myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 171, 172, 173 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1413

PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Crankcase emissions to the atmosphere and CO2 exhaust pollution have long since been strictly regulated over here. (Closed breathing systems and catalytic converters.) Ever more stringent emission targets are being applied, and there are clear financial incentives for those of us, such as myself, who buy small engined super minis, who's total emission figures are low enough to qualify for a reduced yearly road tax dic, and an exemption from the daily emission control charge in inner city emission controlled zones.

Also, we have one of the highest fuel tax rates in the world, with unleaded petrol costing the current equivalent of 10+ dollars a gallon! If other big polluting countries were as stringently taxed as are we, we might not grumble quite as much!

C.B. You are lucky to live in a place with wide open spaces and copious supplies of sunshine. (Probably windy too, you lucky ..... Wink ) But, as you and others have pointed out, we cannot all rely on, or even afford, a scatterbrained approach, and unrealistic windmill building bonanza currently taking place in our little island. It's as though the government have created a Frankenstein monster and are unable to control it. Our energy shortfall crunch will soon be upon us!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4337

PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's going to be interesting to see what happens when you guys in Britain get a huge high pressure system sitting over the islands and 100 degree temps for a few weeks. Zero wind, and the turbines looking like scarecrows leaning over.

Since you guys don't have guns, I suppose Molotov Cocktails will be in order... Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1413

PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No Steven.

We use our mouths as weapons, kick the nieghbours cat back over the garden fence, (it stalks a friendly blackbird I'm on conversational terms with and gave permission to exceed his normal ration of worms while the cold spell lasts), and write furious letters to the Times! Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14605

PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
It's going to be interesting to see what happens when you guys in Britain get a huge high pressure system sitting over the islands and 100 degree temps for a few weeks.

When that happened in 2003, killing 2,000 Brits (almost 15,000 French), the "government pushed a target to reduce emissions from [buildings] by 34 per cent reduction by 2020 and 80 per cent reduction by 2050 from 1990 levels. London has set itself an even more challenging target by requiring that existing emissions are reduced by 60 per cent by 2025 from the 1990 level. This means almost all the 3.2 million dwellings in London will need some modification" (from the Telegraph).

All that ... when their climate is VASTLY more subject to cyclical whims in the North Atlantic currents we cannot influence. They're as likely to be praying FOR global warming by the time painting their roofs white matters, to try and melt some of the ice and snow piling up when the Gulf Stream abandons them next cycle ... and these are short cycles.

Besides, cold kills far more people than heat (Lomborg, et.al.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
capetonian



Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 907
Location: Oahu

PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler wrote:
I'm beside myself with utter disbelief that huge companies like Exxon that selflessly provide for our energy needs are being treated with disdain by the US government. Why should the government unfairly favor spending taxpayer dollars on questionable alternate energy boondoggles that despoil attractive countrysides and can't realistically come close to providing for our ever expanding energy needs? Why isn't the government eagerly pushing for opening up federal lands for pennies on the dollar so that our struggling fossil fuel corporations have a fair chance to grow and prosper for the good of the nation? Good God, where are our priorities? Why doesn't the Obama Administration get the picture?

Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14605

PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
Iso has no clue...but cannot resist a personal attack based on assumptions and innuendo.

1. The power company approached me ...
2. I have never used the interest deduction. So my neighbors never helped me buy MY house....
3. I have never complained about the portion of my electricity from solar.
4. Wrong summary of my income and house costs based on inaccurate assumptions.

There you go again, falsely accusing me of personal attacks. When did I attack you, and, again, when did I "denigrate" your wife, as you claimed? You sound like pueno, mac, keycock, etc.

1. Relevance? You're right; I have no clue.

2. What interest deduction? I'm talking about the contribution you claim your fellow Coloradans made to your solar system subsidies.

3. Wrong. You lamented long ago that your subsidies didn't cover ALL your electrical power needs.

4. No assumptions here. My estimates are based on numbers you gave us. "My income taxes are in six figures" = top one percenter income, at least $350-400k, which you did not deny last time it came up. Your solar system cost in the upper teens (I said that was a recollection, not a fact; correct me if it was wrong), and dividing that by the 4% figure you just gave us puts your new home cost well over $400,000.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4337

PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iso, people feel attacked when they feel attacked. It's like a woman who just had her bra unbuttoned by you. She says she feels attacked and you argue with her? You might want to study the difference between Don Juan and a convicted rapist....Salesmanship.

