By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - If I Wanted America to Fail....

Rainbird said:

Regardless of the arguments made in such a video, it's important to remember that it's basically a pitch. Someone is trying to sell you on an idea, and regardless of the quality of said idea, not to mention the people behind it, pitching with fear is an easy way of gathering attention and mindshare.

I don't know how real the arguments are, I don't know american politics nor much about economy, but I do know that we need to prepare for the future. We're completely dependant on fossil fuels at the moment, both for energy but in the case of oil, for many other products as well. The world economy is basically attached to oil, which makes it all the more crucial that we deal with peak oil. This makes me sceptical of arguments regarding "America's cheap energy sources", as, while America has definitely had cheap energy, that's not something that lasts forever, and something has to be done.

As such I can't help but be sceptical of the whole thing.

Peak Oil has the same issue Global Warming does.

Peak Oil was supposed to happen in like... 1998.

Oil SHOULD run out at some time, but it's pretty clear that the models involved were greatly exagerrated and don't include many new discoveries of oil and just new ways to access it.

When we really are approaching peak oil... the governments will know it for real, both sides... and will get a lot more serious about it.



Around the Network
theprof00 said:
I can't believe how many people are against green technology.
Creating millions of jobs around the US, creating an oil independence, freeing ourselves from the yoke of the middle east, no, creating millions of jobs world-wide, as we lead the world with american made, american techology, american exports....flaunting our gorgeous green valleys, snow capped mountains, and lush meadows to a rising global power covered in smog and pollution. We will make the Chinese so envious of ours they will struggle to reform or collapse under the pressure of their own people.
We will make the call that living clean and free of waste, and having healthcare is a RIGHT, and the poor and downtrodden will overthrow their masters in revolution.

But yet republicans can't get out of their own way because Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Farm is trying to tell us that green is the problem.

Fail guys, major fail.

Actually if you look at Spain as an example, creating green jobs tends to come at the expense of a larger amount of non green jobs... hurts economic growth and the subsidies generally hurt the economy and well, and are part of a pattern that leads you towards default.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0

 

If the government was smart.  Instead of worthless subsisides and loans, it would offer a contract for alternative energy solutions to various miitary bases and jeeps (where the cost of oil transportation is prohibitivly expensive.)


Then you create a market for green energy that makes sense, and requires green energy to improve, rathr then just collect profits off subsidies that will keep coming unless you improve your technology too much.  (so why work hard to improve it?)



thranx said:


Thanks for all the info. Your second source listed a us government website as its source and on that page out of the best fuel economic vehicles only two are electric. The rest still fuel powered. So wouldn't it still be better to make combustion engines more efficient? I mean thay have come a long way from their introduction already. It seems it would be easier to replace cars with more efficent engines than to start wind farms and solar power as they are not that good yet. People will buy new cars anyways as theirs get old so it would less of an impact on the econmoy to use more fuel efficent vehicles. We have come from 12-13 mpg vehicles (the Model T) to 40+ now ith some volkswagon models. Four times as efficeint. I guess what I am saying is I don't think solar and wind power are cost effective for us to switch too and forcing it on us is going to hurt the economy when we can get similar results just by continuing our progression of the combustion engine.

Hybrids are great. I do agree on that. But you pay about 3-5 thousand more for one of the same model so youy savings from gas are erased. Especially since a lot of people buy a new car every three to five years. And improving on combustion engines will also improve hybrid vehicles MPG when using gas and it doesn't require adding to the power grid to charge cars. Win win I say when they get the cost down.

ps: glad we are still discussing things and not arguing, doesn't happen very often on this site.

haha I know, I'm very pleased with that.

To address your point on the car engines, the inherent problem is that there are millions of cars already on the road and nothing can be done to fix them except for introduce new models for people to buy, whereas a power plant can get an upgrade and instantly be more efficient. Even a difference of .5-1% is a huge gain in terms of efficiency since 100% efficiency is frankly impossible.

