Done.

Done

Tall Mike, in simple terms, the activities of us humans is warming the earths temperature and more importantly the sea temperature melting polar icecaps and raising sea levels obliterating populated islands, destroying reef eco systems and generally stuffing up the planet at a faster rate than before we were around as measured by scientists around the world. It's pretty much the only thing that scientists agree upon strangely enough. Your ex VP even made a very good documentary film about it.

The problem is there is little political will in the US to accept change and you are the worst contributors on the planet.

of the day sometimes we have to take responsibility for our actions. The early humans had very little impact but in the last 100 years our impact has been massive. Bout time we did something so our childrens children don't blame us for addressing.

Start

ding

Phil: The US is not the worst contributor, by any measure.

If we're talking total emissions, it's China by a mile. If we're talking per capita, it's Saudi Arabia by a marathon.

We're a pretty strong #2 in both categories, but we're reducing, not growing, our share.

Fair call, i thought China had yet to catch up with you but you're probably right about saudi. Bring on the day we don't need to buy their oil.

Bring on the day we can no longer be quite so dependent on anybody's oil. The opposition to research into cleaner power sources is just bizarre to me; a religion* that opposes cleaner air is a religion I oppose.

* And it's an article of faith that is not only not supported but outright denied by the evidence; is there a better word than "religion"?

Lol I think you're frighteningly correct. Sadly

done

but if you include total emissions over time, the US is the top emitter (or at least we were 2 years ago) we need to clean up after ourselves.

done

done

go

ugh - later

Difficulty score 23.

The US emissions are going down for economic reasons. We are a wealthy nation and are willing to pay the extra price that green power costs. China is on the way to becoming wealthy and should eventually clean up their act as they are able to afford it.

To cut back on power use is somewhat counter productive, because it takes power to create wealth.

B.T.W. I oppose federal funding for green energy research not for religious reasons, but for economic and legal reasons.

Legally, I see no constitutional authority for government funding of research into alternative energy.

Economically, private business is far better able to determine which technolog

You should then oppose federal funding of tax subsidies to Oil companies and the use of our Military to safeguard the flow of Oil around the world. The Oil companies should pay for that protection themselves. No?

Economically, private business is a far better judge of which alternative technologies are promising and will invest in research into those technologies when there is a chance of a profit

What subsidies?

Tax deductions for business expenses are not subsidies.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/09/report\n-shows-oil-industry-benefits-5-3-trillion-sub\nsidies-annually.html

Protecting American business interests is a government function.

Why would an oil company want to invest in alternative energy. When you put up a windmill or solar panels you are directly competing with the extraction industries.

Just remember how big oil sitting on the boards of the big three squashed to Electric car years ago. Sometines drwho you come up with some doozies.

Stop the conspiracy theories already.

So, you are against allowing oil companies to take tax breaks available to any other company like Apple or Microsoft?

And are you against allowing farmers a fuel exemption for fuel they use in farming?

haha. Look, If I use a gallon of gas or a cubic foot of natural gas the energy that I use has to be replaced by another gallon of gas or cubic foot of natural gas. Thereby keeping the extraction industry in business. However, if I have an electric car (which I do not) and rooftop solr (which I do) every mile I drive or light I turn on is powered by the sun and reduces the need for extracted energy.

Oh I am not, yet you should be.

The free market should take care of all of that. The government should not be interfering, right? Private enterprise will work it out, keep government out of business.

Privatize everything. Chile didn't go far enough.

And you are against programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance program?

Well I am against all of that, which is more consistent than you. Because when you are talking about subsidies to oil, that is what you are talking about.

I said I am not. But what I am saying is you claim Green energy is more expensive that what we use now. I say it is not when you factor in all the other costs associated with extraction energy.

If it is not more expensive, then there is no need to subsidize it.

omg. backlash effect?

An economically viable energy source can stand on its own.

But you have a point that green energy is looking more at long term costs. We were just not willing to pay them before, for reasons of education and wealth.

My main point is that getting politics involved in free market decisions is neither wise nor safe.

One correction: I do support tax deductions/write-offs for oil if they are available for all industries equally.

But to call tax write-offs available to all industries a subsidy to oil is dishonest.

Tuco, kudos for your solar panels. I bet you got a government subsidy or rebate on the cost of installation. Otherwise, the capital outlay for the panels would not be paid for by the energy they generate over the lifetime of the system. In other words, your solar power actually costs more than buying electricity from the electric company. It is only less because of government subsidies.

I am not calling tax write offs a subsidy I am calling the money we give them as credits subsidies.

I did not have a cost of installation. I am leasing them. And yes they are paying for themselves and even more than that.

But I'll bet if you look close enough, you will find that the company you lease them from is getting a subsidy which is what makes them competitive.

What makes you think I haven't looked close enough? The company (Sungevity) gets $59 a month from me and the Federal rebate for 1/3 of the cost of installation. I get about $100 a month off my energy bill and the State rebate which pretty much covers my whole lease. So basically it is free.

I know you don't think business write-offs are a subsidy, but the people you quote do.

if extractive industries had to pay the full cost of cleaning up the mess they make, alternative energies would be cheaper.

Okay, you just made my point. You have identified 2 government subsidies which is what makes the program viable.

