Government is going too far with global warming message

I still don't realize why the Pickens Plan (or something similar) hasn't gotten more support from either party or the American people in general. It would seem to use the best parts of both of you guys' scenarios. First use American energy, oil, especially natural gas as much as possible, meaning we don't have to spend $700B/year (that's what it was when he came up with the plan, I don't know how much we spend now) on foreign oil. Then use wind power as much as possible in the plains states, where the wind is always blowing, use solar as much as possible in the SW where it seems the sun is always shining hot. This would create a TON of jobs for Americans and lessen our dependence on foreign oil even more.

So why does neither side seem to like the Pickens' Plan? Does it mean facing some facts that neither party will admit to? Oh they'll jump at the chance to admit to one of these but they can't stand the possibility of people realizing the other one.

1.) Our solar and/or wind power energy generation and capture/utilization capabilities aren't anywhere near where they need to be and just throwing money into a left crony situation like Solyndra isn't going to change that and/or:
2.) As long as the US oil companies are given nothing less than a dictatorial stranglehold on this country we will NEVER be any closer to energy independence than we are right now because they won't allow it. I can't for the life of me figure out why more people can't or won't see this. Ron Paul talked about "corporate fascism" but he only scratched the surface of what's really going on in this country. Why do we fear one man (W or Obama) getting too much power or one party (Repubs or Dems) having too much power but we either can't see the corporate fascism that has us all by the throats and that they are the ones who own both parties and pull all the strings while keeping us fussing and fighting amongst ourselves instead of uniting to do something about them. Big business is supposed to work FOR us, not the other way around.
 
That's almost exactly what I'm arguing, Ohawk. You replace the bad stuff with the better stuff in the short term and continue to increase efforts to decrease oil and coal dependency using clean alternative energy. I would go much further than pickens in regards to trying to decrease demand. It's a win win for everyone yet for some reason people continue to argue against it. It's a very frustrating situation. The far left just refuses to compromise on the issue. A pride thing I guess?
 
yeezus said:
It kind of is, though. At least that's what the science says, which is impartial.
Click to expand...

Really the only thing science says about that is that the larger the global temp increases due to human carbon emissions the greater the negative impacts are in relation to the positive impacts. This seems pretty obvious, but it actually has been studied. So if the temp increase is right at the min in the range of possibilities then I doubt we'd see the type of disaster some are expecting and probably not even a disaster at all. Of course if it's on the higher end then maybe my house will become ocean front property. Of course the term disaster is subjective. If my property value increases then I'd hardly call that a disaster.
 
weso1 said:
That's almost exactly what I'm arguing, Ohawk. You replace the bad stuff with the better stuff in the short term and continue to increase efforts to decrease oil and coal dependency using clean alternative energy. I would go much further than pickens in regards to trying to decrease demand. It's a win win for everyone yet for some reason people continue to argue against it. It's a very frustrating situation. The far left just refuses to compromise on the issue. A pride thing I guess?
Click to expand...

True, the far left is nuts, but I don't think the far right is any better. Have they ever not said how high when the oil companies said "frog"?? We're all stuck in the middle while they play games back and forth and even though I do agree with you about the short term need to "do whatever we have to do to get oil, gas, etc., I think you'll agree (or at least I hope so) that until the oil companies are put in their place (and that place ain't the throne of America) that short term will never end, at least until all the oil, coal, natural gas, etc. is gone. They have a stranglehold on us and they have all the economic incentive to hold on to it. Does anyone here really believe that Americans aren't capable of developing a clean renewable energy source?? Hitler's scientists could make gas from coal in the 1940's, we should be able to do that, we went to the moon and we can't make a solar cell that works? a wind turbine system that works??
That technology exists and has for decades, the oil companies simply hold onto it and hope we won't notice. Until both groups of nutjobs are shut up and the fascist hold our corporations (especially the oil companies and Wall Street) are broken we will continue to free fall into the abyss. The problem is nobody (including me) seems to know how to go about doing that, hence all the political spin, short term solutions, trusting in the untrustworthy, etc.,