Regardless of that, though, car manufacturers have no incentive to make their engines more efficient and pour research into it. Why? Because it costs more lol. It costs more and that raises the price of cars (or eats away margin) to the point where someone selling a cheaper gas guzzler will have a better shot on the market for people who don't give a damn. Like I said previously, the only reason we are even seeing 30mpg today as standard is because of regulations that were violently contested. Everyone said it would kill the auto industry. But it hasn't. We are currently at tier 2 engine grade (I believe it's called that) after the regulation was put in place. The goal, I believe, was for tier 3, which is what is standard in Japan, for, 2016? 2020? Something like that. Currently, it's supposed to be 32mpg, but the ideal is 40+.

But again, the difference is that power plants are capable of using fuel mix, as well as renewable sources, whereas a car is reliant on both electricity and gas alone (or diesel). As long as cars use gas, we are reliant on the middle east, and I think mainly, from the government's point of view, is something we need to quickly move away from.

Regarding your input on wind and solar, while it's true that these will never be able to solely replace gasoline, they are very effective in mitigating it. We can put solar panels on rooftops, for instance. What else are we going to put there to gain energy? Nothing! Solar can be put almost anywhere very effectively, and in the desert where the sun is hottest and stays longest in the sky, the outputs are very high. Similarly with wind and tidal along shorelines, by 2020 we are capable of displacing a full 20% of America's energy supply (by wind alone). Not only is it safe (no emissions, noexplosions or combustion) but it's also safe from destruction. An enemy of the state could bomb a nuke plant and put an entire state out of power, and cause massive damage to the environment, but to do so similarly to wind would take an enourmous amount of effort nationwide.

Lastly, there is one last thing to bring up, though isn't quite at market level yet, is algae. A lot of people are against algae, but in the future this will become one of the dominant technologies. Right now it costs roughly double to triple what gasoline costs, but algae farms across a state like Nevada could power the entire country alone . They are still testing and trying to get the formula right, but algae basically also displaces waste, because it eats trash and produces gas. I would say in roughly 2030-2040 algae could be generating as much as 30% or more of our entire consumption.



theprof00 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
theprof00 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
theprof00 said:
Ahahaha show me a source for that last bit.
And do yourself a favor and look at the green companies that arent failing.

Both parties tend to be even-split on corporate donations

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/10/13/the-10-biggest-corporate-campaign-contributors-in-u-s-politics/

If you look at the top donors to Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama, it'd be hard to tell (outside of the University donations) who's who.

 

Corporations just donate to anybody who's for big, centralized Government (so both parties, but Dems, historically) because it's easier to get legislation passed through one, Federal Government, than through 50 State Governments. Cutting costs on corruption!

You should research your own sources more. Never heard of superpacs?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php

fyi, pacs and superpacs usually post negative ad campaigns against people they don't want to win, in this way, they are able to shield their "donations" to some specific candidate, because their contribution to the campaign is not technically a donation.

Super-PACS are new, why would any be set up for Democrats? They haven't had a primary (worth talking about) this year. All of those pro-Conservative super-PACs have been fighting other Conservatives. Let's see what happens come next election, when both Republicans and Democrats are running real primaries. There'll be massive super-PACS both sides of the aisle.

Oh ho ho. but you're avoiding the issue.

You're saying that Obama has received more this campaign than Romney, yet failed to account for the many many millions super pacs have serviced him.

At this very point in time, your original point was wrong.

What you say is true though, when the two go head to head, there will be super pacs. I don't disagree. However, you are still missing the bigger picture that the graph you provided is only a tenth of the story.

I think we might have got our wires crossed. I didn't make the original post.

I said the parties are pretty "split-even" which, usually, they are. There is an exception this election due to the fact that super-PACS have become a thing, and only the Republicans are holding primaries.

The graphic, I may not have been clear, was just to show that the corporate world effectively see Romney and Obama as the same entity. And, for all intents and purposes, they are.

The general tone of my arguments on this thread is that both parties are the same. The original video (which I posted because I found entertaining... and I knew it'd spark controversy) may be aimed at Dems (which you can fairly argue, seeing as it leans on green issues), but I've made the point that the issues have come from both sides of the aisle... because both sides of the aisle may as well be one side of the aisle.

Don't think I'm attacking the Dems and definding the GOP. Both parties are repugnant.



