What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
68 Comments
- peters1023, on 03/23/2009, -0/+11Did you happen to miss the fact that this would produce and net DECLINE in jobs and revenue?
- dark169, on 03/23/2009, -2/+11"Other benefits include 220,000 net permanent jobs and 390 power plants that won’t need to be built."
So some how a quarter million jobs get created by Americans spending less money? How is that posible except through what I refer to as "crazy math".
And 390 power plants (which each employ hundreds of people) won't need to be built? I'm willing to bet their crazy math doesn't account for the 50-100k people that would be employed by those power plants or the hundreds of thousands employed in their construction... - jerryjamesstone, on 03/23/2009, -4/+13This would be nice! So many things we can do to get out of this financial mess that doesnt involve spending money!
- trolleyfan, on 03/23/2009, -0/+9Problem is, it won't actually *do* that. Oh, the savings would be nice - but they'll be spread amongst everyone in the country - so, about $500 a person.
I don't know about you, but if I get a free $500, my first thought is not going to be spending more (which would help the economy), but paying off what I already spent (which helps me, but doesn't do diddly for the economy as a whole).
Not to say this isn't a good, nay *swell* idea, but it isn't an economy-fixing one, at least, by itself. - yarcod, on 03/23/2009, -1/+9This article appears, and I say appears, I have no way of disproving, please feel free to prove me wrong, but it appears to have misleading or half-calculated statistics in it.
most notably... this line:
Other benefits include 220,000 net permanent jobs and 390 power plants that won’t need to be built.
220,000 permanent jobs? From what? And it says net... but it also says 390 power plants not being built... doesn't that mean those jobs would be lost/transferred into this plan? - peters1023, on 03/23/2009, -1/+8Jack ass.
- glueandglitter, on 03/23/2009, -4/+9Such a great example of how Earth-friendly choices save more than just energy!
- mctom987, on 03/23/2009, -1/+6Being energy efficient is NOT the same as using less energy.
I have an energy efficient computer, and it pulls 800W. Compared to the average desktop use of 60W, it's a lot more energy consumed. The fact is, my computer is using close to 90% of that power, where the average computer may only use 70-75%.
Edit:
A better way of saying it - it's not how much you use, it's how much of what you take is used for it's intended purpose. - zeptobyte, on 03/23/2009, -2/+6Energy-efficiency would be nice and all, but how does that relate at all to the bailouts?
- Pyros7, on 03/23/2009, -3/+7This article sucks on details that might actually justify the ***** numbers they're throwing out.
So if we save energy the electric companies will be out $168 billion in revenue. And we're not going to build 390 power plants. How the ***** does that create jobs? - Monarch818, on 03/23/2009, -1/+4I'm a Bush hater, but most of what Obama is spending has nothing to do with Bush. I'm one that still thinks Bush and Cheney should be put in jail for their illegal activities. But the whole economic crash was due to Clinton deregulating the banking industry, and the Congress not letting Bush put back some of the regulations.
The cost of the whole time in Iraq since 2003 is still quite less than the economic stimulus package. Obama has spent more in his first 60 days than Bush did in 8 years. - minoss, on 03/23/2009, -1/+4Higher energy prices for all? Something extremely regressive in its effect on the low income. This isn't a savings of anything. This is a tax on energy. And unsurprisingly, written by some who would head such a system.
- sustainablogger, on 03/23/2009, -3/+6It's hard to see a downside to this (though I'm sure someone will point a few out)...
- Groovydoo, on 03/23/2009, -2/+5No it won't! - The DWP (Dept. of Water and Power) in Los Angeles once asked us to conserve water during a drought. We all obliged and then the DWP complained of falling revenues as a result of the public conservation request and then they raised our rates to get revenues back up.
- jeffiek, on 03/23/2009, -0/+3fta: "... investment in energy efficiency ..."
You need to read between the lines. Not mentioned in the article, except in those four words, is the fact that you have to put money IN before you get any savings.
They don't say how much you have to put in. To be fair, I expect the claime savings are after deducting the investment. But I don't know that.
In these tough times, our investments need to be in the best areas, not just good ones. Now I don't know about you, but I'm always hearing about businesses cutting costs. Hell, the original florescent light was developed to save money. Way back around the '30s
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bl_fl ...
If it's possible to save money, business will - no regulations necessary.
If this coalitions ideas are so good, why do they need the government? - treehugger87, on 03/23/2009, -0/+3I'm having a hard time imagining where these jobs would come from, too. I suppose somebody has to make the energy effiecient products that we all use.
