Attempting to kill renewable energy

[irishjayhawk]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/toby-barlow/news-alert-if-you-love-r_b_71888.html


Pelosi and Reid are just about to do the stupidest thing imaginable: pull the rug out from underneath the blossoming renewable energy economy at the time when we need it most.

* Email
* Print

(Start reaching for your phone...)

Just as every single magazine in the country is giving the energy crisis more press than Paris Hilton, and just as renewable energy is becoming the entrepreneurial equivalent of the internet revolution and just as the news about climate change is getting weirder and scarier every time we open the freakin' paper, our crazy-assed Democratic leaders are completely dropping the ball, and you gotta call Capitol Hill right now and tell them to get their head's straight fast.

As Adam Browning of Vote Solar put it "Thursday morning, Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi decided to drop the renewable energy standard out of the energy bill and drop the tax title. No tax title means no extension of the investment tax credit for solar, and no extention of the production tax credit for wind. Let's see...nothing for solar, plus nothing for wind, hmmm, add no renewable energy standard, carry the zero...yep, that adds up to precisely nothing for renewable energy.

Got that? Congressional leadership is moving an energy bill with nothing in it for renewable energy. Dropping the biggest pro-solar provision this country has ever seen, just when the industry is gaining momentum and making an impact."

According to Adam, we've got maybe 24 hours to turn this around. 24 hours. That's not a lot of time.

Now he suggested a script to use when you call the Hill, but mine is better, it goes like this:

'Hi Senator Pelosi? Um, 90% of America, would like more renewable energy and you are ignoring them? So you're either crazy or you are possessed by the devil. Which one is it? I hope you're possessed by the devil because insanity takes years of therapy to cure and we are running out of time but all you need to get rid of Satan is a flask of holy water and a sober village priest. So, get your exorcism on sister and get the 8-year extension for the solar investment tax credits in the energy bill. Do it, do it now. Thank you very much.'

You can use the same script for Reid, only don't call him "sister."

Pelosi's offices number is 202- 225-4965
Reid's office's number is 202-224-3542

Then you should call your Congressman or woman and get all fired up on this too. You can find your congressional leader here. Tell 'em stuff like this:

* Clean energy means jobs and energy independence.
* America needs carbon-free renewable energy immediately. Tons of it.
* Renewable energy is a key component in the war against climate change.
* The energy bill must extend investment tax credits for solar.
* Yes, you know you are shouting, it's just that you are really very pissed off about this and you really want them do something about it.

Come on, Act Now!

This is really serious stuff. This is a call to arms. We're fighting a two front war against climate change and woefully short sighted politicians. Call your friends, aunts, uncles, the whole lot of them. Get everyone dialing. Today.

Because time is running out in more ways than one.

Am I missing something? Are the newly elected majority (for one reason that they still won't do anything about) seriously going to attempt to kill this?

Is Congress even worth having any more? ;)

[Taco John]

The US economy relies on the demand for oil to keep the dollar solvent. In 1971, Nixon abolished the gold standard, removing gold as the backing for the dollar. He then made a deal with the OPEC nations to accept only US dollars for thier oil. Thus the higher the price and the higher the demand for Middle East oil, the more worldwide demand there is for US dollars.

Any new technology that would come along that would reduce this demand would have a profound effect on the dollar, and thus the American economy.

[banyon]

The US economy relies on the demand for oil to keep the dollar solvent. In 1971, Nixon abolished the gold standard, removing gold as the backing for the dollar. He then made a deal with the OPEC nations to accept only US dollars for thier oil. Thus the higher the price and the higher the demand for Middle East oil, the more worldwide demand there is for US dollars.

Any new technology that would come along that would reduce this demand would have a profound effect on the dollar, and thus the American economy.

This is true, but it doesn't mean we can or should cower underneath the sultans' robes forever.

The result of energy reform might necessitate monetary reform, which I assume you would be fine with?

[banyon]

Lame duck quacking

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/10/19/13246/171
Bush threatens to veto Democratic energy bill
Posted by David Roberts at 1:07 PM on 19 Oct 2007

According to this article in Roll Call (sub. rqd.), on Monday President Bush sent Congressional Democrats a letter with a list of demands regarding what must be or not be in the energy bill in order to avoid his veto. Among the demands: no increase in taxes (i.e., no repealing tax giveaways to oil companies) and no federal renewable energy standard.

Democrats rejected the list out of hand. So it looks like Bush will veto anything the Dems are likely to pass -- and Republicans have the votes to uphold the veto.