Kasz216 said:

Actually if you look at Spain as an example, creating green jobs tends to come at the expense of a larger amount of non green jobs... hurts economic growth and the subsidies generally hurt the economy and well, and are part of a pattern that leads you towards default.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0

 

If the government was smart.  Instead of worthless subsisides and loans, it would offer a contract for alternative energy solutions to various miitary bases and jeeps (where the cost of oil transportation is prohibitivly expensive.)


Then you create a market for green energy that makes sense, and requires green energy to improve, rathr then just collect profits off subsidies that will keep coming unless you improve your technology too much.  (so why work hard to improve it?)

How dare you sully theprof's beautiful word picture with your meaningless reality? Are you some kind of Republican or something? Who cares if every government-run green energy scheme has been a massive bust, or that countries are abandoning the Kyoto Protocol left and right?  IF WE ALL JUST BELIEVE, MAN...



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
I can't believe how many people are against green technology.
Creating millions of jobs around the US, creating an oil independence, freeing ourselves from the yoke of the middle east, no, creating millions of jobs world-wide, as we lead the world with american made, american techology, american exports....flaunting our gorgeous green valleys, snow capped mountains, and lush meadows to a rising global power covered in smog and pollution. We will make the Chinese so envious of ours they will struggle to reform or collapse under the pressure of their own people.
We will make the call that living clean and free of waste, and having healthcare is a RIGHT, and the poor and downtrodden will overthrow their masters in revolution.

But yet republicans can't get out of their own way because Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Farm is trying to tell us that green is the problem.

Fail guys, major fail.

Actually if you look at Spain as an example, creating green jobs tends to come at the expense of a larger amount of non green jobs... hurts economic growth and the subsidies generally hurt the economy and well, and are part of a pattern that leads you towards default.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0

 

If the government was smart.  Instead of worthless subsisides and loans, it would offer a contract for alternative energy solutions to various miitary bases and jeeps (where the cost of oil transportation is prohibitivly expensive.)


Then you create a market for green energy that makes sense, and requires green energy to improve, rathr then just collect profits off subsidies that will keep coming unless you improve your technology too much.  (so why work hard to improve it?)

That is a very specific situation of theirs which does not match ours.



badgenome said:
Kasz216 said:

Actually if you look at Spain as an example, creating green jobs tends to come at the expense of a larger amount of non green jobs... hurts economic growth and the subsidies generally hurt the economy and well, and are part of a pattern that leads you towards default.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0

 

If the government was smart.  Instead of worthless subsisides and loans, it would offer a contract for alternative energy solutions to various miitary bases and jeeps (where the cost of oil transportation is prohibitivly expensive.)


Then you create a market for green energy that makes sense, and requires green energy to improve, rathr then just collect profits off subsidies that will keep coming unless you improve your technology too much.  (so why work hard to improve it?)

How dare you sully theprof's beautiful word picture with your meaningless reality? Are you some kind of Republican or something? Who cares if every government-run green energy scheme has been a massive bust, or that countries are abandoning the Kyoto Protocol left and right?  IF WE ALL JUST BELIEVE, MAN...

source?



best are those complaining about china and the fast rising carbon dioxide emission there. first of all, the chinese are still way behind europe and america per capita and second problem is that the emission there is growing so fast because we europeans and americans buy more and more from there...if we want to stop it we shouldn't buy a smartphone build in china every week anymore, we should buy one only every third week...(yeah that wasn't serious you know what i mean)

most of the times we calculate the emission per country. sometimes we divide it by population to calculate the emission per capita. this is ok, it's better than just looking at the whole emission but most don't calculate the "carbone dioxide consume". countries without industry say "haha we are so green" but if you look at what their population is consuming you find out that a rich country without own emission is one of the most responsible for carbone dioxide emission if they calculate what other countries had to emit to produce the product for the rich countries population.

but i bet a government will never say "13% of china's emission is because of us"



Kasz216 said:
Rainbird said:

Regardless of the arguments made in such a video, it's important to remember that it's basically a pitch. Someone is trying to sell you on an idea, and regardless of the quality of said idea, not to mention the people behind it, pitching with fear is an easy way of gathering attention and mindshare.