Personally I think magnetism, magnetic waves, etc., is a field that should be seriously looked into but since this is America we probably won't do that either. What was it Churchill said, Americans will always do the right thing, AFTER they've exhausted every other possibility. I guess we still think we have a few possibilities to go.
 
weso1 said:
To break this down simply this is the difference in our plans:

Hawk: Decrease US dependence on oil but continue to have about 40-45% of our supply from countries with questionable environmental oversight and continue to use dirty coal in the short term to heat homes.

weso1: Decrease US dependence on oil and coal moreso than hawk in the short term and sharply decrease our supply from countries with poor environmental oversight.

So which plan is better?
Click to expand...

Well, that's not exactly my plan - but I can honestly say I have few qualms about allowing other nations to squander their natural resources. Those resources will eventually dry up and said countries will be left to clean up the mess they have created at a great expense.

I strongly believe in a grassroots approach that supports renewable energy and resources. Let's finally build a national rail network and enhance our measly public transportation offerings (Hello, Atlanta). Let's offer enormous short-term tax incentives to consumers willing to buy hybrid/electric vehicles, install solar panels on their homes, employ more energy efficient practices in their day-to-day existence.

We should be doing all that's within our collective power to continue to empower visionaries like Elon Musk instead of deterring his progress. Help companies like Uber, etc.

And, for OKHawk, we should strike every tax/legal advantage provided to big oil from the books. Today.

I suppose that these things could go in tandem with what you suggest -- and ideally, they would, because your ideas aren't bad (per se) they just seem to neglect a tangible 'path' toward a world without fossil fuels (or a world in which they are extremely expensive [due to decreasing quantities]).
 
Hawk said:
Well, that's not exactly my plan - but I can honestly say I have few qualms about allowing other nations to squander their natural resources. Those resources will eventually dry up and said countries will be left to clean up the mess they have created at a great expense.

I strongly believe in a grassroots approach that supports renewable energy and resources. Let's finally build a national rail network and enhance our measly public transportation offerings (Hello, Atlanta). Let's offer enormous short-term tax incentives to consumers willing to buy hybrid/electric vehicles, install solar panels on their homes, employ more energy efficient practices in their day-to-day existence.

We should be doing all that's within our collective power to continue to empower visionaries like Elon Musk instead of deterring his progress. Help companies like Uber, etc.

And, for OKHawk, we should strike every tax/legal advantage provided to big oil from the books. Today.

I suppose that these things could go in tandem with what you suggest -- and ideally, they would, because your ideas aren't bad (per se) they just seem to neglect a tangible 'path' toward a world without fossil fuels (or a world in which they are extremely expensive [due to decreasing quantities]).
Click to expand...

Ideally they would? They already are. We're already successfully fracking and it's one of the main reasons the US has lowered its CO2 emmission output significantly the past several years. We also already have incentives for using cleaner sources of power, etc. So the two currently are coalescing just fine. So I don't get why this somehow deters the US from seeking even cleaner energy and rewarding those who use cleaner energy. Of course you can do both. And this saving our resources and all that is just whatever. I mean maybe you're talking a difference of at most 5 years worth of resources if you decrease fracking? I seriously doubt it's that much. You're going to speed up Saudi Arabia's certainly by less than that to the point that it's insignificant. So I don't consider that to be a salient point.

The keystone pipeline is just a cleaner and easier way to transport oil. It's a matter of after the election it will get built. It's pure politics right now.

Honestly, I don't even see this as a debate anymore. Some folks are either environmental nuts or they're so stubborn in there ways that they refuse to admit they are wrong and the other side is right. And of course there are some that just don't care to pay attention.

The plan is there and it's actually working decently well, but it just needs to be implemented better. We probably will in the end.

The biggest issue with CO2 emmissions going forward is Asia. The US is getting its act together, but you've got Asia sitting on the most coal in the world and they have 2 billion people needing to use it. How are you going to significantly slow down that behemoth? Kyoto? lol
 
Hawk said:
Well, that's not exactly my plan - but I can honestly say I have few qualms about allowing other nations to squander their natural resources. Those resources will eventually dry up and said countries will be left to clean up the mess they have created at a great expense.