For those of you following along at home, as we approach an election year Republicans will have gone on record denying children health care and shutting down an effort to reduce dependence on foreign oil. Voters are gonna eat it up!
:hmmm:

I don't understand the tactics here. A few weeks ago, the White House wrote Pelosi a letter saying Bush would veto an energy bill if it contained a mandatory RPS or "used the tax code to single out specific industries" (if there's anything this administration hates, it's using the tax code to help specific industries). But with oil at $100 a barrel and a president polling in the 20s, they decide to roll over on an issue that polls in the 90s?

If anyone can educate this country boy on the brilliant strategery here, I'd appreciate it. Because I'm here wondering why the f*ck we elect Democrats if they are just going to pass Republican legislation.



I'm wondering that too. :cuss: :mad: :grr: :#

[mlyonsd]

Interesting. While working out this morning I was watching the Chris Matthews show and he asked the panel of journalists if any meaningful legislation would be passed when it came to renewable energy.

Even Dan Rather himself had to admit the dems didn't have the gonads to do it.

Term limits man, term limits.

[BucEyedPea]

We don't need govt to central planning to fund and develop renewable energy. It will come as a result of oil becoming virtually unaffordable, the same way other improvements have come. Govt is just more likely to fund something more expensive or not not as workable and force it on the public.

[Taco John]

This is true, but it doesn't mean we can or should cower underneath the sultans' robes forever.

The result of energy reform might necessitate monetary reform, which I assume you would be fine with?



We're going to have monetary reform no matter what. The question is whether it's monetary reform for the people, or monetary reform for the elites. I realize that the term "Amero" gets people here chuckling -- but the elites that you progressives fight so much aganst are the same ones that we Libertarians are. Only we're willing to talk about their plans, even if it gets us accused of wearing tin foil hats.

[banyon]

We don't need govt to central planning to fund and develop renewable energy. It will come as a result of oil becoming virtually unaffordable, the same way other improvements have come. Govt is just more likely to fund something more expensive or not not as workable and force it on the public.

Right, always the faith-based market approach.

Meanwhile...in reality the petro-energy interests are putting all of their R&D money into extracting petroleum from the dirtiest and furthest reaches possible. Places that previously weren't practical to develop because the price of oil wasn't high enough.

Your view assumes two things: 1)continued extraction, refining, and consumption of hydrocarbon-based fuels will have no lasting detrimental impact on our environment and 2) continually pouring money into Anti-Western regimes will have no effect on our foreign policy significant enough to warrant a course correction.

The only people who believe #1 are petroluem paid shill scientists, and some fringe anti-government type not unlike yourself.

The people who believe #2? I don't know. I wouldn't think anyone would be shortsighted enough not to see how it impacts our foreign policy. Even you have claimed this in anti war postings. I don't see how you can say that we should let the market decide things while allowing the OPEC monopoly (not a free market) continue to dictate our economic fortunes.

[Taco John]

Right, always the faith-based market approach.

Meanwhile...in reality the petro-energy interests are putting all of their R&D money into extracting petroleum from the dirtiest and furthest reaches possible. Places that previously weren't practical to develop because the price of oil wasn't high enough.

Your view assumes two things: 1)continued extraction, refining, and consumption of hydrocarbon-based fuels will have no lasting detrimental impact on our environment and 2) continually pouring money into Anti-Western regimes will have no effect on our foreign policy significant enough to warrant a course correction.

The only people who believe #1 are petroluem paid shill scientists, and some fringe anti-government type not unlike yourself.

The people who believe #2? I don't know. I wouldn't think anyone would be shortsighted enough not to see how it impacts our foreign policy. Even you have claimed this in anti war postings. I don't see how you can say that we should let the market decide things while allowing the OPEC monopoly (not a free market) continue to dictate our economic fortunes.


Your view assumes that we've given the free market a shot to answer the solution. We haven't. Government has intervened at every step of the way.

[BucEyedPea]

Your view assumes that we've given the free market a shot to answer the solution. We haven't. Government has intervened at every step of the way.
I call this the "faith-based" govt research, which unemployed scientists will milk forever to keep a job and delay a solution. The market doesn't allow this to happen as private interests won't fund such milking, but only the things that can be brought to market successfully or they fail and lose their money. This provides incentive to be more efficient and successful.

OTOH, "faith-based" govt research can always resort to continuous taxation while political forces work to keep scientists from losing their jobs. Thus govt funded research has and will continue to crowd out private funding. This is the track record of the latter half of the 20th century. It was not the track record in the 19th century which saw an explosion of inventions.

An example of a govt sponsored endeavor in the energy area is ethanol. Ethanol makes NO economic sense. The most cost effective solution won't happen IF the govt steps in. In the meantime, there are developments occurring as we speak. The market is working. High prices are not market failures. They are market signals to conserve ( increases the current supply) and change course. It invites competition which leads to alternatives or it leads to finding more sources for what he have already. If oil is really and truly nearly all out the price would be much higher than it is now.

