PDA

View Full Version : Economic consequences of combating climate change



CAS138
03-03-2013, 07:26 PM
Assuming that climate change is indeed anthropomorphic and occurring, do you believe that we should take urgent action to curb green house gas emissions? These types of environmental policies would harm economic growth, so is it worth it during a period of economic struggle? Another thing that we have to consider is if such policies would even have an impact, or if we'd be sacrificing economic growth for nothing, increasing unemployment and poverty for no good reason. I say this because no matter what we do, emissions in countries like China and India will continue to increase. Also, do you think that we should invest significantly in green technologies, during a period when our national debt continues to expand at such an alarming pace? If you do not believe that the government should impose strict environmental regulations or invest in green technologies, what alternatives would you suggest to solve this problem?

Chloe
03-03-2013, 08:48 PM
Assuming that climate change is indeed anthropomorphic and occurring, do you believe that we should take urgent action to curb green house gas emissions? These types of environmental policies would harm economic growth, so is it worth it during a period of economic struggle? Another thing that we have to consider is if such policies would even have an impact, or if we'd be sacrificing economic growth for nothing, increasing unemployment and poverty for no good reason. I say this because no matter what we do, emissions in countries like China and India will continue to increase. Also, do you think that we should invest significantly in green technologies, during a period when our national debt continues to expand at such an alarming pace? If you do not believe that the government should impose strict environmental regulations or invest in green technologies, what alternatives would you suggest to solve this problem?




Assuming that if climate change is man-made then yes without a doubt we should take urgent action. Actually even if it isn't we should still take urgent action to improve the planet for the future. Without a healthy environment that supports all life then all other issues of today like the debt, unemployment, and all that will be pretty much meaningless in my opinion. We also can't base everything we do, or don't do for that matter, on what China and India are doing. Two wrongs do not make a right and if we are doing the right thing then at least we are showing some sort of integrity and responsibility that could hopefully change minds.

I think that the more that communities come together to improve the health of their immediate surroundings then it will grow throughout the country and then hopefully the world. You will always have people who are selfish and just flat out do not care about the planet, themselves, or others, but we certainly can't make our decisions based on their apathy in my opinion. Renewable energy is the future, it's not fossil fuels. A clean and sustainable planet is the future, not a dirty and used up one. Once people start to see that what they do can and will affect the environment and life around them then I think change will start, but unfortunately there are too many people right now that are so caught up in the status quo that they will allow everything to fall apart in order to cling to the past. It's pretty frustrating but I do think that at the end of the day people will start to come around.

Peter1469
03-03-2013, 08:52 PM
Welcome to tPF.

No urgent action is needed. The more reasonable climate models have the earth warming 1 degree C per 100 years. We have much more more pressing pollution issues to deal with. Technology will solve the fossil fuel issue.

zelmo1234
03-03-2013, 08:54 PM
Not a believer in Climate change, but do think that it is a good thing to be great stewards of the enviroment.

However the way the left is going about it once again will most likely be the end of the current green movment once again.

Forceing policies on people tends to turn them off. The same tactic of tryong to force green energy on the public was tried in the 1970's the public rejected it because it was too expensive, I suspect that history will rerpeat itself!

Chloe
03-03-2013, 08:58 PM
Welcome to tPF.

No urgent action is needed. The more reasonable climate models have the earth warming 1 degree C per 100 years. We have much more more pressing pollution issues to deal with. Technology will solve the fossil fuel issue.

technology could solve it if not for the fact that the major oil companies pretty much rule the world when it comes to what energy we use. I do agree though that there are a lot of other pressing pollution issues to deal with in addition to this.

Peter1469
03-03-2013, 09:02 PM
We could turn all waste products into fuel if we wanted to. With 18th century chemical engineering; of course we could do it better with newer tech.

CAS138
03-03-2013, 09:05 PM
Thanks for all the replies! Peter1469, thanks for the welcome! Out of curiosity, which models are you talking about? The models I've seen show significantly higher changes. For example, the WTO has predicted a change in 1.4 to 6.4 degrees Celsius. Do you think that numbers like that are inaccurate, and if so, why? Also, when you say that technology will solve the fossil fuel issue, what exactly do you mean?

Zelmo1234, why don't you believe in climate change? Also, you say that you don't like the left's current attempts at provoking environmentalism. What strategies do you think would work instead?

zelmo1234
03-03-2013, 09:06 PM
We could turn all waste products into fuel if we wanted to. With 18th century chemical engineering; of course we could do it better with newer tech.