I strongly believe in a grassroots approach that supports renewable energy and resources. Let's finally build a national rail network and enhance our measly public transportation offerings (Hello, Atlanta). Let's offer enormous short-term tax incentives to consumers willing to buy hybrid/electric vehicles, install solar panels on their homes, employ more energy efficient practices in their day-to-day existence.

We should be doing all that's within our collective power to continue to empower visionaries like Elon Musk instead of deterring his progress. Help companies like Uber, etc.

And, for OKHawk, we should strike every tax/legal advantage provided to big oil from the books. Today.

I suppose that these things could go in tandem with what you suggest -- and ideally, they would, because your ideas aren't bad (per se) they just seem to neglect a tangible 'path' toward a world without fossil fuels (or a world in which they are extremely expensive [due to decreasing quantities]).
Click to expand...

Amen.

The cost of fossil fuel use should more accurately reflect the externalities.
 
I'd rather just increase incentives for electic cars rather than build a national rail system. I think we're late to the game on the rail system and I don't see a huge demand for that. I think people are willing and ready to buy electric cars, but just need the price to be lowered a bit.

Again though the huge problem going forward is China and their coal useage. The US is and will take care of its CO2 problem. This image to me tells the story of where we are headed. This is CO2 emission per capita. China actually is ahead of the US in actual CO2 emmision, but it just shows how the problem with China is going to become awful in the years to come:

Regional_trends_in_annual_per_capita_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fuel_combustion_between_1971_and_2009.png
 
weso1 said:
I'd rather just increase incentives for electic cars rather than build a national rail system. I think we're late to the game on the rail system and I don't see a huge demand for that. I think people are willing and ready to buy electric cars, but just need the price to be lowered a bit.

Again though the huge problem going forward is China and their coal useage. The US is and will take care of its CO2 problem. This image to me tells the story of where we are headed. This is CO2 emission per capita. China actually is ahead of the US in actual CO2 emmision, but it just shows how the problem with China is going to become awful in the years to come:

Regional_trends_in_annual_per_capita_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fuel_combustion_between_1971_and_2009.png
[/

States are already fighting and not allowing Tesla to sell cars in thier respective states. The States are against 'direct sales' of cars. I like Christie but there's no reason to not allow direct sales of Tesla cars.
Click to expand...
 
When we rebuilt our house we tried to go solar but every company we talked to said it wasn't economical and talked us out of it. However you can buy a little solar garden lamp at the Home Center for the price of a key ring that will shine all night long. It doesn't make sense that they can't do the same thing on a bigger scale.
 
global warming costing jobs and money

California's ongoing drought could cost the state nearly $3 billion this year, and the steps being taken by farmers to keep their land irrigated could cause more problems down the line, a state university estimates.

Researchers from the Center for Watershed Sciences at the University of California-Davis, which has been monitoring the now 4-year-old drought, put the tab for 2015 alone at $2.7 billion. Farmers are leaving more than half a million acres unplanted this year — nearly 7 percent of the state's irrigated farmland. And they're pumping more groundwater to irrigate the fields they have tilled, a move that raises their costs and could create future shortfalls. The center estimates that 18,600 jobs have been lost due to the drought, which scientists say is the most severe to hit the region in over a millennium.
Click to expand...

https://news.vice.com/article/this-is-how-much-the-drought-has-cost-california?utm_source=vicenewsfb
 
That wasn't what I asked. But whatever.

You said "global warming costing jobs and money"

What evidence is there that this drought is due to global warming or is part of global warming? Droughts have existed long before the threat of global warming. And in that same region no less.
 
It's not impossible, though rather unlikely. But to attribute the drought and its affects on the economy solely to global warming with no evidence whatsoever is..... well lazy to be honest.

Could global warming have an impact on the drought itself? I could understand that argument. But those are two variables are independent. To say global warming is costing people money and jobs is hardly distinguishable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top