Of course, this argument will never convince any socialist, environmentalist ( another control ideology) or mercantilists.

[banyon]

Your view assumes that we've given the free market a shot to answer the solution. We haven't. Government has intervened at every step of the way.

Sure we did. It was called 1880-1970. That's what got us where we are.

[banyon]

BTW, bitumen extraction will prolong our petro-dependence for perhaps another 100 years. Don't worry as your "free market" will allow the oil companies to pass on the extra costs to you for years to come!

[banyon]

I call this the "faith-based" govt research, which unemployed scientists will milk forever to keep a job and delay a solution. The market doesn't allow this to happen as private interests won't fund such milking, but only the things that can be brought to market successfully or they fail and lose their money. This provides incentive to be more efficient and successful.

OTOH, "faith-based" govt research can always resort to continuous taxation while political forces work to keep scientists from losing their jobs. Thus govt funded research has and will continue to crowd out private funding. This is the track record of the latter half of the 20th century. It was not the track record in the 19th century which saw an explosion of inventions.

An example of a govt sponsored endeavor in the energy area is ethanol. Ethanol makes NO economic sense. The most cost effective solution won't happen IF the govt steps in. In the meantime, there are developments occurring as we speak. The market is working. High prices are not market failures. They are market signals to conserve ( increases the current supply) and change course. It invites competition which leads to alternatives or it leads to finding more sources for what he have already. If oil is really and truly nearly all out the price would be much higher than it is now.

Of course, this argument will never convince any socialist, environmentalist ( another control ideology) or mercantilists[/B].


You're right, It won't. Not because I'm a "socialist or mercantilist (though I do hapily adopt one of your many labels, "environmentalist"--that's a new one, I didn'trealize I could be an environmentalist without being a totalitarian neocon communist socialist, how about that?). More importantly it won't convince me because it's most a tangential off-topic tangent, especailly your rant against government funded research. I'm sure it's well documented though. So go ahead and do that. No? That's what I thought.

I don't advocate ethanol, and won't until the conversion ratio is much better. It won't get better though, if we leave it up to the "market", because it's much easier and more "cost efficient" to keep bilking consumers with their oligopoly over a finite resource.

[Taco John]

Sure we did. It was called 1880-1970. That's what got us where we are.



Nah. You just want to ignore the real problem, which is government. I can understand why: you think more government is the solution.

More government is what got us where we are.

[banyon]

Nah. You just want to ignore the real problem, which is government. I can understand why: you think more government is the solution.

More government is what got us where we are.

No, the agglomeration of power and wealth into the hands of a selct few is the problem. We need checks against both.

[BucEyedPea]

Actually, the market gave us cleaner living conditions including air and water by improvements in technology which is an ongoing process. Just because it hasn't been perfect, doesn't mean it hasn't been a workable system. Nor does it mean zero role for govt. It's just that the market makes a greater contribution.

[Taco John]

No, the agglomeration of power and wealth into the hands of a selct few is the problem. We need checks against both.


The free market provides checks against that. The government, however, intervenes and works to consolidate power. Just look at our economic policy as an example of that.

[BucEyedPea]

The free market provides checks against that. The government, however, intervenes and works to consolidate power. Just look at our economic policy as an example of that.
The power and wealth into the hands of a select few uses govt for its own ends too. The public/private partnership deals do it even more. Govt standards have on air quality has increased public exposure to pollutants.

In summer of 1995, due to federal limits placed on power plant emissions, utility companies were forced to raise their prices for electricity. Over 700 residents couldn't afford to turn on their AC. Thus they died in their apartments from dehydration and heat stroke since air conditioning provides not just cooler air but cleaner air.

Mises Site: Hot Air (http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=63)
From 1950 until 1970, the amount of volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide in the nation's air fell by more than 20 percent, even though total vehicle-miles traveled in the country rose by 120 percent, from 458 billion to 1.1 trillion. The level of sulfur dioxide in the air began falling as far back as 1920, and the total amount of airborne particulate matter has been reduced by 79 percent since 1940.


Much of this was achieved through increased fuel efficiency in automobiles, consumer adoption of oil and natural gas for the heating of homes, and the introduction of new energy sources such as nuclear and solar power. Entrepreneurs, in their desire to attain the highest yield of energy per unit of resource, were voluntarily reducing air pollution at a dramatic rate.

[banyon]

The free market provides checks against that. The government, however, intervenes and works to consolidate power. Just look at our economic policy as an example of that.

That's what you miss entirely. The government has a role to ensure that the market is free. It hasn't been doing that for almost 30 years, as corporate wealth has grown at an unprecedented rate while median wages remain stagnant.

