Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NinjaBoot]

"i just brought you up with the hypocrisy of the one particular article you linked"

you really have a language issue don't you. Do i need to rephrase this?

I pointed out to you that the article you linked smacked of hypocrisy. How is that saying "you" are hypocritical? Are you trying to derail again?

Now you're going back to the straw-man style of arguing, since i never advocated any fucking "cause" or made any claim about other sources.


Someone picking apart a particular quote you made or article you linked does NOT require them to provide you with some "manifesto" to save the world to justify them criticizing your sources.

"Did I assume too much?  Most likely, but then what are you arguing for?"

Please tell me, what position are you arguing for?  That fracking is dangerous?  If so, what alternative do you propose?  Etc etc.. it is a discussion if ideas, this is why I am asking you for input so we can avoid me preaching to the choir.   

Basically, even if you are just nit-picking me, you must have a stance on this entire issue regarding drilling for oil in general.  I am asking you, what stance is it?  If you are pro green, go re-read my entire rant again.  If not, then why do I have to explain any of this to you? 

But if your just wanting to nit-pick that single issue, then whatever.  You win, what next?

As for strip-mining the earth for rare metals, there are MANY ways to store energy which do not require that.

e.g. Thermal Solar Power generators :-

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/earth/15sola.html

Or, alternatively, storing solar energy by splitting water to make hydrogen :-

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10002704-54.html

Awesome, hopefully it will provide us with cheap and affordable green energy!

[NinjaBoot]

If green energy can provide a cheaper and more reliable form of energy without the help of government (re: taxpayers), then I would have absolutely no problem with it.  However, that is far from the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

"A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[5] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies over the 2002–2008 period. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil-fuel based sources amounted to approximately $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy."

Thats $12 billion per year subsidies to fossil fuel industry. If you're going to cite tax-payers assistance to renewables you have to consider the same thing which the USA has always done for fossil fuels.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/Nuclear_Subsidies.html

And add $7 billion a year for U.S. taxpayers subsidies to nuclear industry, plus the US government throws in "security" measures for free. and spends tax-payers money to buy some of the "waste" and turn it into weapons (DU ammunition), thus saving the nuclear industry more costs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_United_States

"President Barack Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included more than $70 billion in direct spending and tax credits for clean energy and associated transportation programs."

"In February 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy launched its SunShot Initiative, a collaborative national effort to cut the total cost of photovoltaic solar energy systems by 75% by 2020."

"bout 86% of all types of energy used in the United States is derived from fossil fuels. In 2007, the largest source of the country's energy came from petroleum (40%), followed by natural gas (24%) and coal (23%). The remaining 15% was supplied by nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, and miscellaneous renewable sources.[41]"

"The United States' hydroelectric plants make the largest contribution to the country's renewable energy, producing 248,100MW of the 371,700MW (67%) generated through all renewable energy."

$72($84 if the funding continued to when Obama signed the ARR) Billion to an industry that provides over 86% of your energy vs. $99 billion (your report + what obama did with ARR) to an industry that provides... less than 10% the total output? 

We're leaving out nuclear subsidies since I am too against it, until technology allows for the process/safe removal of waste/fuel rods.  But if you would like to include it, the the costs would be roughly the same.  But then if that is the case your looking at providing money to an industry that outputs over 90% of your energy capacity vs an industry that is less than 10%. 

If fossil fuels and nuclear energy can provide a cheaper and more reliable form of energy without the help of government (re: taxpayers), then I would have absolutely no problem with it.  However, that is far from the case.

Same shoe, other foot.

If green energy can provide a cheaper and more reliable form of energy without the help of government (re: taxpayers), then I would have absolutely no problem with it.  However, that is far from the case. 

Wait, what?  Where did nuclear energy come from?

Hey, you can blame me all you want for attacking strawman arguments, but at least have the courtesy to not try and change what I have said in my original post. 

And no, it is not the same shoe different foot analogy because the shoe does not fit. 

[Reelya]

I was pointing out that "traditional" energy sources which include fossil fuels and nuclear get more subsidies than "renewables".

Note i labelled mine version "Quote from Reelya", that's MY agrument dammit. It's only called a STRAW MAN if you claim the other side holds an  argument (one that you've crafted deliberately to be undermined easily). Since I claimed to hold that position myself, it's NOT a "straw man" by definition.

