch Global Warming Satellite To Track Carbon Dioxide

Solar Panel Acreage Needed to Power the Entire Planet: 158 mi x 158 mi

50% of Germany's electricity produced by solar in one hour on June 6, also achieves grid parity:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...s-grid-parity#

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9379664].message }}

tagiscom

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Wind Energy In 2013 Was Equivalent To Taking 20 Million Cars Off The Road | ThinkProgress

Push To Impose Extra Fees On Customers Who Install Solar Panels Sparks Outrage In Utah | ThinkProgress

Yeah, wind, l read about that today! We have it in three states, or about 10% of the habitable area, in AU, and for a good part of a week, zero power, or there wasn't enough wind to power them!

Which means if dumb greenies, derived all our power from this and panels only, we would be up s*** creek, when we have overcast days, and no wind!

Thankfully we are only going for a 20% green power in the near future, since we cannot go down the intelligent zero point energy alternative, that runs continuously.

Fission seems to be the only alternative politicians will touch, because of our dependency on oil.

And ignoring containment issues, we should get that going eventually.

Solar and wind are dodgy ways to generate power, even with worldwide massive solar farms.
Ok, had my rant!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9379882].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Yeah, wind, l read about that today! We have it in three states, or about 10% of the habitable area, in AU, and for a good part of a week, zero power, or there wasn't enough wind to power them!

Which means if dumb greenies, derived all our power from this and panels only, we would be up s*** creek, when we have overcast days, and no wind!

Thankfully we are only going for a 20% green power in the near future, since we cannot go down the intelligent zero point energy alternative, that runs continuously.

Fission seems to be the only alternative politicians will touch, because of our dependency on oil.

And ignoring containment issues, we should get that going eventually.

Solar and wind are dodgy ways to generate power, even with worldwide massive solar farms.
Ok, had my rant!

Different countries have different situations, resources and options.

Good luck to you folks in AU - however you attempt to handle your situation.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9379935].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

TL,

Remember that guy that BRAGGED about his country having over a billion people? Maybe you should tell them that population size is not so great, and ask them to curtail their populations. After all, THEY put out a LOT of CO2, and destroy so many things that create O2. If we had NO poverty or starvation, etc,,,, The world would DIE! It is only a question of whether it will be to disease, pestilence, suffocation, or starvation! You see, if we got rid of starvation, the population would increase, destroy land, and exacerbate starvation. It is one of those BALANCE things. Get rid of all the CO2, and the world would suffocate if it weren't starved first.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9381616].message }}

Clean Energy News

Trending Topics

Google Ads, landing pages, and Clickbank links

Carry out better target audience research

A Very Strange Internet Problem

YouTube gets shopping display tools and affiliate partnership updates

Melb, Interat, Flower Show 2024