I really wish we would spend the money on reasearch into the green technologies. instead of trying to force it on the american people and subsidising companies that have no market!

Only by finding the alternative fuel that lowers costs, will it stand a chance to rival oil!

Chloe
03-03-2013, 09:12 PM
I really wish we would spend the money on reasearch into the green technologies. instead of trying to force it on the american people and subsidising companies that have no market!

Only by finding the alternative fuel that lowers costs, will it stand a chance to rival oil!

Isn't oil forced on us?

zelmo1234
03-03-2013, 09:23 PM
Thanks for all the replies! Peter1469, thanks for the welcome! Out of curiosity, which models are you talking about? The models I've seen show significantly higher changes. For example, the WTO has predicted a change in 1.4 to 6.4 degrees Celsius. Do you think that numbers like that are inaccurate, and if so, why? Also, when you say that technology will solve the fossil fuel issue, what exactly do you mean?

Zelmo1234, why don't you believe in climate change? Also, you say that you don't like the left's current attempts at provoking environmentalism. What strategies do you think would work instead?

First there is a lot of funny business in the cliamte change reasearch.

http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2009/10/climate-change-scam-exposed.html I tend to really question things when people try ot hide the facts.

The polar bear photos are fake too, and then you have the fact that as the glaciers receid in greenland they are uncomvering mine and runes of old vilages?

Now if it were up to me, rather than forcing energies that are 2 and 3 times the price of fossil fuels, I would allocat the billionos of dollars into reasearch and developement. I would use the US university system so that this technology could not be patented, or purchased by the oil companies and kept from the public. By using the Universities we could take advantage of young minds like Chloe's and get the most fo out dollar.

Eventually they would discover the technology that will make green energy the cheaper alternative, and then the people will demand it!

zelmo1234
03-03-2013, 09:26 PM
Isn't oil forced on us?

Right now oil, coal, and natural gas are the cheaper alternative! they have a demand that produces hundnreds of billions of dollars in taxes and in revenue for the stock holders.

Green energy because of the lack of proven technology cost 2 to 3 times as much cost the tax payers hundreds of millions each year, and the companies do not turn a profit, thus they do not pay taxes. So it is a total expense to the american people.

So if that is forcing, there it is sure in high demand.

Peter1469
03-03-2013, 09:27 PM
Thanks for all the replies! Peter1469, thanks for the welcome! Out of curiosity, which models are you talking about? The models I've seen show significantly higher changes. For example, the WTO has predicted a change in 1.4 to 6.4 degrees Celsius. Do you think that numbers like that are inaccurate, and if so, why? Also, when you say that technology will solve the fossil fuel issue, what exactly do you mean?

Zelmo1234, why don't you believe in climate change? Also, you say that you don't like the left's current attempts at provoking environmentalism. What strategies do you think would work instead?

The WTO publishes a lot of models. Most are of the mild variety that I mentioned. They tout the extreme models. Probably to get funding. No government is going to fund a non-issue.

Peter1469
03-03-2013, 09:28 PM
I really wish we would spend the money on reasearch into the green technologies. instead of trying to force it on the american people and subsidising companies that have no market!

Only by finding the alternative fuel that lowers costs, will it stand a chance to rival oil!


Oil has a monopoly on transportation fuels. But alcohol, at least at the micro level, is cheaper.

CAS138
03-03-2013, 09:30 PM
Zelmo1234, aren't you afraid that that approach may not lead to success? It seems like depending on technology that doesn't exist yet may be taking a pretty big risk.

Peter1469, do you know of any models that are more realistic?

Peter1469
03-03-2013, 09:34 PM
Zelmo1234, aren't you afraid that that approach may not lead to success? It seems like depending on technology that doesn't exist yet may be taking a pretty big risk.

Peter1469, do you know of any models that are more realistic?


This book discusses them in detail:

http://energyvictory.net/

Chloe
03-03-2013, 09:41 PM
Right now oil, coal, and natural gas are the cheaper alternative! they have a demand that produces hundnreds of billions of dollars in taxes and in revenue for the stock holders.

Green energy because of the lack of proven technology cost 2 to 3 times as much cost the tax payers hundreds of millions each year, and the companies do not turn a profit, thus they do not pay taxes. So it is a total expense to the american people.

So if that is forcing, there it is sure in high demand.

