Green Energy News. - Page 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_e...y_from_the_Sun

The sun provides more than enough energy for hundreds of civilizations our size. The asteroid belt contains minerals whose wealth is equivalent to $100 billion dollars for EVERY PERSON on the Earth today. MJ, you lack imagination. You lack drive. Get out of the way.

You seem to be on this kick recently of asking questions about things out of context our along a single vector.

When what resources run out?

My general answer is that we should be leveraging all of the resources we have available to us as much as we can and let their respective prices (undistorted by artificial distortions like government subsidies and taxes and unnecessary regulation, etc.) guide us in selecting their use.

It's not that complicated.

Let's spend billions on perpetuating a finite and consumable resource, and ruin the environment while we do it. That's what we should do.

If we're asses who don't care about the future when the supply runs out and the environmental impact of our actions.

If you showed some literacy you'd recognize the fact that solar cells due not retain their efficiency forever. It declines over time.


Solar will probably never a scarce resource but total, geothermal and wind energy sources all have mitigating factors. Often those who want us off oil want these sources left pristine and will fight any attempt to utilize them. California already has dozens of lawsuits fighting off solar installations as examples. There are plenty of lawsuits springing up for noise pollution from windmills, bird deaths, etc. Many geothermal sources are declared very sensitive and that they should not be tapped or touched by environmentalists.

Who is "us" in your equation here? What are you personally investing in? Or are you referring to the "we" that includes you advocating taking money from others to "invest" as you think as it should be why taking no risks yourself?

I'm personally investing in the future sustainability of our race and our planet. Things which Ayn Rand has evidently convinced you don't matter. PROFIT! We'll be dead when the oil runs out so who cares!

Liberals try so hard to be futurists that they end up sabotaging their own ideas.

BR and Tonton believe themselves to be ahead of the curve, and talk down to anyone who understands reality.

No one is saying that renewables shouldn't be developed or that they will not be a significant part of the future economy. The question is whether governments ought to be dumping taxpayer money by the truckload into the pockets of a bunch of politically connected snake oil salesmen. All of whom, by no small coincidence, show up at the government's door claiming to be part of the "next-generation of energy production."

The answer, of course, is no. The private sector, disciplined by investor capital and supplemented by government-funded university research is more than capable of getting this tech to market. There is no question it is needed, and highly desired. There is no shortage of capital and government intrusion has only served to damage the sector significantly.

Liberals with imagination, BR, are the source of most of our society's problems.

What resources is infinite? All resources are finite. Water is finite. Oil does not ruin the environment. It bubbles up naturally from within the earth. There are plenty of scientific discussions about it being possibly abiotic and likewise if we can explore the cosmos for minerals why not for hydrocarbons?

Seems like your thinking is a bit limited there oh ignorant one.

I'm glad to hear that you're personally investing in the things you thing will achieve those goals.







Probably, yes.



You pretend like we don't have other problems to tend to now so much so that we ought to be focused on things that are unlikely to happen for decades or even more than a hundred years. Maybe longer. (NOTE: That I a hundred years ago they thought oil was going to run hour in only a few decades. They were wrong and so far EVERY single prediction of oil running out that we can actually validate has been wrong.)

The billions of dollars we spent on air conditioning in Afghanistan is more than NASA's ENTIRE CUMULATIVE BUDGET. Take a tiny fraction of that and divert all the oil subsidies and pour that into new energy technology. Triple NASA's paltry budget. Fund the pure sciences. We can be a global leader again if people like MJ would get the FUCK out of the way.

This +1.

Or give that money back to the private sector for it to invest.



Contrary to your manic rantings, I'm not in anyone's way. I'm not stopping you or anyone else from investing in the technologies you believe to be the critical technologies of the future. No one is stopping you. Go for it.

Now, what you might consider "standing in the way" is that I oppose you picking mine and other people's pockets to fund these so-called investments that you want to do...well then maybe I am standing in the way. :roll eyes: But this is only "standing in the way" the same way that a mugging victim refuses to hand over his wallet to the mugger.

