or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Your ideas, hopes and links for green travel.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Your ideas, hopes and links for green travel. - Page 5

post #161 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You've lost me here.

Capitalism works very well in some ways, but these new technologies would not have been implemented by and large without government support because they couldn't compete on price alone. That's reality.

There is an unspoken assumption in what you say. You are begging the question.

Note also that you are making an unsupported claim.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #162 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Which part lost you?

This part- "Do you even recognize what you're doing in this statement? What's you're implying (without any supporting proof or evidence)?"
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #163 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

There is an unspoken assumption in what you say. You are begging the question.

Note also that you are making an unsupported claim.

Why don't you just say what you're thinking? I really can't work out what you're saying.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #164 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

This part- "Do you even recognize what you're doing in this statement? What's you're implying (without any supporting proof or evidence)?"

There is an unspoken and unproven assumption in your statement. You are starting with the assumption that solar energy technologies should be pursued. On this issue you are doing what is called "begging the question," that is you are assuming the point without having proven it.

The second unproven assumption you stated was that the technologies would not be developed on the free market.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #165 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

There is an unspoken and unproven assumption in your statement. You are starting with the assumption that solar energy technologies should be pursued. On this issue you are doing what is called "begging the question," that is you are assuming the point without having proven it.

The second unproven assumption you stated was that the technologies would not be developed on the free market.


I think it's fact that solar energy should be persued, but I guess the environmental arguements you will disagree with me on, so consider the jobs created or lost argument. Solar is modern, it has a future. It's not that different from computer tech in that it keeps getting better as we can see from the space station (if successful it would mean we didn't need to cover large areas of land with the things, thereby freeing up more habitat for wildlife). With solar having the potential to be incorporated cheaply onto buildings, roads etc and the costs of energy per watt to become substantially lower than coal, oil and gas it provides huge opportunities for job growth. Isn't that in your mind even worth persuing?

It should be noted too that oil, coal and gas have all had huge amounts of government subsidies and investments (not even including buying off countries and conflict) that would take decades and decades for solar subsidies and investment to get anywhere near.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #166 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I think it's fact that solar energy should be persued...

This is far from proving the claim.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

...but I guess the environmental arguements you will disagree with me on, so consider the jobs created or lost argument. Solar is modern, it has a future. It's not that different from computer tech in that it keeps getting better...

I'd welcome any actual arguments you are willing to make in support of all these claims.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

With solar having the potential to be incorporated cheaply onto buildings, roads etc and the costs of energy per watt to become substantially lower than coal, oil and gas it provides huge opportunities for job growth. Isn't that in your mind even worth persuing?

Again, I'd welcome any actual logical and fact-based arguments you are willing to make in support of all these claims. If you're asking if I'll just take your word for, then no, I won't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It should be noted too that oil, coal and gas have all had huge amounts of government subsidies and investments (not even including buying off countries and conflict) that would take decades and decades for solar subsidies and investment to get anywhere near.

Yes they, and I'd favor the end of all of these immediately (as well as subsidies for solar, et al). Let the market decide which is the best energy solution.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #167 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Or maybe people should stop having such large families. We do have a population problem on this planet. Economic disincentives to produce a herd of offspring isn't such a bad thing.

The original post so that we don't have to guess what was said. This post was much less offensive than your follow on's...

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Did I say we should make large families illegal? Certainly not. But it's silly to think that they shouldn't be discouraged. Do you contend that overpopulation ISN'T a problem?

It is horrific to contend that you should believe that anyone be they a person or group of people has any right to tell a person that they are a problem. And that is basically where your argument leads. I was a bit shocked and made refrence to China and their one child policies. Then you in a following post say:

Quote:
I agree, it's horrific that female babies are treated that way. Do you think such a thing would happen in the United States if a similar one-child limit were instituted? Do you think I'm calling for a one-child limit? Do you think that your argument counters the notion that overpopulation is a problem? Do you think? At all?