I don't think that it's because it's an unproven technology I just think the country, if not the world, is currently set up to run on fossil fuels and that will never change as long as those big companies continue the monopoly on energy. If a company like exxon was forced to spend half its earnings on advancing renewable energy instead of continuing on its current and historical path then you'd see progress, but since their current profits go to executives and politicians that keep the status quo going strong it will never ever happen unless prices get out of control or fossil fuels begin to diminish.

zelmo1234
03-03-2013, 09:43 PM
Zelmo1234, aren't you afraid that that approach may not lead to success? It seems like depending on technology that doesn't exist yet may be taking a pretty big risk.

Peter1469, do you know of any models that are more realistic?

No I am more worried about forcing high energy cost that punish the poor and the middle class, this is the same thing that happened in the 70's. And the people rejected green energy, it was removed from the WhiteHouse, and you heard very little of it for the next 30 years.

forcing people to choose between food and heat, or medicines ahd paying their electric bill tends to make them reject new energy sources

Without the support of the people it can not succeed

zelmo1234
03-03-2013, 09:48 PM
I don't think that it's because it's an unproven technology I just think the country, if not the world, is currently set up to run on fossil fuels and that will never change as long as those big companies continue the monopoly on energy. If a company like exxon was forced to spend half its earnings on advancing renewable energy instead of continuing on its current and historical path then you'd see progress, but since their current profits go to executives and politicians that keep the status quo going strong it will never ever happen unless prices get out of control or fossil fuels begin to diminish.

That would more than likely force them to move their company over seas, instead of loosing half of their profits. If you could figure out how to make them stay. it would reduce th price fo their stock dramatically. I know that on the surface that does not seem like a bad thing,

Until you consider that many retired people and pension funds are invested in energy companies because they are relatively safe in nature.

So now you have reduce the income of those that have no way of increasing that income and you have also increased the price of the energy they need to carry on with their daily life.

You have now forced many to choose between food and energy or prescriptions and energy.

When you force something on the people their are always concequences. Do you think that is a fair price to make those on fixed income to pay?

Chloe
03-03-2013, 09:50 PM
That would more than likely force them to move their company over seas, instead of loosing half of their profits. If you could figure out how to make them stay. it would reduce th price fo their stock dramatically. I know that on the surface that does not seem like a bad thing,

Until you consider that many retired people and pension funds are invested in energy companies because they are relatively safe in nature.

So now you have reduce the income of those that have no way of increasing that income and you have also increased the price of the energy they need to carry on with their daily life.

You have now forced many to choose between food and energy or prescriptions and energy.

When you force something on the people their are always concequences. Do you think that is a fair price to make those on fixed income to pay?

The reality is eventually our current energy strategy and way of life will have to change, and it won't be a slow and painless transition in my opinion. The sooner we start the less painful it will be when we absolutely need to change.

zelmo1234
03-03-2013, 09:52 PM
So you are ok with them moveing over seas, and the pain and suffering this would cause on the elderly?

Chloe
03-03-2013, 09:56 PM
So you are ok with them moveing over seas, and the pain and suffering this would cause on the elderly?

I'm not saying that but if a company chooses to leave then that's fine, maybe it could make room for other companies who value progress over profit and the status quo.

zelmo1234
03-03-2013, 10:05 PM
I'm not saying that but if a company chooses to leave then that's fine, maybe it could make room for other companies who value progress over profit and the status quo.

I wish the world worked that way, but if they leave, you will have no tax incoe from those companies, you wil have to tax the end product which will come from the people , not the company.

If we can discover a technology that makes it cheaper, the people will demand it!

It is great to think of a world with green energy, So we have wind at 2 time s the price of coal, and Solar at 3 times the price, and we wonder why people do not want to invest in these system.

CAS138
03-03-2013, 10:32 PM
Zelmo1234, it seems like the main reason why you are opposed to green energy is because of the high cost and the struggle that it will cause for the lower class. What do you feel about government subsidies for green technology and green energy sources to decrease the burden that it would have on the poor and elderly?

Chloe
03-03-2013, 10:33 PM
Hi CAS138 what is your opinion on this?

CAS138
03-03-2013, 10:41 PM
I'm still trying to cement my opinion on the issue, which is why I'd love to hear arguments from both sides. I like to acquire all the knowledge I can about a subject before coming to an opinion. Thanks so much for presenting your viewpoint! I'd like to learn as much about this topic as I possibly can!