I am still talking about the tax credits given to the most profitable business of all time.

And the cost to us for having to protect the flow of oil with our military. Why aren't they being charged for that?

You may be, but that doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The other 2 things I mentioned previously are much more significant and there is also a "subsidy" in the form of the strategic oil reserve program, which is legitimate national defense.

what doesn't amount to a hill of beans?

They are, just look at how much they actually do pay in taxes

Tax credits.

Why do they need them? Shouldn't they rely on the market and their business acumen to sustain them?

Probably, but just what tax credits do they get?

https://www.google.com/search?q=oil+company+t\nax+credits&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

My point is don't bemoan the money we spend on renewables when we have been spending a lot more over time on extractables.

Well, I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Most of the so called subsidies to oil companies also apply to any other source of energy.

To get back to my solar panels. I am putting energy back into the grid at rock bottom cost to the utility which then sells it to consumers at their regular retail rate. So, yes I win, and the utility wins, and the consumer wins because there is less likelyhood that the utility will raise rates (even though they try) if they can make a profit off my excess energy.

But the taxpayer loses.

how?

I am a taxpayer, I am doing better with solar

The only way the whole scheme is profitable is because of the taxpayer money propping it up.

and the fact that the sun is providing the power and not billions of dollars in upfront costs for drills, trucks, tankers, roads, drill pads, hilltopping, water pollution

etc. etc.

You would not need to pay so much in taxes if such subsidies did not exist.

Okay, good point. Do away with all of them. ALL of them.

The sun is the source of power for coal and oil too. And your solar panels are very expensive, compared to the total energy they will produce.

Not anymore they aren't

I agree, do away with all of them. I am not in favor of government subsidies in any form.

Yes the sun is the source of power for coal and oil but you have to dig for them. You have to use more power to get at them.

You also use more power to manufacture a solar panel than it will produce in its lifetime.

That is not true.

http://www.networx.com/article/do-solar-panel\ns-use-more-energy-than-the

It probably isn't any more, but you still have a big investment in solar panels that is actually more than the coal and oil capital investments.

not over time of the technologies and not when you factor in the health, environmental, military costs of traditional extraction investments.

Right, green energy factors in the long term costs up front. That is one reason it is more expensive. With fossil fuel, the long term costs are delayed and hence not seen.

How are fossil fuel costs delayed? We have to clean up after their spills, we have to pay for health care of people made sick by it, we have to pay for our military to protect the flow of it.

Well, the cost of clean up or health care isn't in your fossil fuel bill. You end up paying later of course. Its a question of how we pay more than how much we pay.

Yes we do make them pay something for when they screw up but they still get to stay in business and make huge profits and fight tooth and nail not to clean up.

If we had to pay cash for a house, not many people would own one. Likewise, green energy is not as affordable because the up front costs are greater. Fortunately we are now wealthy enough that we are willing to pay the up front costs.

And if you were reading, I told you earlier that there are no upfront costs if you lease.

There are for the people you lease from.

They are covering those costs by government subsidies and loans. You are paying back the loans for them. The up front costs are therefore spread out over time making them affordable.

I thought you were talking about the consumer being able to buy a house or afford the upfront costs of solar.

I was making the point that buying a house is affordable for most of us because we get to spread out the payments over time.

Kinda like the subsidies for oil and gas exploration??

Maybe, but those are more like deductions for business expenses. I wouldn't mind a tax deduction to green energy companies for research and development.

Ideally, we wouldn't use the tax code for social engineering purposes. We would just give everyone a tax cut.

You think renewable energy is social engineering?

I think government programs encouraging renewable energy is social engineering.

Would you say a program that contributes to a better natural environment, cheaper overall energy bill for everyone is social engineering or just adhering to the constitutions call for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

and providing for the General Welfare?

Which of the enumerated powers allows the federal government to do any of that?

It may be seen as social engineering to a Free Marketeer who is heavily invested in Old Energy stocks but it isn't to the majority of the people in this country who are getting screwed by Old Energy.

The same enumerated powers that allow tax write offs and subsidies to any business.

The power to tax is not the power to subsidize. And I agree that subsidies are unconstitutional.

The Constitution give Congress the enumerated power of the purse. Thereby give them the right to write the tax code and spend the money however they want. It is the lobbyists who determine exactly to where and how much.

Interesting argument involving the two parallel 3, 6, 9 lines (row 6 and row 9). Can't remember seeing this before.

ciao

Not exactly. The enumerated powers (taxation being the first) specify what the money may be spent on.

Au revoir

DING. Kina slow, and had that unusual pair I just mentioned. Nice. 24.

go

Phil, aren't all the oceans connected? Then why don't all coastlines around the world experience the alleged rising sea levels? And you do know that islands have a nasty habit of sinking into the ocean, right? Nothing to do with rising water, just sinking land.

I find it interesting that you recommend Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth. He is a politician and absolutely not a scientist. His movie script is worded to mislead rather than inform. For example, at one point he says that of 928 peer reviewed articles, none of the scientists disagreed that most of global warming is man made or a serious problem. This statement would only be meaningful if it also told us how many of the scientists actually made an affirmative statement that they agreed with the premise.

Fortunately, you apparently know by some means that scientists around the world do actually agree on this. So how many? What percentage? What kinds of scientist? Your sources?