Here's the $1,000,000 dollar question that you and BEP avoid like the plague:

If the free market provides checks against the agglomeration of wealth and power into the hands of the few, then why didn't these checks take place during the 20 years prior to the turn of the century? Why was the economic disparity so severe between J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, et.al and the child and foreign laborers who toiled away 80 hours a week in sweatshops or building railroads just trying to feed themselves?

Why do other countries with less free markets (Europe, Singapore, China) consistently outperform us? If any government action is inherently evil as you and BEP seem to want to believe, why has ther relatively higher level of government regulation resulted in better economies, more even wealth distribution, and a higher standard of living year after year?

I'm fairly tired, as I think the rest of the forum is, of you and BEP derailing every thread into a "Ron Paul is great. We hate government. Free Markets are the only way." thread, EVERY F***ING TIME?

Seriously. Try to stay on topic. I made some rather specific points regarding the opening thread post. Address those or quit boring us with the anti-government prattle, or at least ease up on it a bit.

[banyon]

Actually, the market gave us cleaner living conditions including air and water by improvements in technology which is an ongoing process. Just because it hasn't been perfect, doesn't mean it hasn't been a workable system. Nor does it mean zero role for govt. It's just that the market makes a greater contribution.

False. Most of the improvements in Air and Water were spurred in efforts to comply with the CWA and the CAA. just check out California's smog levels before and after the acts for about a 10 year spread (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E0DD1039F932A05753C1A960958260).

The power and wealth into the hands of a select few uses govt for its own ends too. The public/private partnership deals do it even more. Govt standards have on air quality has increased public exposure to pollutants.

In summer of 1995, due to federal limits placed on power plant emissions, utility companies were forced to raise their prices for electricity. Over 700 residents couldn't afford to turn on their AC. Thus they died in their apartments from dehydration and heat stroke since air conditioning provides not just cooler air but cleaner air.

Mises Site: Hot Air

LOL, that looks like a pretty unbiased, objective, and scientifically credible study. ROFL

Really? total pollutants in the air went down from 1950-1970? I wonder why? maybe because we incorporated the land mass of Alaska into our borders, increasing the total area of the country dramatically with some area that was totally undeveloped? Naw, I'm sure they had some real objective data. :rolleyes:

Oh, and the "Old people died because of environmentalists" card is nice and classy. How the f*** do they know the reason that those people didn't turn on their AC? Most of the time (like recently in France) it's because their units don't have AC because they didn't need it before the temperatures started warming up.

I wonder how many lives these generous and humanitarian oil companies have saved throughout the years? :)

[Cochise]

Tax credits for developing and investing in this stuff sound like a great idea. I wonder why they refuse to pass it?

I mean, it sounds like there are probably other hangups with whatever bill this is riding on, but I wish we could pass something with tons of tax credits for developing renewable energy sources.

You know what might be cool, is if there could be a coordinated effort across the states the remove any sales tax or registration fees on hybrid vehicles and future vehicles that would be totally clean or electric.

But as far as this bill goes, I realize we're only getting the enviro-nut's side of the story and it's probably more complicated than this... but that legislation sounds like it might be a good idea.

[Taco John]

I'm fairly tired, as I think the rest of the forum is, of you and BEP derailing every thread into a "Ron Paul is great. We hate government. Free Markets are the only way." thread, EVERY F***ING TIME?



Oh I see... If the solutions aren't socialist, you don't want to hear them.

Right on.

[banyon]

Oh I see... If the solutions aren't socialist, you don't want to hear them.

Right on.

You don't have a solution. You have a wing and a prayer that "the market" will save us all. Conflating mixed-economies with planned ones doesn't show that you understand the problems facing us.

Again feel free to answer the basic empirical questions about the market's performance through history and comparatvely now as compared to regulated systems.

[Taco John]

You don't have a solution. You have a wing and a prayer that "the market" will save us all. Conflating mixed-economies with planned ones doesn't show that you understand the problems facing us.

Again feel free to answer the basic empirical questions about the market's performance through history and comparatvely now as compared to regulated systems.



I already have. Government has interfered with the free market creating monopolies and consolidating wealth. This isn't a new phenomenon.

Our monetary policy is a great example of this. Get government out of the way, and let the market work. Simple as that.

It's not that difficult. When you add more government, you add more corruption. That's just how government works.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

We've been trying it your way for a long time. So far, you don't seem to be happy with it.

[banyon]

I already have. Government has interfered with the free market creating monopolies and consolidating wealth. This isn't a new phenomenon.

I'm sorry this post doesn't make any sense. As you shoud know, the period of corporate dominance I referred to occurred well before the Federal Reserve Act. The phenomenon also had no government regulation which "interfered with the free market creating monopolies". It also, of course, addresses current, international comparisons in no way whatsoever.