Agravan
03-03-2013, 10:45 PM
I'm not saying that but if a company chooses to leave then that's fine, maybe it could make room for other companies who value progress over profit and the status quo.
No such company exists, Chloe. People don't go into business to be altruistic. They go into business to make money. This is why your vision of Utopia is doomed to failure. No one wants to, or will, bust their butt just for "progress" if there is not profit involved. Not everyone comes from a wealthy family and can think of environment over food. Think of all the people your plan would condemn to either eating or staying warm. Once again, your concept of "compassion" for others is incomprehensible to a normal, non-utopian, person.

zelmo1234
03-04-2013, 06:02 AM
Zelmo1234, it seems like the main reason why you are opposed to green energy is because of the high cost and the struggle that it will cause for the lower class. What do you feel about government subsidies for green technology and green energy sources to decrease the burden that it would have on the poor and elderly?

I am a capitalist, and a cConstitutionalist. right now they are subsidising the industry at a rate of 92 billion a year, and instituting policies that have falsly driven the price of gas, lp and heating oil up, by more than a dollar a gallon!, And they still can't sell these products. States to comply with EPA anti coal designes have instituted green mandates for their power companies, and ethonal standards for gas, because of this the price of corn has skyrocketed, and E85 is more expensive in MI than regular unleaded gas, even with the farm subsidies on the product.

Next the government is 17 trillion in debt, they have no money to do a direct subsidy to the poor and middle class, so you would have to get that money from the oil companies, which will cause them to off shore and drive the price of gas even higher as they will pass this cost on to the consumer.

Add to the fact that Solar and wind for much of the country must have fossil fuel or battery back-up and you have a very expensive system, even with subsidies. This drives the price of manufacturing up, and now you have more companies that are forced to off shore to stay competitve?

All these must be taken into account.

So unless you can show me how we can subsidise the current green energy technology, without raising the debt, hurting manufacturing, and causing the price of energy to skyrocket, and costing a lot of US jobs? I would not be for it! And keep in mind you are talking about a subsidy of 3 to 4 thousand in cash payments for about 100 million people!

zelmo1234
03-04-2013, 06:04 AM
I'm still trying to cement my opinion on the issue, which is why I'd love to hear arguments from both sides. I like to acquire all the knowledge I can about a subject before coming to an opinion. Thanks so much for presenting your viewpoint! I'd like to learn as much about this topic as I possibly can!

This is a sign of wisdom, you will go far in life with this attitude!

zelmo1234
03-04-2013, 06:17 AM
It all comes down to the Green movment is determined to force a technology on the people of the USA, before iti si reliable and cost effective. Even when you look and see the cars like the volt, and solar power generations stations are more enviromentally unfriendly through the manufacturing porocess, and because the plug in electricity is likely to be generated from coal than their fossil fuel alternatives.

The green movment like in the 70's has little reguard for the effects that is has on other people! Now saying that their desire is driven by a rational plan to improve the planet, but they tend to disreguard the facts. They care little for the jobs that it would force overseas, and the unemployment it would cause. They could care less that it has a financial effect on others. which would most likely explain why many or I should say most of the people in the movment come from upper income families and they have little need for income as they can count on family wealth to support them.

They care little that the jobs they would force overseas would mean more world pollution, as long as they can be seen as reducing polution in their area. which leads me to beleive that they really do not beleive in global warming either, or they would understand that sending jobs to china where there is little in the way of enviroment restrictions would be counter productive.

This is what will cause the poor and middle class to reject green energy so strongly that it will be once again defunded and sent to the wood shed for decades. Which will once again delay the technology that will one day make green energy the cheap alternative to fossil fuels. Energy policy will turn in the next 5 years toward massive production of fossil fuel energy, clean coal, and natural gas. All to remove the governemnt imposed burden of high energy prices. President Obama stated it perfectly when he said the price of fossil fuel energy must necessarily skyrocket for green energy to have a chance. It has, and green energy is still 3 times more expensive!

Instead of wasting billions in subsidies to companies that have no customers, we must put this into reasearch and development, through the university systems to develope the technology that will drive the conversion to green energy! unless this becomes the policy of the future, green energy is doomed!

Chloe
03-04-2013, 06:10 PM
No such company exists, Chloe. People don't go into business to be altruistic. They go into business to make money. This is why your vision of Utopia is doomed to failure. No one wants to, or will, bust their butt just for "progress" if there is not profit involved. Not everyone comes from a wealthy family and can think of environment over food. Think of all the people your plan would condemn to either eating or staying warm. Once again, your concept of "compassion" for others is incomprehensible to a normal, non-utopian, person.

Why do you have to make it personal?