Do you think that there is a solution to overpopulation that does not deal with the "problem" by ending or preventing a life in some form? Is life so valueless as to be solved by "disincentives"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Seriously though, why such a glib dismissal? Clearly there are many out there who find overpopulation to be quite the threat--so much so that one major superpower governing 1/6 of the Earth has instituted much stricter measures than I discussed. Making things a little bit more expensive to have a larger number of children isn't something so far fetched as to provoke such a rude comment from you.

If you had the authority would you put in place laws that would provide a "disincentive" for people to have large families? How would you accomplish such a task? Taxing that family higher than other families? Some other means that has greater effect so as to produce the greatest desired results? What will begin to happen when those "disincentives" take effect and start to have your intended effects? Some families will continue on and simply complain. Others will deal with the "problem" by killing it through abortion or other less "acceptable" means. If overpopulation is truly a problem, find a better solution than simply devaluing the lives of those who are part of the population.

Have you thought at all about where this inevitably leads?

Lambaste all you like, call me an idiot and a religious nut. I don't care, life is not a problem, that view and the devaluing of life is. Once life is boiled down to a set value (be it dollars and cents, or familial pride) then it is no problem to take it and do as other nations like China have done.

I have nothing more to say to you on this at this time. I am too angry for civil words.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #168 of 318
I WANT human life to continue. That's why I want us to push into space so all of our eggs aren't in one basket. I also think we should stop reproducing like rabbits so that our one basket doesn't crowd itself into extinction.

1. Promote the shit out of adoption. There are plenty of babies that need loving homes. Frankly, infertile couples should really be turning to adoption more frequently.

2. Sure, stop giving deductions for the 3rd child and beyond. Sure, tax families for having 3 or more children. Make sure those taxes scale appropriately so it's not just the rich who can still have large families.

3. Provide REAL sex education nationwide. Free condoms, EVERYWHERE. None of this abstinence-only bullshit that just fucking doesn't work. Seriously reduce unplanned pregnancy.

4. Provide free vasectomies & tubal ligations.


Your primary mistake is that you think I devalue life. That's so far off base it's not even funny. I value life much, much more than any Christian or religious nut (your words) out there because I don't live in this fantasy world where I pretend there's more life after we die. Life is incredibly precious. We should treat it as such--take care of our planet, push to the stars, and until we can make the breakthroughs to food, clothe, and shelter every single living human on this planet, reproduce responsibly.

Also, it's kind of a laugh riot for a conservative to tell a socialist the conservative's the one who gives a shit about life. I'm the one who says we should have free healthcare for everyone. I'm the one who says no matter how lazy or useless the person is, he shouldn't starve or have to live on the streets. Yet I'm the one who somehow doesn't care.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #169 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I WANT human life to continue. That's why I want us to push into space so all of our eggs aren't in one basket. I also think we should stop reproducing like rabbits so that our one basket doesn't crowd itself into extinction.

1. Promote the shit out of adoption. There are plenty of babies that need loving homes. Frankly, infertile couples should really be turning to adoption more frequently.

2. Sure, stop giving deductions for the 3rd child and beyond. Sure, tax families for having 3 or more children. Make sure those taxes scale appropriately so it's not just the rich who can still have large families.

3. Provide REAL sex education nationwide. Free condoms, EVERYWHERE. None of this abstinence-only bullshit that just fucking doesn't work. Seriously reduce unplanned pregnancy.

4. Provide free vasectomies & tubal ligations.


Your primary mistake is that you think I devalue life. That's so far off base it's not even funny.

You devalue life when you tell us how other's lives you want to be controlled by your own wishes, desires and values. You devalue life when you assume that a new baby born into the world is somehow an expense or burden. You devalue life when you wish to implement manipulative little games like outlined above where the state will steal more or less of your money depending upon how many children you chose to have.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I value life much, much more than any Christian or religious nut (your words) out there because I don't live in this fantasy world where I pretend there's more life after we die.




Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Life is incredibly precious. We should treat it as such--take care of our planet, push to the stars, and until we can make the breakthroughs to food, clothe, and shelter every single living human on this planet, reproduce responsibly.

We are making those breakthroughs. They happen when more freedom reigns, but you don't value this either. Another example of how little you value human life. The less you value individual freedom, the less you value human life.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Also, it's kind of a laugh riot for a conservative to tell a socialist the conservative's the one who gives a shit about life. I'm the one who says we should have free healthcare for everyone. I'm the one who says no matter how lazy or useless the person is, he shouldn't starve or have to live on the streets.

What's really a laugh is your failure to realize that there is no such thing as "free healthcare" for anyone. This is the fantasy (much like the criticism you level against Christians for their belief in eternal life.) What's also a laugh is your failure to realize that none of what you want to give away for free (taken out of someone else's pocket not your own) is not actually free...or that you don't even recognize the demoralizing, dehumanizing and dispiriting effects of giving people handouts of things they haven't earned.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

et I'm the one who somehow doesn't care.

It's possible you care, but maybe don't think. It's probable you think your good intentions can overcome reality and that they will mask your subconscious authoritarian tendencies.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #170 of 318
With all the postings of electric and hybrid cars, one solution which was overlooked is metropolitan and intra state light rail systems. I lived in LA most of my life and freeways became a dominant fixture in the SCal. Early movements to monorail systems were opposed since the proposed financing was to be paid by gas tax funds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_R...ngeles_County)

After many years much controversy LA is developing the Metro Rail System. When I need to go downtown, I never drive anymore. Takes over 30 minutes, you have to look for parking and then pay $15-$20. Metro rail takes about 12-15 minutes, runs every 12 minutes cost me 25¢ for senior citizen. Down side I notice that many riders fail to pay...don't know why they didn't finish the pay gates.

For Intrastate travel from LA to Sacramento or LA to San Diego go by rail...not all of the system is complete yet however.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/trip_planner.aspx

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #171 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

... Not everyone in the US is obsessed with their own ego luckily though, like yourself (I think you said you drove a small efficient car) and that needs to be rewarded financially more than it is...

Did I? ... they would have been different cars then.
I currently have a 15 year old Mazda Miata... that would count as small, though not particularly efficient.
I also have a 12 year old Ford Excursion... that would count as hugely efficient (more efficient than a Smart ForTwo).
A 13 year old Toyota Sienna would also fall under the efficiency banner.
I've had various others as well... none new, none advertising huge mpg numbers, but also not taking up new resources to build, lighter than new because of less government mandated crap on them, well-maintained, so not "polluting" as much as many much newer vehicles.

The financial rewards are PERSONAL savings in the form of gas, initial cost, etc. It does NOT need to be rewarded by the government!... It's none of their business what anyone drives...
The manufacturers make big vehicles because that's what their customers WANT. If their customers wanted econoboxes, they'd have no problem selling them.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #172 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

... Do you contend that overpopulation ISN'T a problem?

I'll contend that overpopulation is NOT a problem.

Some AREAS are overpopulated (New York City comes to mind, as does greater Los Angeles, Tokyo, Mubai, Dehli...) but the earth as a whole has plenty of room.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #173 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Maybe it'll be a bit like student loans- once your earning enough then pay back the debt....

Do you realize that that's not even VAGUELY how student loans work ??
You have to start paying them back when you're no longer a student... regardless of what you're earning.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #174 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

With all the postings of electric and hybrid cars, one solution which was overlooked is metropolitan and intra state light rail systems. I lived in LA most of my life and freeways became a dominant fixture in the SCal. Early movements to monorail systems were opposed since the proposed financing was to be paid by gas tax funds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_R...ngeles_County)

After many years much controversy LA is developing the Metro Rail System. When I need to go downtown, I never drive anymore. Takes over 30 minutes, you have to look for parking and then pay $15-$20. Metro rail takes about 12-15 minutes, runs every 12 minutes cost me 25¢ for senior citizen. Down side I notice that many riders fail to pay...don't know why they didn't finish the pay gates.