Please don't. A quarter of the money will be consumed by bureaucracy, another quarter by waste and inefficiencies in government. At the end of the year, a bunch of politically connected people (mainly Democrats this time around) will be highly paid (another quarter) to lead firms they have no passion/skill/understanding for, and the remaining money will be wasted. And we'll be stuck buying everything from China.

Do you think none of those lawsuits are secretly being pushed by the oil industry? Do you think the non-existent bird problem for wind was invented by environmentalists? Who stands to profit from these lawsuits? Follow the money.

It's just like the fucking ridiculous ethanol subsidies.

So then why in the FUCK are we subsidizing the oil industry?

Honestly, the idea to give it back to the private sector (as a budget cut) is far better than the status quo. Conservative, my ass.

It's amazing how you appear be able to only recognize such self-interested behavior flowing one direction.

Do you support or oppose our government's involvement in the Keystone XL oil pipeline?

Because special interests have successfully lobbied grab other people's money (by force) to support their investments. We have the same thing happening these days with so-called green energy players. Same song, different singers.

Educate me. What benefit does the environmental wing get from opposing solar installations?

Uhhmmm...I have no fucking idea.

Now...are you claiming that there is no special-interest lobbying come from any direction other than the ones you oppose (e.g., the oil industry)?

So do you support or oppose our government's involvement in the Keystone XL oil pipeline? Put your money where your mouth is and admit it's not a good idea.

Have a Dem submit a bill outlawing government subsidies to business. Plenty of conservatives will join the fight.


I support the government involvement inasmuch as it amounts to public oversight and regulation.

I would not support one dime of Canadian or American government money going toward the project.

He doesn't like the government involvement that is requiring better environmental impact surveys and adjustments to not fuck up the surrounding environment. That's for sure. He conveniently doesn't believe in the science of global climate change and has no problem raping the Earth for short-term profit.

I oppose the government's involvement in it, either subsidizing or blocking it. If it can be achieved privately, that's fine with me. The body of my posts here should have answered that question before you even asked it.

Does the current proposal include land subsidy? Infrastructure? If so, how can you support it?

Seriously, I really don't know. I'm assuming our investment is part of the proposal.

Who is "our"?

The country of which I am a citizen in legal and political good standing. The country where my daughter will study high school and presumably university. The country I paid taxes to directly until I was 25 years old, and indirectly through treaties. The country where my parents have been paying taxes for half a century. My country.

Trying to dodge again huh?

But it's not your money. You regularly fail to see this. There is no "we" that includes you in any equation that involves US government spending. We don't have your money in that pot. You no longer pay taxes. You don't credit for your parent's taxes. You stopped paying taxes in the US a while ago it seems. Stop trying to insinuate yourself into "we" and "our" when it comes to US government spending.

You're doing your best to say I'm not an American. That's a despicable and dishonest thing for you to do. You apparently don't understand the concept of the right of citizenship vs. residency.

Either that or you're trying to obfuscate the fact that as a citizen of the United States of America, I have every right to use my voice and my vote to help decide what MY country should be doing with OUR resources.

Try to tell a poor person they don't have a say because they don't pay income tax.

Not at all. I'm saying you don't pay US taxes and your "we" and "our" statements pertain to how US tax money should be spent. But this tax money doesn't include any of your money.

What is despicable and dishonest is for you to include yourself in "we" and "our" as it pertains to US tax money being spent when you don't pay US taxes.

As far as I know, the Keystone interests are paying farmers and other landholders for the right to pass through their land. I don't know what the arrangements are for Crown lands (as we call them here) but I assume no cash payments are being made to the federal government, simply because I haven't heard of any. (The oil itself will no doubt be taxed in the South, and Canadian governments will already have gotten their royalty.)