And that 19 billion a year DOES artificially alter the price of fossils and nuclear.

You can't just say "the shoe does not fit". How is subsidizing fossil fuels for example any different to distorting the price of renewables? Some of those subsidies have been going for a century. A lot of military costs actually go into securing energy supplies both domestic and internationally, those are "hidden subsidies" for the corporations who profit from those sources, and are not counted in the direct subsidies.

[NinjaBoot]

You mean the same Administration that, uh.. gave Solyndra (produced solar panels) a $535 million loan to an Obama donor, disregarding all the red-flags that popped up during the vetting process? 
[...]
And it is still being used to by companies and corporations to influence government to do what they want.  Do I have to mention again how a company backed by Al Gore got a loan to produce electric cars in Finland that retail at the price of $89,000?

You do realize that if the USA doesn't start creating electric car companies then you'll end up importing EVERYTHING. Of course start-ups are going to have some problems and not every start-up is going to be a winner. Does this mean you should only back "established" companies?

You know, I would agree with you if the company wasn't producing them in Finland.  I mean, they are based in California, so why not produce them there?  This would provide alot of jobs in the automotive industry. 

And even then, why such a high priced car that is targeted at such a niche market?

Solyndra went out of business because they couldn't compete with cheaper solar-cells made in China due to falling prices for silica and other raw materials after the financial crisis. There was a point where they were more viable (thin film solar arrays being cheaper to make, previously)

So, you're saying America should give up and just import cheaper "green" tech from China

I am saying the Administration shouldn't play partisan politics and intentionally obfuscate the whole situation, thus betraying their much touted reputation as being "the most transparent administrative EVER."  They (the Administration and people who were actually doing the due-diligence on it) knew of this, they knew Solynda would eventually go out of business because of is happening in China. And now we are left with a Photo Op for Joe Biden that cost tax-payers $535 million. 

But hey, who am I kidding?  This is Obama we are talking about, what is a few hundred million anyways?  A billion?  Pssh!  Who needs a budget when you can rack up a debt faster then Dubya in less than a term? 

[NinjaBoot]

I was pointing out that "traditional" energy sources which include fossil fuels and nuclear get more subsidies than "renewables".

Note i labelled mine version "Quote from Reelya", that's MY agrument dammit. It's only called a STRAW MAN if you claim the other side holds an  argument (one that you've crafted deliberately to be undermined easily). Since I claimed to hold that position myself, it's NOT a "straw man" by definition.

I didn't say you were using a strawman against me, and I apologize for failing to note it was a quote from you!

And that 19 billion a year DOES artificially alter the price of fossils and nuclear.

You can't just say "the shoe does not fit". How is subsidizing fossil fuels for example any different to distorting the price of renewables? Some of those subsidies have been going for a century. A lot of military costs actually go into securing energy supplies both domestic and internationally, those are "hidden subsidies" for the corporations who profit from those sources, and are not counted in the direct subsidies.

An industry that provides over 90% of the power production in your country.  Subsidizing them is providing people with cheaper gas prices and elecricity.  What does providing a subsidy for an industry that provides less than 10% of it do? 

Think about it this way.  If America did not get so much of its oil from foreign countries (American dependence on imports grew from 10% in 1970 to 65% by the end of 2004.), then subsidies wouldn't have to be paid to companies to account for the ridiculously high price in oil. 

But yeah, I gotta get some sleep!  Long shift tomorrow, we'll battle it out gladiator style tomorrow night! 

[Reelya]

Lord, that's bad logic. The money's coming out of your pocket (taxes), and the government's sticking it back in the other pocket (minus the cut the oil company obviously takes from the subsidy).

How on Earth is that "making it cheaper" xD ?

The sensible thing for the oil company (that whole "maximizing return to the shareholders" biz) is to price the retail gasoline at whatever price-point makes the most total revenue, regardless of how much subsidy they get, so the subsidy probably doesn't budge prices one inch (unless you build a price monitoring system into the subsidy scheme - and i'm pretty sure they do not do that).

The alternative reading of the oil subsidies is that they make drilling for oil in non-profitable areas attractive (otherwise you wouldn't need to subsidize them). The problem with that, again is that the total oil cost is actually higher than retail, but part of the costs are "hidden" as higher tax, so the citizens end up paying the higher price anyway without knowing it.