For Intrastate travel from LA to Sacramento or LA to San Diego go by rail...not all of the system is complete yet however.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/trip_planner.aspx

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/


I can't stand any rail system. What magic happens when you bolt a steel rail to the ground to run trains along it? The exact same thing can be done with road going vehicles for less money and more flexibility in town. Then out of town the ridership can never pay for the infrastructure costs. It's just government waste. It's a 100 year old solution for a modern day problem.
post #175 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

2. Sure, stop giving deductions for the 3rd child and beyond. Sure, tax families for having 3 or more children. Make sure those taxes scale appropriately so it's not just the rich who can still have large families.

But most of the "big" families you're thinking of happen at the extreme low end of the economic scale... people that couldn't care less about tax incentives anyway.
I am an anomaly in my income bracket by having more than 2 children... I know very few of my contemporaries that do.

But really, the one's you want to punish are the ones that SHOULD be having larger families... people that can afford to feed, clothe, and educate and care for multiple children withOUT government assistance. Why punish me for that?...

How about long-term (but not permanent) sterilization prior to being issued any sort of government living assistance? (food stamps, housing, WIC, etc in the US) If you're on assistance and you have another child, you loose eligibility for more assistance... Quit rewarding people for making stupid decisions!
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #176 of 318
The way HS keeps making all these assertions without evidence, and trying to force others to live by his personal code of ethics, I'm stating to think he'd make a good religious nut!
Maybe a televagelist or some such thing.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #177 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

The way HS keeps making all these assertions without evidence, and trying to force others to live by his personal code of ethics, I'm stating to think he'd make a good religious nut!
Maybe a televagelist or some such thing.

Except that most religious "nuts" (including the televagelists) and certainly most of the religious people I know...aren't trying to use the force of the state to achieve their goals.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #178 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Except that most religious "nuts" (including the televagelists) and certainly most of the religious people I know...aren't trying to use the force of the state to achieve their goals.

It can be argued that they are trying to influence their followers to vote in a certain way. Does that count as using the force of the state in your mind?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #179 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Do you realize that that's not even VAGUELY how student loans work ??
You have to start paying them back when you're no longer a student... regardless of what you're earning.



Why doesn't that surprise me? Here in the UK we encourage people to go to college from poorer backgrounds by letting them wait until they have the money coming in before they have to pay back the loans. Communism at it's finest, I know.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #180 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

It can be argued that they are trying to influence their followers to vote in a certain way. Does that count as using the force of the state in your mind?

No. I know some would say it does. I don't.

To me force comes into play when you use physical force or the threat of to achieve your goals.

When you go through the state (which passes laws and has a monopoly on the use of force) this is what you are doing. It might be a couple of levels removed, but not abiding the laws of the state ultimately end in the threat of violence from the state to get you to do so. That what the state is...institutionalized force.

I don't think most religious institutions (or leaders) are doing this at all.

Going further, I think that using influence and persuasion is the best means of changing someone's behavior or attitudes. Force is the pathway for those who either don't have the patience or after all their efforts at trying to persuade voluntary action, just get fed up and decide that people "volunteer" by force better.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #181 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Did I? ... they would have been different cars then.
I currently have a 15 year old Mazda Miata... that would count as small, though not particularly efficient.
I also have a 12 year old Ford Excursion... that would count as hugely efficient (more efficient than a Smart ForTwo).
A 13 year old Toyota Sienna would also fall under the efficiency banner.
I've had various others as well... none new, none advertising huge mpg numbers, but also not taking up new resources to build, lighter than new because of less government mandated crap on them, well-maintained, so not "polluting" as much as many much newer vehicles.

The financial rewards are PERSONAL savings in the form of gas, initial cost, etc. It does NOT need to be rewarded by the government!... It's none of their business what anyone drives...
The manufacturers make big vehicles because that's what their customers WANT. If their customers wanted econoboxes, they'd have no problem selling them.