I don't know how real the arguments are, I don't know american politics nor much about economy, but I do know that we need to prepare for the future. We're completely dependant on fossil fuels at the moment, both for energy but in the case of oil, for many other products as well. The world economy is basically attached to oil, which makes it all the more crucial that we deal with peak oil. This makes me sceptical of arguments regarding "America's cheap energy sources", as, while America has definitely had cheap energy, that's not something that lasts forever, and something has to be done.

As such I can't help but be sceptical of the whole thing.

Peak Oil has the same issue Global Warming does.

Peak Oil was supposed to happen in like... 1998.

Oil SHOULD run out at some time, but it's pretty clear that the models involved were greatly exagerrated and don't include many new discoveries of oil and just new ways to access it.

When we really are approaching peak oil... the governments will know it for real, both sides... and will get a lot more serious about it.

I thought the issue was that peak oil predictions were made during the 50s or 60s when the economy was just going on at a remarkable clip, before stagflation of the 70s and then the strong cyclical recessions after that, and that the slower-than-projected economy is the reason peak oil has been pushed back, as well as general effeciency, more than new discoveries (especially since a lot of those discoveries don't yet break even on fossil fuel usage, like the tar sands).



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
I can't believe how many people are against green technology.
Creating millions of jobs around the US, creating an oil independence, freeing ourselves from the yoke of the middle east, no, creating millions of jobs world-wide, as we lead the world with american made, american techology, american exports....flaunting our gorgeous green valleys, snow capped mountains, and lush meadows to a rising global power covered in smog and pollution. We will make the Chinese so envious of ours they will struggle to reform or collapse under the pressure of their own people.
We will make the call that living clean and free of waste, and having healthcare is a RIGHT, and the poor and downtrodden will overthrow their masters in revolution.

But yet republicans can't get out of their own way because Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Farm is trying to tell us that green is the problem.

Fail guys, major fail.

Actually if you look at Spain as an example, creating green jobs tends to come at the expense of a larger amount of non green jobs... hurts economic growth and the subsidies generally hurt the economy and well, and are part of a pattern that leads you towards default.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0

 

If the government was smart.  Instead of worthless subsisides and loans, it would offer a contract for alternative energy solutions to various miitary bases and jeeps (where the cost of oil transportation is prohibitivly expensive.)


Then you create a market for green energy that makes sense, and requires green energy to improve, rathr then just collect profits off subsidies that will keep coming unless you improve your technology too much.  (so why work hard to improve it?)

NREL Response to the Report Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources from King Juan Carlos University (Spain)

Job generation has been a part of the national dialogue surrounding energy policy and renewable energy (RE) for many years. RE advocates tout the ability of renewable energy to support new job opportunities in rural locations and the manufacturing sector. Others argue that spending on renewable energy is an inefficient allocation of resources and can result in job losses in the broader economy.

The report Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources, from King Juan Carlos University in Spain, is one recent addition to this debate. The report asserts that, on average, every renewable energy job in Spain “destroyed” 2.2 jobs in the broader Spanish economy. The authors
also apply this ratio in the U.S. context to estimate expected job loss from renewable energy development and policy in the United States (Alvarez et al. 2009).

The analysis by the authors from King Juan Carlos University represents a significant divergence from traditional methodologies used to estimate employment impacts from renewable energy. In fact, the methodology does not reflect an employment impact analysis. Accordingly, the primary conclusion made by the authors – policy support of renewable energy results in net jobs losses – is not supported by their work.

This white paper discusses fundamental and technical limitations of the analysis conducted by King Juan Carlos University and notes critical shortcomings in assumptions implicit in the conclusions. The white paper also includes a review of traditional employment impact analyses that rely on accepted, peer-reviewed
methodologies, and it highlights specific variables that can significantly influence the results of employment impact analysis.

Date
August 2009
Topic
Manufacturing & Economic Development
Market Analysis
Audience
Non-Profits
Resource Type
Technical Reports
Resource Source
Eric Lantz and Suzanne Tegen (NREL)

 

Of course, this is the government talking. So they're not to be trusted whatsoever, even if what they say is clearly correct, looking at the study.

 

What's also funny is that your author sourced, only ever wrote 2 articles for bloomberg, the second one being this study (saying that businesses are moving away because of high energy costs) and the first highlighting energy prices reaching record lows DUE to wind power and some storms that had increased energy production.