Our monitary policy is a great example of this. Get government out of the way, and let the market work. Simple as that.

It's not that difficult. When you add more government, you add more corruption. That's just how government works.

As a reminder, Lord Acton's axiom is:

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

You'll note that the word "government" does not appear. And of course it should be blatantly obvious that power can be controlled through wealth just as it can through official government policies.

Your belief that doing away with government will somehow lessen the influence of the obscenely wealthy is just counter to the weight of the history of civilization.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

You have to get one system to check the others. That's how our system was originally designed. A free press (not a puppet moneyed one) checks government and enterprise for corruption, free enterprise checks the press and government for efficiency, government checks the press and free enterprise to ensure that its citizens are protected from abuses by enterprise or propaganda. At least that is the way it was supposed to work.

Right now free enterprise dominates both government and our press to the detriment of 70% of the populace.

[Adept Havelock]

IMO, we need to handle renewable energy is a manner similar to the ARPA projects of the 50's and 60's. Government and private industry getting together to support both pure and applied research on the subject.


I'm fairly tired, as I think the rest of the forum is, of you and BEP derailing every thread into a "Ron Paul is great. We hate government. Free Markets are the only way." thread, EVERY F***ING TIME?

Seriously. Try to stay on topic. I made some rather specific points regarding the opening thread post. Address those or quit boring us with the anti-government prattle, or at least ease up on it a bit.

Look at it this way, banyon. It'll just make the inevitable post GOP-Convention wailing and gnashing of teeth that much more amusing when this so-called "revolution" crashes and burns just like so many before it.

Sure, it's a long wait. IMO, the squawking, righteous outrage, and third party threats will be worth it.

[Cochise]

Look at it this way, banyon. It'll just make the inevitable post GOP-Convention wailing and gnashing of teeth that much more amusing when this so-called "revolution" crashes and burns just like so many before it.


The Edwards guy and the Ron Paul guy are fighting over the steering wheel on the Titanic.

[banyon]

The Edwards guy and the Ron Paul guy are fighting over the steering wheel on the Titanic.

Eh, I'd just vote for Edwards if the vote was today. He's not my Messiah like the others.

[Adept Havelock]

Eh, I'd just vote for Edwards if the vote was today. He's not my Messiah like the others.
.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QcIVwIe3urY&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QcIVwIe3urY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[BucEyedPea]

I don't see where I mentioned Paul. I've been posting about markets and energy since before Paul became a candidate. In a thread that starts out not happy about an energy bill, I don't see how posting a pov about govt not being needed as much as conventional thought suggests, or might even make it worse is off-topic. Sounds like censorship of new ideas to me and status-quo thinking. Get in line folks because banyon ( who has hijacked some threads himself to promote his own ideas) and AH can't just disagree they have to censor ideas they don't like. I guess a good temper tantrum is good once in awhile though.

Now back to the topic. I'm not against tax credits as Cochise suggests. That to me is a more proper role of govt. I wouldn't even be against an award to winner of a breakthrough. That to me is a better role for govt on this. But I don't see the catastrophe of this bill not making it.

[Cochise]

Now back to the topic. I'm not against tax credits as Cochise suggests. That to me is a more proper role of govt. I wouldn't even be against an award to winner of a breakthrough. That to me is a better role for govt on this. But I don't see the catastrophe of this bill not making it.

I didn't suggest you were against tax credits.

THAT'S A LIE![/bep]

[BucEyedPea]

I didn't say you suggested I was against tax credits. I was just adding that as something I could support as you suggested. That line could be read two ways, now that I look at it. But it wasn't meant as taken by you, just to clarify.

[BucEyedPea]

IMO, we need to handle renewable energy is a manner similar to the ARPA projects of the 50's and 60's. Government and private industry getting together to support both pure and applied research on the subject.



Look at it this way, banyon. It'll just make the inevitable post GOP-Convention wailing and gnashing of teeth that much more amusing when this so-called "revolution" crashes and burns just like so many before it.

Sure, it's a long wait. IMO, the squawking, righteous outrage, and third party threats will be worth it.
I think you would have been a Tory during America's War for Independence supporting the madness of good King George. You might of even defected to Canada.

[Adept Havelock]

I think you would have been a Tory during America's War for Independence supporting the madness of good King George. You might of even defected to Canada.


Considering you just baselessly accused me of "censoring ideas I don't like", why should I give a flying f*** what you think my behavior during the American Revolution would have been? :shrug:


Get in line folks because banyon ( who has hijacked some threads himself to promote his own ideas) and AH can't just disagree they have to censor ideas they don't like.