Someone here mentioned having an old small fuel efficient car, maybe it was floorjack?
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #182 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

The way HS keeps making all these assertions without evidence, and trying to force others to live by his personal code of ethics, I'm stating to think he'd make a good religious nut!
Maybe a televagelist or some such thing.

Assertions like Portugal having 45% of it's electricity come from renewables. Figures from the US government with links and from Japan's government, all bogus I suppose?
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #183 of 318
Thread Starter 
Read it and weep Denalist's-

""Minister for Sustainable Development Mona Sahlin has declared that Sweden is going to become the first country in the world to break the dependence on fossil energy. Sweden will stop using oil by 2020 and eventually the energy supply of the country will be based on renewable energy only. The goal is to gradually rid the country of gasoline-run cars and oil-heated homes"
~ http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...n_raises_t.php

Sweden already gets more than 39% of it's electricity from renewables too.

"Sweden has a head start over most countries. In 2003, 26% of all the energy consumed came from renewable sources - the EU average is 6%. Only 32% of the energy came from oil - down from 77% in 1970."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...s.oilandpetrol
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #184 of 318
Thread Starter 
Well, well, well...

"As of a few minutes ago, WTI has just passed $91, which for those who have taken math means that $100 oil is less than $9 away. And as a reminder, every $1 rise in oil reduces US GDP by $100 billion, just as every cent increase in gas prices lowers disposable income by $600 million. Who would have thought that trillions in binary dollars just sitting there, unused, unwanted, doing nothing but taking up EEPROM space could possibly have an inflationary impact..."
~ http://www.zerohedge.com/article/cru...ed-out-minutes

Does anyone know how accurate that $100 billion figure is?

That would mean a $10 increase increase is a trillion dollars less in GDP. That would mean a rise of $130 for a barrel would wipe out the whole US economy. Maybe he means a $1 rise for a gallon of gas, but it doesn't appear that way.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #185 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Read it and weep Denalist's-

""Minister for Sustainable Development Mona Sahlin has declared that Sweden is going to become the first country in the world to break the dependence on fossil energy. [/url]

Those are laudable goals, but I'd expect that from a "Minister for Sustainable Development." I suppose she's analogous to the US's "green queen" Carol Browner, who championed similar goals for us. Until she quit, that is.

Her statement also conflicts with Sweden's published energy policy:

Quote:
During 2009, Parliament approved a new climate and energy policy on the basis of the Governments Bills No. 2008/09:162 and 2008/09:163. The two bills go under the common name of A joint climate and energy policy.

The new climate and energy policy sets a number of targets and strategies for future development. The proportion of energy supplied by renewable sources shall amount to at least 50 % of the countrys total energy use by 2020. This is in line with EU Directive No. 2009/28/EC promoting the use of energy from renewable sources, which imposes binding requirements on the proportion of renewable energy.

In addition, the new policy sets a target for the transport sector, requiring at least 10 % of its energy use to be met from renewable sources by 2020. The long-term ambition is that vehicles in Sweden should be independent of fossil fuels by 2030.

Sweden's plans for reducing its dependence began after the oil shocks of the late 1970s. They invested heavily in nuke plants, which now generate much of its electric supply (but have since fallen out of favor since the US's TMI accident - though the majority of Swedes still favor nuclear power). Much of the rest is generated by hydro plants, which Sweden has the natural resources to implement (fully two-thirds of Sweden's "renewable" energy is hydro - coincidentally, so is the US's).

Sweden also remains a net importer of electricity, meaning 100% of their power won't be supplied from "renewables" anyway. They'll still have to import more power than they generate. Meanwhile, the US already is a net exporter of solar power.

Still, those are laudable goals. Sweden may indeed reach them; we'll see. Without more natural resources of its own to draw upon, they were wise to plan for the future.