I vote for a move away from the economy that asks us all to work like dogs to support our stressed out lifestyles, and towards one with a a 2 day work week and 5 day weekend. Until then, I hope we can build those power plants with low emissions and efficient use of resources... - DarkShroud, on 03/23/2009, -0/+2America has more wind farms than any other country so screw you.
- somedoya, on 03/23/2009, -11/+13B-u-l-l-s-h-i-t
–noun 1. nonsense, lies, or exaggeration.
–verb (used with object) 2. to lie or exaggerate to.
–verb (used without object) 3. to speak lies or nonsense.
–interjection 4. (used esp. to express disagreement.)
That just about sums it up. - jvieira, on 03/23/2009, -8/+10DONT USE GAS ON MAY 12th! WE CAN BRING THE OIL COMPANIES DOWN!
~LOL~ - TheCash, on 03/24/2009, -0/+2How about energy research?
- EASwanson, on 03/23/2009, -0/+2Well I live in California where I have to deal with legislation that gives power companies the authority to write up laws forcing people to consume less energy. They recently limits all floor lamps to a max of 175Watts. If you want more light then that it's too bad because the energy companies get money from the state for making you use less energy. What is the consumer going to do? Get screwed.
- Barackalypse, on 03/24/2009, -0/+2Except when talking about economic recovery, its cost efficiency that matters, not energy efficiency. Without telling me how much they'll have to spend to save $168 billion a year, I can't judge if it is economically viable to do. Its a lot like saying you want to save money so you're going to buy a Toyota Prius instead of a Civic because the hybrid gets better fuel economy. What you're missing is that it costs more to buy its 5 year cost of ownership is actually $3,000 higher, so if you goal is to save money, you're better off with the less fuel efficient Civic since it costs less to buy and less to maintain.
http://autos.yahoo.com/2009_toyota_prius_touring-p ...
http://autos.yahoo.com/honda_civic_sedan_ex_5_spd_ ... - XZanatos, on 03/23/2009, -1/+3Because if people don't have to pay that money to the power company then the government could sneak that much (or some amount) in as taxes and people wouldn't notice because they are paying the exact same amount they have been paying all along. Or something like that.
- peters1023, on 03/23/2009, -1/+3Consuming energy does not necessarily mean inefficient and wasteful. As long as supply holds so will demand. Its basic economics man. Until we're FORCED out of our consumerism by scarcity the current trend will continue fairly unabated.
- zunigbab, on 03/24/2009, -0/+2If you've ever driven around between 10PM and 4Am you should know how we can save a ton of resources and prevent a tonnes of CO2 from being pumped into the atmosphere. Does Best Buy, Home Depot and the Mall really need to have every feaking light on at these times? What a waste!
- solboldi, on 03/23/2009, -0/+2Reducing consumption of energy would not create new jobs.
- inactive, on 03/23/2009, -4/+5shh, go read your bible.
- radiofrequency, on 03/25/2009, -0/+1The question is how much do Americans have to spend as a nation for this estimated $168B in savings?
- zeth006, on 03/23/2009, -4/+5The concepts "Bill O'Reilly" and "correct usage of statistics" do not go in the same sentence. Remember that the next time you consider pulling out another statistic you memorized from Fox News.
- trolleyfan, on 03/23/2009, -7/+8Not really - since about 8.5 trillion of that is leftover Bush debt...
- diggydougie, on 03/24/2009, -0/+1No argument that this would help. But even 168b is a small amount compared to the 1400b (700x2) already on the table. And more to come. I just wish the government would stop spending our futures to save rich bankers.
- murrdpirate, on 03/23/2009, -1/+2This would save about $500 per American at best, since I'm sure these are tree-hungingly optimistic numbers. They don't even say how we would reduce energy by 15%, they just say if we can do that we'd save $168 billion. Well if we reduce energy consumption by 100% we won't have to pay a dime for energy!
If there are economic incentives to reduce energy, I'm all for them. But I'm unlikely to pay $15000 up front to save $500 a year on my energy bill. I think Google and GE have a good idea in simply allowing people to see where all their energy use is coming from in real time, that seems like a cheap and effective way to get people to cut back. - honeybrass, on 03/25/2009, -0/+1Efficiency? puh! when has that ever saved anything!
Have a problem? Throw money at it! Always the best choice. - Ttech2, on 03/24/2009, -0/+1Interesting, I think this would be the alternative thats better then what the gov is trying.
- Lamadave222, on 03/24/2009, -0/+1Another suggestion from the Luddite Party. America became the most prosperous country in the world by not developing sources of energy and industry. If we all just sat on a couch in the woods, we'd all be better off. Unless you are looking for a formula for increased energy prices and unemployment, I do not know why anyone would suggest this is a cogent idea.