I say baselessly because I know you won't find a single example where I supported "censoring" any point of view, especially ones I don't agree with. Have I flipped you and TJ more than my usual amount of snark about RP? Probably. Almost certainly. Have I ever advocated "censorship"? Hell no, I haven't!

I may have advocated keeping a topic or two confined to a single thread (as when recxjake seemed to have started every thread on the front page), but you won't find any instance where I've stated a viewpoint should not be heard.


Seriously, if you're going to make up s**t like that about me, just put me on iggy and I'll return the favor. :rolleyes:

[Cochise]

Considering you just baselessly accused me of "censoring ideas I don't agree with", why should I give a flying f*** what you think my behavior during the American Revolution would have been? :shrug:

Pfff... I bet if you were a Brythonic tribe you would have sided with those detestable Cenimagni. You neocen.

[Adept Havelock]

Pfff... I bet if you were a Brythonic tribe you would have sided with those detestable Cenimagni. You neocen.

LMAO

Well, they were smart enough to surrender to that old neocon Julius Caesar... :)

[Cochise]

LMAO

Well, they were smart enough to surrender to that old neocon Julius Caesar... :)

Well duh, you saw what neoconservatism did for the Iceni

[Adept Havelock]

Well duh, you saw what neoconservatism did for the Iceni


Not first hand...I'm not Skip!

[banyon]

I don't see where I mentioned Paul. I've been posting about markets and energy since before Paul became a candidate. In a thread that starts out not happy about an energy bill, I don't see how posting a pov about govt not being needed as much as conventional thought suggests, or might even make it worse is off-topic. Sounds like censorship of new ideas to me and status-quo thinking. Get in line folks because banyon ( who has hijacked some threads himself to promote his own ideas) and AH can't just disagree they have to censor ideas they don't like. I guess a good temper tantrum is good once in awhile though.

I don't disagree with this. I guess I think Taco has been a bit too recxjakish lately in his fervor.

Now back to the topic. I'm not against tax credits as Cochise suggests. That to me is a more proper role of govt. I wouldn't even be against an award to winner of a breakthrough. That to me is a better role for govt on this. But I don't see the catastrophe of this bill not making it.

I don't see how advocating tax credits (and thus government interference with the free market) is consistent with anything you've posted here. I mean I probably agree that it's one way we can spur innovation, but that's not usually your approach.

[Adept Havelock]

I don't lie. It was implied censorship. You backed up a post that called Taco and myself out for expressing regularly our opinion on markets. Basically telling us to shut up. Take some responsibility for your communication.

You won't find a single instance where I've ever advocated a position, any position, even the bloody Phelpstards, being silenced. In short, I never suggested anything close to "shut up". In fact, in that post I suggested the exact opposite:

Look at it this way, banyon. It'll just make the inevitable post GOP-Convention wailing and gnashing of teeth that much more amusing when this so-called "revolution" crashes and burns just like so many before it.

Sure, it's a long wait. IMO, the squawking, righteous outrage, and third party threats will be worth it.

Why would I want someone to stop something I find amusing? Simple. I don't. Nor did I ever suggest you or TJ should stop, even by the most convoluted and twisted logic.

I didn't suggest you should "shut up". I did provide my reason why you should keep posting. You may not care for that reason, but it doesn't come close to suggesting you should "shut up". That makes your accusation of me supporting censorship an error or misstatement at best, and a blatant lie at worst.

Have I been snarky about RP? Sure...I'm snarky about damn near everything. Have I ever misrepresented your position on a subject as you just have? I haven't, nor would I, as I find that a particularly contemptible behavior. It's no different than if I were to accuse you of being a supporter of Marxism. :shrug:

As you suggested, "Take some responsibility for your communication". Which was it? A lie, or a misstatement? As it doesn't come close to representing my actual position, it's one or the other. Personally, I'm hoping it was a misstatement, as I don't think you're the type of person who would purposefully misrepresent someone else's position on an issue.

[BucEyedPea]

Here's an example of how the creativity and ingenuity of individuals using the marketplace to solve problems well lead...and not committees (group think) which is what govt is. They've led the way with a new idea—not politicians—not bureaucrats. Bureacratic positions are NOT creative. Now they've been invited to DC.

Here's a company called Hydrogen Technologies, who have used distilled water in some kind of a chemical process to run a car. And it gets like 25 miles to the ounce.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hzJZJjo9MNA&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hzJZJjo9MNA&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[BucEyedPea]

Hybrids Get Parking Discount
October 30, 2005 - First hybrid owners were given access to HOV (carpool) lanes (California being the latest state to adopt this policy). Now, they pay less to park. The City of Baltimore has announced that select hybrids, including the Insight, qualify for a parking discount averaging $55 in savings per month (source: AP). With the increase in these types of programs and the price of oil, sales of hybrid vehicles are understandably stronger than ever.