Chloe
03-04-2013, 08:32 PM
No such company exists, Chloe. People don't go into business to be altruistic. They go into business to make money. This is why your vision of Utopia is doomed to failure. No one wants to, or will, bust their butt just for "progress" if there is not profit involved. Not everyone comes from a wealthy family and can think of environment over food. Think of all the people your plan would condemn to either eating or staying warm. Once again, your concept of "compassion" for others is incomprehensible to a normal, non-utopian, person.

I am not saying that businesses shouldn't make money. I know that they need to make money in order to survive. All I am trying to say is that if a company makes 10 billion dollars and puts 2 billion of that into helping the environment, conservation, pollution control efforts, habitat restoration, green energy, city wide clean ups, basic charity, and so on instead of just trying to maximize everything the perhaps some good changes could be made. If a company like exxon took just one billion dollars of its profits and put that money towards helping high schools across the country install solar panels to help reduce energy usage it would do so much more good than drilling another hole in Alaska looking for oil that won't benefit us for years.

zelmo1234
03-04-2013, 11:09 PM
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/community_wwgiving_report.aspx

Now I will admit that this is stingy

But Solar panels? why would you want schools to increase their energy cost by 3 times? and have to take that money out of theeducation fund?

Chloe
03-04-2013, 11:13 PM
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/community_wwgiving_report.aspx

Now I will admit that this is stingy

But Solar panels? why would you want schools to increase their energy cost by 3 times? and have to take that money out of theeducation fund?

Well solar panels was just an example. The money could go to new science labs, student gardens, more renewable supplies and so on

Dr. Who
03-04-2013, 11:31 PM
Not a believer in Climate change, but do think that it is a good thing to be great stewards of the enviroment.

However the way the left is going about it once again will most likely be the end of the current green movment once again.

Forceing policies on people tends to turn them off. The same tactic of tryong to force green energy on the public was tried in the 1970's the public rejected it because it was too expensive, I suspect that history will rerpeat itself!

Highrise farming. Takes the pressure off the rural environment, leaves land for the flora and fauna and still provides food for human life. Plus no bugs.

zelmo1234
03-05-2013, 12:38 AM
Highrise farming. Takes the pressure off the rural environment, leaves land for the flora and fauna and still provides food for human life. Plus no bugs.

Do you think that it could be done at the same cost? to keep the cost of food low? I have little knowledge of the concept, but what I see, I think that I like, but do not know enough about it!

Peter1469
03-05-2013, 05:59 AM
Do you think that it could be done at the same cost? to keep the cost of food low? I have little knowledge of the concept, but what I see, I think that I like, but do not know enough about it!

Lots of the better restaurants here in DC grow a lot of their own food in the city. Particularly herbs and spices.

zelmo1234
03-05-2013, 06:26 AM
I saw a racking system at a homeshow this week end. for veggies and herbs.

I grow a very large garden and preserve many of my own herbs and veggies, So I am all for this kind of stuff if it is economically pheasable.

It just pisses me off when our politicians inact laws that end up punishing the poor and middle class, and call it progress.

Dr. Who
03-05-2013, 06:35 PM
Do you think that it could be done at the same cost? to keep the cost of food low? I have little knowledge of the concept, but what I see, I think that I like, but do not know enough about it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming
It is a great concept. There are energy concerns, but all the more reason to find viable alternative energy sources.

Dr. Who
03-05-2013, 06:58 PM
Lots of the better restaurants here in DC grow a lot of their own food in the city. Particularly herbs and spices.
Roof top gardening is catching on in many urban centers. Unfortunately it still doesn't equate to thousands of hectares of farmland. Unfortunately with the expectation that the population will increase by some 3 billion people by 2050 traditional farming means we will have to increasingly decimate forested areas and other critical natural environments. Since we need the forests to produce the air that we breathe, new farming techniques will be required. The high rise farm is still theoretical, but based on greenhouse farming. It theorizes savings in transportation, as the farms can be located in urban areas, elimination of toxic chemicals to protect the plant life from insects, disease and fungus. The only hitch is either finding more viable energy sources, i.e. meaning cheaper or designing structures that can take advantage of the existing light. (light tubes and mirrors?)

jes'fuchinwitcha
04-03-2023, 06:44 PM
I just posted the following under a different topic - looks like this one is a better home for it.

I am a reviewer for the DOE Small Business Innovation and Research grant program (SBIR) specializing in community connected biomass/biochar energy R&D in the private sector. I have been assigned three proposals to review in detail by the 10th and I just finished reading the first one, which I like very much.