PS, Iso, do you have CB's address, photos, and pictures of his children?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14605

PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
Iso, people feel attacked when they feel attacked. ... study the difference between Don Juan and a convicted rapist....Salesmanship.

Exactly. And as I've often stated, I can't control others' feelings, so I do my best to stick to facts and justified opinions. This time, you'll notice that instead of accusing CB with, "You said ...", I tried to sugarcoat it with "Do you know how elitist it sounds ...?" I'd say I did purty good considering the number of times he has lied about me and attacked me personally without basis, such as his puzzling twice- or thrice-unsupported accusation that I denigrated his wife.

Feeling attacked is not the same as being attacked, and "innuendo" is not something many attribute to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 2036

PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
coboardhead wrote:
I may be a starry eyed idealist to believe that renewable energy has a place in our energy network.

No-one here has suggested that renewables do not have a place in our energy network. Of course they do. However, many governments are relentlessly plowing ahead with, for example, wind farms as a primary energy solution regardless of the very disappointing and expensive output, and, in many places, the despoiling of large swaths of formerly attractive countryside. Wind and solar are fine in the right place........it seems your roof is one of those places. But it is my view that these will never be anything more than a niche market, supplying a relatively small part of the world's energy needs, unless we are prepared to cover every open space with windmills and solar panels.

It is a question of focus. Government policy, particularly in tough economic times, should focus on those things that will generate the highest return within the bounds of reasonable risk, while simultaneously encouraging the development of long term alternatives. Right now that is not happening. Unrealistic targets are being established for mandatory use of unreliable renewables, while those energy sources that will actually provide for our needs are being treated with disdain.


Mrgybe...I partially agree with this. Colorado citizens voted about ten years ago for a state constitutional amendment that required our electricity was 15% from renewable sources. I voted against this initiative. This sort of thing should be legislated, not bound into the State Constitution. Later, the legislature increased the requirement to 30%. Again, I do not like these sort of "goals" to be written into law. Not enough flexibiity for changing markets (ie natural gas)

However, the program is working. The State and the power suppliers put their resources into this mandate, and have made it work. As an example, the power company approached me to partner with the solar install on my roof. The success of my install has, already, produced some interest in other similar projects (unfunded by the power company). Which, was one of the goals of the program. Another goal was to reduce costs of the panels. The system, I have designed, for my next home, will be significantly less costly.

The time the government should be spending, in my view, is when the job market needs to be stimulated. Small energy projects, in Colorado, created jobs in a decimated construction industry.

Now, it is probably time to wean the industry and begin to phase out subsidies for wind and solar. I think this will, likely, stimulate efficiency in production and reduce costs. Sadly, I am afraid this will benefit the Chinese more than the US manufacturers of solar.

Perhaps an even better use of the power company rebates is for LED lightbulbs. The costs have been dropping and the savings on electricity seem to be a better investment than solar. The local power company is offering a 50% rebate on efficient lighting to help meet these mandated goals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14605

PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
The time the government should be spending, in my view, is when the job market needs to be stimulated.

Three gaping flaws in that concept are:
1. It makes no sense. For the 8th or 10th time, what sense does it make to take money from the public by force, skim off a big chunk for the government, and give what's left back to the public? Does the illogic of that escape the left ENTIRELY?

2. It doesn't work. It's been tried countless time around the world, usually with failure; England's present stimulus experiment is proportionally far bigger than ours and has failed. http://tinyurl.com/6avm327 , for example. Broader yet is Keynesian economics' (stimulus spending to boost the economy) rejection by The Washington Post, the Associated Press, and the esteemed Alice Rivlin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget.
http://tinyurl.com/apnbm48

3. The Constitution grants the federal government only certain rights and expressly prohibits it from assuming any other rights. Taxing to fund stimulus packages, which benefit only a small segment of the public (and only very temporarily), falls in the latter category for several reasons.

In case it's not clear, this is NOT a personal attack. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 171, 172, 173 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
Page 172 of 349

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group