[Strange guy]

Fossil fuels are proven, profitable technology/industry, they don't need subsidies, and as Reelya just said subsidies to reduce prices don't make any sense either.

You mentioned

"In February 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy launched its SunShot Initiative, a collaborative national effort to cut the total cost of photovoltaic solar energy systems by 75% by 2020."

That's a massive difference in cost and would make solar energy much more viable world-side. Are you going to be able to reduce the costs of fossil fuels by 75% using subsidies? Not without taxes required matching the savings anyway.

[Leafsnail]

As I have already pointed out, and I don't care how many times I have to, but even if you turn all energy sources into green energy, you still have the problem of 1) transportation vehicles (planes, trains and automobiles.. and watercraft) 2) humans naturally producing "pollution", 3) huge farming operations producing a shit-ton of "pollution", 4) people heating their homes when it is cold.

You have some problems, but they're all easily overcome.

1) You could solve by switching to energy storers like hydrogen (hydrogen works pretty well at the moment, the issue is getting all the infrastructure in place).  Or put money into developing better energy storage ideas if you don't think hydrogen is good enough.

2) Is unbelievably tiny and would be offset naturally by plants.

3) I dunno, talking about cows or whatever?  You could switch to less polluting meat/ less meat or just get it offset by plants again.

4) Heating their homes would not produce any pollution at all if it's done using the now carbon emission free electricity.  Unless you're suggesting the heat from the homes will actually cause global warming, in which case I will tell you that the effect will be so unbelievably negligible that it won't matter at all.

Are we going to charge individuals who fart too much?  What about a heating your home tax?  How about a starting your car up tax, and idling your engine tax, and a driving it around tax?  What about a tax for buying products from businesses that operate in such a manner as to produce large quantities of "pollution" (a tax for those who support those heavy polluters!")

Farting is so tiny an effect that we can forget it.  For all those other taxes you're suggesting... yes, we have those.  It's called fuel tax.  If you idle, start up or drive your car then you are using fuel and thus paying the fuel tax.

What about a children tax, cause creating more humans is only compounding the problem!

If they start polluting then they'd pay the appropriate taxes.

Wait, no.. lets just tax the companies who are in the oil and gas industry, that sounds more logical!

Yes, it is more logical, because simply taxing oil and gas requires very little in the way of bureaucracy compared to all the stupid taxes you're suggesting.  The oil and gas industry would pass the cost on to their customers so that the polluter would ultimately pay for the damage they're causing to the environment (and thus contribute money towards finding solutions).  It's really not a hard concept to grasp.

[darkflagrance]

They might not be too enthusiastic about them anymore!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8770937/Wind-farm-paid-1.2-million-to-produce-no-electricity.html

"In total, 11 wind farms were closed down last week, receiving a total of £2.6 million. The money - detailed in calculations provided by National Grid - will be added on to household bills and paid for by consumers."

China?  Yeah, they're stopping subsidizing their wind farms.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/07/us-china-windpower-idUSTRE7561B920110607

Why is that?  Well, from what I have read, it is because they cause the electrical system to overload.  This is also ontop of having to actually pay them money to not operate. 

So, Windpower is unreliable (overloading the electrical grid), and expensive (all those wind farms being paid out to not product energy is expensive!). 

The same deal with solar power.  Unreliable and expensive. 

Now I know you will say to me that it is cheaper and affordable.  Why is that?  Federal subsidies.  If they didn't have such a huge investment of cash from the government, then their rates would be alot more expensive than traditional means.  If they didn't have government helping them out, then they wouldn't even come close to advertising what they claim. 

If green energy can provide a cheaper and more reliable form of energy without the help of government (re: taxpayers), then I would have absolutely no problem with it.  However, that is far from the case.

In the first article, it appears that the grid is simply unequipped to handle the maximum output of British windfarms during freak conditions. It shows that the planning of the infrastructure, not the technology, is flawed.

In the second article, it looked like China was merely making necessary concessions to the WTO. There is no evidence that it was due to problems with the technology.

There is no evidence from either of these articles about the viability of solar.

