Democrats Unveil Ambitious Global Warming Bill

What do hybrid cars, yet another invention of the private market, have to do with this proposed bill?

 

There seems to be an arugment that it would be a step backwards to invest into resources such as wind and solar ( ) . . . I heard the same arguments about hybrid cars years ago (not worth the investment).

I say let the tech heads have at it and generate as much energy as you can from the sun and wind (and ocean for matter) . . . that is not a step backwards . . . that is the future (whether some like it or not). It just took a non-oil president to make this a top agenda item.

 

Me pointing out to Pop that the wind and the sun as a source of energy has been around longer than oil or natural gas elicits this response from you? The fact that wind and solar power have been around in the private sector for a lot longer than oil or natural gas, yet are not nearly as efficient to power our national grid, would cause most people to at least take a step back and wonder why that could be.

Why are we spending what could be trillions of dollars when, by Obama's plan, 86% of energy will still be based on current methods? I'd guess a "non-oil" President would surely want to restrict that energy source by more than 14%, especially considering the growth in our population and the horrific effects of global warming ( ) that are obviously associated it.

 

You know papa . . . it's not always about you.

Without going back, I think it was ADP who insinuated that the future is not about solar and wind power . . . that is stepping back to the olden days.

 

This is really intelligent. Why don't they just tax the shit that comes out of my ass so I won't have to wipe anymore. That would make just as much sense.

How about instead of spending Billions of dollars in Iraq and to bail out banks, spend it on developing alternative energy?

And to the original poster, ding-ding-ding! They ARE deliverately trying to ruin us. These same assholes have been doing the same thing to South American countries for years. Give them loans they know will bankrupt them, raise taxes, lower wages, then you get to buy up everything on a fire sale.

 

Because they wouldn't make anything. All that bullshit comes out your mouth.

 

Right, I was using "nanotechnoloy" as a catch-all for the nano-and-smaller.

Yeah, I was thinking of that. But there's a concept of "reversibility" in computing, whereby if you do a (certain type of) computation and then reverse the computation, you end up with a zero (or near-zero) energy burned state. I'm starting to move into things I definitely don't understand well, but I was wondering whether potentially that has applications to sub-atomic states...doing the nuclear reaction, reversing it and ending up without the radioactive (energetic) state. But maybe you end up without the energy.

 

My apologies for taking it personally. My larger point was that wind, sun, and geothermal energy has been around a lot longer than oil or natural gas as a "fuel", yet the private sector has discovered that oil and natural gas are a much more efficient, varied, and practical source of energy, which is why private companies have expanded on these sources. I don't see how throwing additional public funds is going to suddenly make wind and solar energy more affordable and more efficient that what we currently have.

I like the nuke ideas, for what it is worth. Too bad those who govern us don't.

 

Because technology changes. Wind, solar and geothermal have been "around," but that doesn't mean humans ever had the technology to effectively harness them. Nuclear power, an option you say you like, has been around for billions of years...it just takes a higher level of technology to use than burning fossil fuels does.

So far, burning fossil fuels has been the most efficient form of energy. However, A. it's non-replenishable and B. improving technology has made nuclear very efficient and could very well make wind/solar/geothermal very efficient in the future.

I don't think using oil should be stopped, but other forms of energy (including nuclear, but not excepting wind/solar/geothermal) should be explored. The fact that it has "been around" a long time without being efficient is only a comment on the past, not the future.

 

I'm more a proponent of having a good, solid business plan, with new technology and having investors provide the funding.

This appears like the opposite: tax the taxpayers, and then look for places to spend the money, with the government deciding which market to force forward. That seems bad to me.

It isn't very common that a VC will have extra money and just decide which market they want to move forward. They will fund solid business plans, promising technology, etc.

Nuclear has proved to be a viable technology for power countries. We know it will work, and extra money can be used to improve it (like you mentioned, handling the waste).

 

My thought is that the best product has always made its way through the private sector. I agree with you and would like to see this money used to further develop nuclear energy, but that simply will not happen, so we're left with this BS.

 

In most cases, I agree. I think some markets need to be forced forward, because the market forces value only the present. Which is generally the right focus, but just because oil is the most efficient form of energy right now doesn't mean that other things shouldn't be developed for the future, even if it is not profitable now. That is where I feel government has an investing role...things that are important that private investors either can't do (space exploration) or have no current incentive to do (find a clean, renewable source of energy).

Right now, with oil still plentiful and efficient, there's no great profitability in other things, but I think it's still important to develop so that it's in place when we need it.

 

Mostly agreed.

However, given the option, I would prefer for the government to reduce the incentive for oil profitibility, rather than try to force a certain market to advance. I just don't have faith in the government to be smart enough, or ethical enough to make the decision.

For example, could something like this work? A large tax increase on gas. Increase the gas tax so that it is painful to continue using foreign oil. With the increased tax revenue from gas tax, provide an income tax reduction, and reduce the corporate tax rate. This would attempt to make it minimal change on individuals finances, and this would put the money back to the private industries, while starting to level the playing field with the oil companies.

 

I think it should be based on the science. I suppose we could say that we're not sure that the government will tap the right scientists, will politicize it...it's a risk. But at least conceptually, the money shouldn't be forced blindly into anything, but into the proposals with the best scientific merit and feasibility.

Hmm, perhaps I'm missing something, but if you drastically increase tax on gas, but pump those collected taxes back into companies and individuals, aren't you just subsidizing them to keep using the (now much more expensive) gas?

 

That's a totally regressive tax scheme. Hell, even I would be opposed to it, plus it would accelerate our path to the upcoming period of inflation.

 

I don't like the government depending upon scientific breakthroughs.

No way in hell 25 percent of the country's power will come from Wind, Solar, and Geothermal energy unless they become way more efficient.

 

Agree. Same way I feel about stem cells, i think private funding and gates should be opened but to have government expend billions themselves when it could be used to fix hospitals or improve the state, that's the main role of government...to fix infrastructure, not explore breakthroughs in technology.