I would think that if the government was actually funding this, environmentalists would be all over that.
(Assuming they understand America's current political climate, and don't permanently live in a fantasy world.)

I understand it just fine. I also understand that you don't pay US taxes and prattle on endlessly about how money collected from other people should spent or that said taxes should be increased on other people while you live comfortably in what amounts to a tax haven relatively speaking.

There's a word for that: Hypocrisy.

At least a poor person residing in the US pays some taxes...sales...property...SS, et al.

On this point you are a hypocrite plain and simple.

I directly paid taxes in the USA in 2011 and 2012.

Regardless, as a citizen, the money is as much mine as it is yours.

On this point, you're selfish, plain and simple.

It is despicable that he is attempting to undermine your value and voice as a citizen. It's also completely obtuse to ignore those treaties you mentioned. Furthermore, I appreciate that while you are abroad, you paint Americans in a better light--we aren't all selfish mean-spirited assholes.

That's funny, coming from one of the most angry and mean-spirited persons on the board.

I really feel sorry for his wife. I can only imagine how she feels to have strictly separate accounts and no voice in family financial matters that involve his own hard earned income (according to his logic regarding my right to discuss the financial matters of my country).

Doesn't matter, I guess, because his scripture actually says that she has no business in those matters anyway and that it is her duty to raise children and maintain the home.

Kind of like a maid you get to fuck and who bears your children for you. Even better since you don't have to pay her.

I'm sure BR endorses this post.

But remember we're not allowed to hold people to the standards they claim to hold themselves to if we don't believe in those standards. Or something. The mental gymnastics and delusion in that line of illogic are a bit above my pay grade.

You've never explained why you are an expatriate. You are the one being dishonest. You've lived in Hong Kong aka the 1% paradise of China where they check your papers and make sure that dirty 99% never gets past the fences and gates for a good portion of your adult life in a manner not required of some job and clearly you aren't working there as a servant. You've clearly adopted it as your home having married there twice and raising your daughter there.


You are a citizen of the U.S. because you were born here. Your actions and choices who you have chosen somewhere else. You aren't living in Hong Kong because your job that you have held there during your adult life requires it. You are there and remain there by choice. Are you a permanent resident of Hong Kong? You've been there more than seven years correct?


I'll absolutely say that. I've stated repeatedly that a social contract isn't a contract when one person is exempt from the contract. A contract binds all parties. You exempt certain parties just like you exempt yourself from all manner of actions. It's sort of your pattern.


He probably does pay some taxes but if he gets to credit or exclude the taxes he pays abroad then that means he certainly has given what they didn't care to take rather than what is expected of everyone here.


The point should be that citizenship by itself doesn't entitle anyone to demand the labors of another. It is citizenship, we are discussing, not slavery.


No one said all Americans are that BR, just you.


Exactly and as a Canadian you've correctly noted which is the Ugly American in our midst.


Yes, let's dig into the history of China with regard to women. I'm sure you'd prefer to only focus on the Special Administrative Regions but the reality is that woman are treated horribly in China. Had any of your neighbors bury their newborn girls in the garden so they can get that special boy under the one child rule Tonton? I'm sure BR endorses such actions so that filthy humans don't overrun the planet. We don't know what BR endorses with regard to actions for his wife because no one will have him. It's sort of funny how you claim others would mistreat their wives when and wink and nod at someone who has never had anyone sign on to be his partner. The smartest way to avoid being abused by a partner is to never partner with them in the first place and BR with his vitriol and anger will probably be alone for a long time.


That is the reality. If you show contempt for a standard, you can't credibly claim to hold someone else to it. Those nice religious figures throughout history, you have contempt for them and their work. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and Gandhi, these sorts of folks were idiots and shouldn't be allowed to participate in public discourse per your reasoning. However we can understand why you don't want them involved because their non-violent enlightenment makes your bloody revolution to save all the 12 year old girls and their vaginas from themselves look embarrassing.