Doesn't help that in the current situation "green energy" would be competing against industries that already get govt subsidies in the USA.

[Montague]

Energy subsidies are thought to cheaply accerate economic growth and prosperity.

If fuel and electrity cost to the individual as much as they actually would on a free-market basis, absolutely everything would be more expensive. Energy subsidies help the poor, more then anybody, as they are at the ultimate end of any supply chain and every supply chain in the modern world relies on cheap fuel. The thought is that cheaper energy, eg, reverse taxes actually boosts government revenue because of the economic activity it permits.

I think this system is due to collapse anyways, but you must give the concept it's due.

At some point soon, gasoline, diesel and the such will be around 10$/gal and that is when coal-to-liquid processes will be profitible and as such, gas prices will stablize at that point. The US has an immense amount of coal. Enough coal to replace all other energy sources, for the entire world, with projected growth, for 200 years. That is alot, even if those estimates might be contested or inaccurate.

Anyways, fact is, expect fuel in the future to be expensive. Expensive fuel hurts everybody, especially the poor.

[mainiac]

Actually fuel subsidies are regressive towards the poorest.  The poorest drive less and take more public transportation.  It's only progressive between the rich and middle.

And it's just wrong thinking to think that fuel subsidies are in any way efficient ways of giving people money.  If I doubled the price of your gasoline and gave you a check for that amount you would be better off.  Gasoline would cost more so you would consume less of it.  So you'd end up with more money in your pocket.  Econ 101.

[Leafsnail]

Yeah... if you have the money to subsidise fuel, you might as well just hand it out to the people you're trying to help with the subsidy.  That way people will be encouraged to use less of a resource that's running out rather than more and the poor would do better.  Subsidies just screw up supply and demand horribly.

[Reelya]

Isn't it funny how "conservatives" will 100% back "tax-and-spend" policies when it's for something they like or use?

I'm interested, NinjaBoot in what you think of education spending? One could argue that that heavily subsidizes private industry because you have a large pool of literate/numerate people to hire. Somalia, with virtually no central government at all has one of the lowest literacy rates in the world.

The same could be said of public transport, millions of company employees use public transport to get to work. Many jobs would be inaccessible to those in the target economic bracket (minimum-wage, poor people) without it. You'd have to pay those minimum-wage jobs enough to afford to run a car without public transport options.

[Montague]

Actually fuel subsidies are regressive towards the poorest.  The poorest drive less and take more public transportation.  It's only progressive between the rich and middle.

And it's just wrong thinking to think that fuel subsidies are in any way efficient ways of giving people money.  If I doubled the price of your gasoline and gave you a check for that amount you would be better off.  Gasoline would cost more so you would consume less of it.  So you'd end up with more money in your pocket.  Econ 101.

Poor people in the US own cars and they drive them, they also purchase things transported via trucks and ships and freight trains that burn fuel. Fuel prices effect the prices of every single thing on the market that involves fuel use. Bus fares, even, increase when fuel prices increase. You are talking about perhaps the extremely poor, the bottom 1% of income in the US. The homeless or Amish, or some other demographic that doesn't rely on the mainstream economy for their survival. Everybody else is going to rely on automobile, privately owned or not, for transportation and is going to purchase things transported to the market by trucks or whatever else that uses liquid fuel.

Subsidizing fuel directly, on the consumer level, alleviates this expense on the poor. Rich people are not going to give a damn if their food or transportation costs double or not. 400$/mo or 800/mo. Food and transportation are the majority expenses of the poor/working/middle classes. Cutting subsidies means cutting these classes parity purchasing power.

[mainiac]

Poor people buy things transported by trucks.  They buy fewer things however.  Rent and utilities account for a greater percentage of their income.  Rent and utilities are only weakly affected by oil prices.  Food also accounts for a greater percentage of their income and food prices are mostly independent of fuel since food price is highly determined by what people are willing to pay and less determined by fuel costs.

Poor people drive.  But they drive less.  When every mile counts you don't drive places you don't have to.

Poor people are also much more likely to take public transportation, to walk and to hitchhike.

Poor people are also very likely to be elderly.  Elderly people have a lot of ability to cut back on fuel consumption.

If you used a gas tax to finance a cut to payroll taxes, that would be a very, very good measure for the bottom 50%.  And the environment too.