Insight Granted HOV Privileges in Arizona
February 10, 2007 - The Arizona Governor's office annouced a federally authorized pilot project last Friday that allows the Honda Insight and two other hybrid vehicles (the Honda Civic Hybrid and Toyota Prius) to use the state's 73 miles of HOV lanes. Owners will need new plates and special permits

[banyon]

ah, evasion.

[Radar Chief]

As you suggested, "Take some responsibility for your communication". Which was it? A lie, or a misstatement? As it doesn't come close to representing my actual position, it's one or the other. Personally, I'm hoping it was a misstatement, as I don't think you're the type of person who would purposefully misrepresent someone else's position on an issue.

Right, the NeoCon demagogue would never just make up reasons to be pissed at someone. ;)

[Iowanian]

I know of a handful of wind farms going up right now that would not be happening without the tax incentives. They're just not affordable/feasible right now without it(to build)...

there is actually a surge in building wind farms right now, because they fear the tax incentives are going away.


Bird lovers and people who think they're too ugly(especially those unnamed senators with Massechussetts ties) need to stfu.

[Calcountry]

Lame duck quacking

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/10/19/13246/171
Bush threatens to veto Democratic energy bill
Posted by David Roberts at 1:07 PM on 19 Oct 2007


:hmmm:





I'm wondering that too. :cuss: :mad: :grr: :#ROFLROFL Did you all find out that you hadn't won the Presidency yet?

[patteeu]

I didn't say you suggested I was against tax credits. I was just adding that as something I could support as you suggested. That line could be read two ways, now that I look at it. But it wasn't meant as taken by you, just to clarify.

He didn't say you could support them either. LMAO

[BucEyedPea]

I'll support Bush on this if he vetos it.
I suspect, however, that it show for the primaries/election to help the GOP.

[banyon]

ROFLROFL Did you all find out that you hadn't won the Presidency yet?

? That's not what I said at all.

Rather, I found out that the Dem leadership is even more worthless than I thought they would be.

[Adept Havelock]

ah, evasion.


ROFL

You expected something else? Are you new? :p

Right, the NeoCon demagogue would never just make up reasons to be pissed at someone. ;)

You may be right. I dunno.

FWIW, I decided it doesn't reallly matter if it was a misstatement or a lie. :shrug:

[BucEyedPea]

So when are you going to back up your economic positions Adept Havelock?

Never I guess. You're quite the evader yourself. Project much?

[Adept Havelock]

So when are you going to back up your economic positions Adept Havelock?

Never I guess. You're quite the evader yourself. Project much?

Let's see...is there a difference between falsely attributing a position to someone and holding a different persepective on economics?

Why yes...yes there is. Not that I expect you to acknowledge it.

I'm not sure what "back up" on my economic positions you are referring to? I'm quite sure I've always stated that I think both the Left and Right have something to contribute. What more would you want? An economic analysis or study? Sorry, I'm no economist, nor did I sleep at a holiday inn express last night.

[BucEyedPea]

No you just got some blowback was all.

[Adept Havelock]

No you just got some blowback was all.

Like I said, it doesn't matter if you were lying or just misspeaking. Either way, you were incorrect, and I'm OK with that as the majority of posters know my position on censorship isn't the one you presented. :shrug:

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief
Right, the NeoCon demagogue would never just make up reasons to be pissed at someone.
Says the poster who demagogued using the word "liberal" for all those who were anti-Iraq. Yup! Projecting again RC?

[Radar Chief]

Says the poster who demagogued using the word "liberal" for all those who were anti-Iraq. Yup! Projecting again RC?

As you’ve been asked every single time you’ve made this claim, prove it.
Though, I doubt this time will be any different than the last dozen or so.

[Adept Havelock]

As you’ve been asked every single time you’ve made this claim, prove it.
Though, I doubt this time will be any different than the last dozen or so.

RC, FWIW I know I've always been against the Iraq misadventure, and you've never once referred to me as a liberal. You may have questioned my sanity a couple of times, but that's quite understandable. :)

[Radar Chief]

RC, FWIW I know I've always been against the Iraq misadventure, and you've never once referred to me as a liberal. You may have questioned my sanity a couple of times, but that's quite understandable. :)

Reasonable people can disagree, though that doesn’t mean we have to be disagreeable. ;)

[BucEyedPea]

You asked me to prove it before Radar and I put up the actual post and linked the thread. Go to April '06. You do the work now. I'm not doing it twice.

[BucEyedPea]

He didn't say you could support them either. LMAO
That wasn't the point either. ROFL

[Radar Chief]

You asked me to prove it before Radar and I put up the actual post and linked the thread. Go to April '06. You do the work now. I'm not doing it twice.