In a nutshell, the proponent plans to utilize waste biomass from logging (slash - waste biomass accounts for about half of all of the material that goes into producing the lumber you buy at stores). The project is to turn that waste into biochar and liquid fuels through a pyrolysis process, which in itself is not a new technology. The key to the importance of the proposal is that the company has designed into its commercialization plan a consideration of the practical resource base for the production facility, the associated appropriate related scale for production, and identifies its market as the region in which it is to be produced (for both a biochar and "drop-in" replacement fuel for fossil oil and gas.

We're talking carbon negative/revenue positive energy from waste materials here, at cost competitive pricing.

Any questions about the potential for green energy?

jes'fuchinwitcha
04-03-2023, 06:51 PM
It all comes down to the Green movment is determined to force a technology on the people of the USA, before iti si reliable and cost effective. Even when you look and see the cars like the volt, and solar power generations stations are more enviromentally unfriendly through the manufacturing porocess, and because the plug in electricity is likely to be generated from coal than their fossil fuel alternatives.

The green movment like in the 70's has little reguard for the effects that is has on other people! Now saying that their desire is driven by a rational plan to improve the planet, but they tend to disreguard the facts. They care little for the jobs that it would force overseas, and the unemployment it would cause. They could care less that it has a financial effect on others. which would most likely explain why many or I should say most of the people in the movment come from upper income families and they have little need for income as they can count on family wealth to support them.

They care little that the jobs they would force overseas would mean more world pollution, as long as they can be seen as reducing polution in their area. which leads me to beleive that they really do not beleive in global warming either, or they would understand that sending jobs to china where there is little in the way of enviroment restrictions would be counter productive.

This is what will cause the poor and middle class to reject green energy so strongly that it will be once again defunded and sent to the wood shed for decades. Which will once again delay the technology that will one day make green energy the cheap alternative to fossil fuels. Energy policy will turn in the next 5 years toward massive production of fossil fuel energy, clean coal, and natural gas. All to remove the governemnt imposed burden of high energy prices. President Obama stated it perfectly when he said the price of fossil fuel energy must necessarily skyrocket for green energy to have a chance. It has, and green energy is still 3 times more expensive!

Instead of wasting billions in subsidies to companies that have no customers, we must put this into reasearch and development, through the university systems to develope the technology that will drive the conversion to green energy! unless this becomes the policy of the future, green energy is doomed!

You have a lot of very strong opinions on things you know very little about, though you do seem to have internalized the negative propaganda quite well.

jes'fuchinwitcha
04-05-2023, 07:39 PM
Green energy

https://youtube.com/shorts/otW7yJqQi7c?feature=share (https://youtube.com/shorts/otW7yJqQi7c?feature=share)

carolina73
04-05-2023, 08:14 PM
When green energy is viable without subsidies then the market will choose it.

I was just watching a report tonight on Taiwan. They are closing down there last nuclear power stations. That makes them 95% dependent on LNG imports for all their total power. Their LNG mostly comes from from Australia. Their oil/gas would have to pass through the Chinese blockades. The USA has no LNG plants on the West Coast.

A Chinese blockade shuts them down completely and sets them back 100 years. There will be no semiconductor exports. Green energy sits at 8.7% of all electricity.

The Green party is a Ship of Fools.

jes'fuchinwitcha
04-05-2023, 08:30 PM
When green energy is viable without subsidies then the market will choose it.


I was just watching a report tonight on Taiwan. They are closing down there last nuclear power stations. That makes them 95% dependent on LNG imports for all their total power. Their LNG mostly comes from from Australia. Their oil/gas would have to pass through the Chinese blockades. The USA has no LNG plants on the West Coast.

A Chinese blockade shuts them down completely and sets them back 100 years. There will be no semiconductor exports. Green energy sits at 8.7% of all electricity.

The Green party is a Ship of Fools.

What energy is unsubsidized, o seer in the Fool’s cap?

zelmo1234
04-05-2023, 09:47 PM
What energy is unsubsidized, o seer in the Fool’s cap?

What are those Oil and Natural Gas Subsidies again can you post a link

jes'fuchinwitcha
04-05-2023, 10:16 PM
What are those Oil and Natural Gas Subsidies again can you post a link

Are you lazy, or just incompetent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies

carolina73
04-05-2023, 10:23 PM
What energy is unsubsidized, o seer in the Fool’s cap?

Solar panels.
Wind Turbines

EV sales.
Installation of the charging station being paid for by the government.


All Green Energy is doing is creating more debt because it cannot pay for itself.

The promises have never met the propaganda.