On the other hand the US energy policy is disjointed and has always been. It shifts with the political wind. We should have focused on nuclear long ago. Too late for that now.

http://webbshop.cm.se/System/ViewRes...ET2010_47w.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy..._United_States
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #186 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Why doesn't that surprise me? Here in the UK we encourage people to go to college from poorer backgrounds by letting them wait until they have the money coming in before they have to pay back the loans...

But the problem in the US is (I keep forgetting you're from GB) those people would milk the government for as much "student loan" money as they could... use it to buy big-screen TV's and crack... then NEVER get a job for the rest of their life, thereby never needing to repay the "loans"... It's just how our government has been training it's poorest citizens for the last 50 years.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #187 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

That would mean a $10 increase increase is a trillion dollars less in GDP. That would mean a rise of $130 for a barrel would wipe out the whole US economy. Maybe he means a $1 rise for a gallon of gas, but it doesn't appear that way.

I haven't verified these figures but no doubt sustained costs such as those would be difficult for a sensitive economy to absorb.

It would test the US's resolve for support for out-of-control social spending, the greenies, our military presence far and wide, the public sector unions, etc vs. keeping our SUVs.

Given our recent past, I'm betting on the SUVs
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #188 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

I haven't verified these figures but no doubt sustained costs such as those would be difficult for a sensitive economy to absorb.

It would test the US's resolve for support for out-of-control social spending, the greenies, our military presence far and wide, the public sector unions, etc vs. keeping our SUVs.

Given our recent past, I'm betting on the SUVs

The costs will be huge but that $100 billion per dollar if true would devastate economies. I haven't got any further info yet, but I'm thinking closer to $10 billion per dollar rise.

The US imports nearly 5 billion barrels of oil a year so a $1 increase costs $5billion and that cost is passed on down the chain, probably making a $1 increase in a barrel cost the GDP maybe $10 billion? Any guesses anyone?
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #189 of 318
Thread Starter 
Scotland, where I live, with a population of 5.2 million-

"Scotland's renewable electricity target for the next decade is being raised from 50 per cent to 80 per cent, First Minister Alex Salmond announced today.

The FM confirmed the Scottish Government's increased national target - now 80 per cent of Scottish electricity consumption to come from renewables by 2020 - ahead of a major international conference in Edinburgh next week to help accelerate investment in the growing low carbon economy.

Scotland's existing target was established in 2007 and, aided by a rapid expansion in wind power, the country is on course to exceed its interim target of 31 per cent in 2011."
~ http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Rele...10/09/23134359
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #190 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The costs will be huge but that $100 billion per dollar if true would devastate economies. I haven't got any further info yet, but I'm thinking closer to $10 billion per dollar rise.

And yet...you were hoping for $200 a barrel.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #191 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And yet...you were hoping for $200 a barrel.

Only to encourage greener tech et al.

How much do you think a $1 rise cost in a barrel of oil effects the GDP?
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #192 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Only to encourage greener tech et al.

And, well, if you break a few eggs while making this omelet...so be it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

How much do you think a $1 rise cost in a barrel of oil effects the GDP?

I have no idea. First it would probably depend on how fast and for how long. Second, these macroeconomic questions are very, very difficult to predict and estimate. We can guess from the microeconomic effects. I suspect a single dollar (against a $90 or $100) price would not be noticed immediately. Consider the percentage. But a $10 increase from a $90 base price is likely to have a bigger effect. Let's say that happens instantly (like today)...and persists for weeks or months (at least). Possibly followed by more increases...

What do you think would happen? Demand curves slope down. What happens when the price of anything you regularly consume goes up? What do you do? What if it went up 10%? What about 120% like you were hoping for the other day?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #193 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And, well, if you break a few eggs while making this omelet...so be it.




I have no idea. First it would probably depend on how fast and for how long. Second, these macroeconomic questions are very, very difficult to predict and estimate. We can guess from the microeconomic effects. I suspect a single dollar (against a $90 or $100) price would not be noticed immediately. Consider the percentage. But a $10 increase from a $90 base price is likely to have a bigger effect. Let's say that happens instantly (like today)...and persists for weeks or months (at least). Possibly followed by more increases...