I’ve asked you to “prove it” several times, with much the same response. How about you do it just once?

[Adept Havelock]

That wasn't the point either. ROFL


BEP- Please clear a PM or two. Response can't go through. :)

[BucEyedPea]

Did anyone see History Channel's Modern Marvels last night on renewable energy sources?

It was excellent. They reported that there has been a big upsurge of investment capital pouring into LARGE SCALE renewable energy alternatives.

One was as solar tower by EnviroMission, that requires enormous start-up money,( iirc it was $700 million) but cost hardly anything to keep going. It's a publically owned company developing a large-scale renewable energy generation power station. It's an engineering marvel that supplies 200 megawatts of electricity to half a million homes. There was interest in the 80's but oil was cheap. So interest waned. It's drawing attention again and reaching critical mass now.

Link (http://www.enviromission.com.au/)

Pacwind used by Jay Leno for his own home. Lots of good things happening.
Pacwind (http://www.pacwind.net/)

Discovery Channel Link to a video on what's developing. ( http://dsc.discovery.com/video/player.html?playerId=203711706&bclid=958525258)

Those concerned should check the whole program out as it will be on again Saturday @ 3PM and Friday @ 8 PM from the prairies. It has Environmental Tech II as well.

No need for doom & gloom.

[Taco John]

Check this out...

Here's a graph of the costs of the Iraq War vs. money spent on Energy Alternatives (in millions of dollars):

http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/iraqvsenergy.gif

[Cochise]

That's cool. If you put all the federal entitlement programs on the graph it would be 20-50 times larger.

[Taco John]

That's cool. If you put all the federal entitlement programs on the graph it would be 20-50 times larger.


I'd like to see a bar that represents my income after income taxes, and my income after income taxes are eliminated.

[BIG_DADDY]

Check this out...

Here's a graph of the costs of the Iraq War vs. money spent on Energy Alternatives (in millions of dollars):

http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/iraqvsenergy.gif

The war machine does not run off of solar energy silly.

[Taco John]

The war machine does not run off of solar energy silly.


heh... Check this out... (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/06/64021)

[jAZ]

I taked to our Congresswoman this week about this and they had recently investigated it, and as far as they can tell, this report is a total rumor and little more.

This coming from the woman working to create Tucson as the "Solarcon Valley". If she's not worried, I'm not worried.

She said that this is typical of budget negotiations. Rumors fly, facts are few and far between.

Thought that was worth sharing.

[tiptap]

Actually, the market gave us cleaner living conditions including air and water by improvements in technology which is an ongoing process. Just because it hasn't been perfect, doesn't mean it hasn't been a workable system. Nor does it mean zero role for govt. It's just that the market makes a greater contribution.

Having worked in water treatment, lake water enforcement, air quality and such, your claim that industry moved on these fronts is just plain wrong. It was the government that enforced laws to clear up point pollution problems, it was the government that insisted lead be removed from gasoline, it was the government that set air standards, it was the government that set water standards.

It is true that when industries hands were tied they were able to achieve solutions. But they didn't come about because industry felt green on their own. The economics of dumping down stream is too easy to get by without government oversight.

[BucEyedPea]

Having worked in water treatment, lake water enforcement, air quality and such, your claim that industry moved on these fronts is just plain wrong. It was the government that enforced laws to clear up point pollution problems, it was the government that insisted lead be removed from gasoline, it was the government that set air standards, it was the government that set water standards.

It is true that when industries hands were tied they were able to achieve solutions. But they didn't come about because industry felt green on their own. The economics of dumping down stream is too easy to get by without government oversight.

I don't think you read my post right. Here it is again:
Actually, the market gave us cleaner living conditions including air and water by improvements in technology which is an ongoing process. Just because it hasn't been perfect, doesn't mean it hasn't been a workable system. Nor does it mean zero role for govt. It's just that the market makes a greater contribution.

When I say markets, I'm not talking about a waterway: river, stream or lake that is part of the commons or anything not owned by anybody. ( in which case it's more likely to get polluted). I am talking about improvements in technologies from research and innovation made available to us because of the market. In which case the govt, as part of the market, would be a buyer too. I put some numbers up in a thread recently, but can’t seem to locate right now.

Furthermore, other culprits in water pollution are the municipally owned sewage disposal systems. Love Canal was caused by local govt more than the company that got blamed.

Right now due to soaring energy costs, ( a market signal) even Rolling Stone has reported key business leaders getting together to put their heads together to develop renewable energy. RS also admitted, for a left-wing paper even, that we’ve been stuck on fossils fuels because big oil is in bed with govt and subsidized. That’s not really what I mean by a market. That's what I mean by govt's contribution to the problem.