- Frostman3D, on 03/24/2009, -0/+1At the rate Obama is spending, he'll outspend George's 8 years in just over 3 and 1/2 years. Change we can believe in alright.
- inactive, on 03/25/2009, -0/+1Yeah, and it only comes 6.8 TRILLION DOLLARS short. Good job hippies!
- diggydougie, on 03/24/2009, -0/+1No one wants to admit this. But what made America so great was an almost unlimited supply of natural resources (that have now pretty much run out). With that and slave labor you just can't help but be powerful. Nothing beats using slave (or nearly slave) labor to simply dig resources out of the ground for a huge profit. Even our food was free, with the feet (not inches) of topsoil in the Midwest.
- Barackalypse, on 03/24/2009, -0/+1There isn't any cash, its all borrowed money, the budget had a defecit before all this additional spending.
- DonAlfred, on 03/23/2009, -0/+1yeah i can see that.
trying to compensate for all your SUVs? - Frostman3D, on 03/24/2009, -0/+1I agree with you swanson, but sadly, the bums in Washington have ended the free market as we know it.
- DarkShroud, on 03/23/2009, -0/+1A better plan would have been for Obama to take some of that trillion dollars and just install solar panels on every home in America. Then return the left over cash to the federal reserve.
- inactive, on 03/24/2009, -0/+1lol
The Australian Government wants to hand out 42 billion dollars ($900 each)
We could....
Save and recycle every drop of water used in every city with a population of 10,000 or more and recoup at least 82 giga liters of water a year. 20 liters = $1.10
This amounts to 89,454,540,000.00 Of productivity.....(wow huh)
The flow on jobs would employ 1.8 million people
Australia would again be a net exporter of food. (this year we imported 1/3 of consumed goods)
And......
We could build 20 Solar powered 24 hour power stations reducing our greenhouse gases by 40 % Leaving our Kyoto commitments absolutely hosed...
But our government is going to be a drunk at a bar and give you $900 each......
And where will this money end up? China..
***** you Labor! - dark169, on 03/24/2009, -0/+1I personally have never hired someone to replace my light bulbs, and in 10 years when my appliance need replacing the same pot smoking high school drop out will delver them.
we already have plumbers who replace toilets, delivery guys dropping off appliances, factory workers making stoves, gas fitters installing furnaces, blah blah blah. I don't see how replacing something we currently have with something new creates new jobs, change current jobs yes, replace no.
I admit that the money saved on energy will be used else where but of course the energy company doesn't take the money you send them every week and burn it, now do they? - TechMike, on 03/24/2009, -0/+1The problem with this model is it makes the individuals pay up front so the companies can save later. And when their income goes down from too much conservation, they'll have to raise their rates to stay profitable, taking from my pocket again. I'm sticking with $1 packs of light bulbs (instead of the $3 mercury-laden CFLs) and just bought a '92 pickup for a fraction the cost of a hybrid. Look at what I'm saving!
- diggydougie, on 03/24/2009, -0/+1Also have you noticed that you can get across town in just a few minutes at those times? Traffic congestion wastes a huge amount of gas. And it truly is a waste. Nobody wants to sit in traffic, even those in gas guzzling SUVs. If people would just make their schedules more random to get rid of the rush hour that would help. And how about moving closer to where you work? Even a couple with two jobs could move somewhere in the middle of the two jobs. And the cities could work on the signals and roads to improve the situation as well. They could start with the most congested intersections.
- TheCash, on 03/24/2009, -1/+2Sorry, but I'd rather continue to spend a few dollars more a month to light my home with halogen bulbs then live in a world lit in sickly sterile glow of CFL. Florescent light is cold and lifeless, no matter how many filters you pass it through, sorry. I have high hopes for LED and OLED lights, but we're several years from that becoming practical.
- kronzdigg, on 03/23/2009, -1/+2I have NEVER watched fox news. I don't have a tv and I don't go to their website either. My stats come for the Congressional budget office (which if I'm not mistaken is controlled by the fn libs).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh ... - inactive, on 03/24/2009, -0/+0come in my site:
http://travel-lets-go.blogspot.com/ - tucker301, on 03/23/2009, -4/+4Saving "Us Billions" assumes that we have all of our money in big pool.
That's not the way Socially Insured Capitalism works, my friends.
Standard Socialism, you know the one that's so bad for you, works that way, but we've got something different.
What we have is the rich making huge investments in fast money bubbles of various markets, commodities, etc.
When those investments do well, they get richer.
When those investments turn South, they get a taxpayer funded bailout and are asked to be more careful next time.
Saving "us" money can't be accomplished by reducing our energy consumption and costs, because the rich cannot profit from that.
The only way to save "us" money is reduce the number of rich people. Use whatever means suits you. -
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is