What do you think would happen? Demand curves slope down. What happens when the price of anything you regularly consume goes up? What do you do? What if it went up 10%? What about 120% like you were hoping for the other day?

There are lots of factors like you alluded to. A very rough guestimate from me be would be in the range of $10-20 billion lower GDP a year per dollar rise. (dollar rise lasting for a full year).
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #194 of 318
Isn't it great to know that Government Motors has been investing your bailout dollars on this?

Cadillac's Insane, Unnecessary, Awesome Wagon

6.2 liters and 556 horsepower of pure, delicious excess.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #195 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Isn't it great to know that Government Motors has been investing your bailout dollars on this?

Cadillac's Insane, Unnecessary, Awesome Wagon

6.2 liters and 556 horsepower of pure, delicious excess.

CTS-V was developed years ago. They just added a wagon.
post #196 of 318
Thread Starter 
Watch out for cyclists! Helmet cameras- The quality of these things is pretty good, I think they cost around $50 and I'm sure will get even better and cheaper. Probably in a few years sending the video to the internet live so if the camera gets stolen or damaged the evidence is saved online.

"Growing numbers of cyclists are arming themselves with a new weapon on the roads - helmet cameras.

London cyclist Ben Porter is one of those to be filming drivers who cut them up or shout abuse.

He explains to BBC Breakfast's Richard Westcott why he took to recording his daily commute, and describes one incident after which the driver was successfully prosecuted for driving without due care and attention."
~ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12330181
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #197 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Watch out for cyclists! Helmet cameras- The quality of these things is pretty good, I think they cost around $50 and I'm sure will get even better and cheaper. Probably in a few years sending the video to the internet live so if the camera gets stolen or damaged the evidence is saved online.

Just don't do it in Maryland:

Quote:
As Anthony Graber recently found out, exceeding the speed limit and showboating on your bike can easily end with having a gun pulled on you, your personal property confiscated and a trip to the clink. Graber was enjoying the weather on his bike, admittedly speeding and popping wheelies, all the time recording his exploits via a helmet cam. When he slowed for a stoplight, a car pulled in front of the bike, and the driver exited the vehicle with a gun drawn, demanding Graber get off of his motorcycle.

Talk about needing a new set of leathers. As it turned out, the gun-wielding individual was a Maryland state trooper, though he took his sweet time letting Graber know that little piece of information. Here's where things go from bad to worse. Graber gets his citation and heads home, only to have the state police show up a few days later with a warrant for four computers, two laptops and his camera. Why? Turns out there's a law against audibly recording someone without their consent. It's a felony.

I don't know how that case turned out, but bad things can happen when an idiot on a motorcycle meets an even bigger idiot with a gun.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/19/m...-gun-with-hel/

Update: A judge dismissed the "wiretapping" charges:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/loc...clist-tro.html
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #198 of 318
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Just don't do it in Maryland:



I don't know how that case turned out, but bad things can happen when an idiot on a motorcycle meets an even bigger idiot with a gun.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/19/m...-gun-with-hel/

That's a stupid law. Needs fixing. Was probably introduced to protect the police from being caught abusing people. The UK seems to be having no such triuble with these camera's.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #199 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

That's a stupid law. Needs fixing. Was probably introduced to protect the police from being caught abusing people. The UK seems to be having no such triuble with these camera's.

Correct, though I should point out anti-wiretapping laws have their origins in the Fourth Amendment. Along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, it was designed to protect the People from the government that serves them.

The UK is unburdened with such concerns.

(little dig there, Hands - couldn't resist )
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #200 of 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Just don't do it in Maryland:



I don't know how that case turned out, but bad things can happen when an idiot on a motorcycle meets an even bigger idiot with a gun.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/19/m...-gun-with-hel/

Update: A judge dismissed the "wiretapping" charges:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/loc...clist-tro.html


The motorcyclist won that case hands down.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Your ideas, hopes and links for green travel.