What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
79 Comments
- inactive, on 11/16/2008, -5/+17Now let's see all the republicans find a way to blame this on Obama
- inactive, on 11/15/2008, -2/+10the same epa that funded using pesticides on toddlers in exchange for $1000 and a free t-shirt:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=epa+children ... - LBWayward, on 11/16/2008, -2/+10Sounds right to me. If you want to abuse a public good (water, air, Ocean) you should have to pay for that damage. That's what the CAA says. it's not a stretch to apply that bill to the damage done to public goods by CO2.
- billricardi, on 11/16/2008, -1/+8The funny thing is, none of this matters. If you aren't already hooked up to the grid, it takes years and MILLIONS for any decent sized power plant to go commercial. Of any kind.
That's true of the U.K., the U.S., and most of Western Europe. There is such a stranglehold on the grid that only certain sized projects are viable. All because of bureaucratic, money hungry establishment and an inflexible infrastructure. Woo. - lettruthout, on 11/15/2008, -5/+11Those of us lucky enough to be left alive you mean? Pollution kills thousands each year - more than the 911 attacks.
And all the Bush administration does is protect the killers.
Shame on them, and you, for supporting these criminals. - SkittlesUSA, on 11/16/2008, -5/+10Does anyone think it is the government's job to "level the playing field" in the energy industry, or any industry for that matter?
Honest question.
What if one pizza place gets more business than another because it provides cheaper and tastier pizza, should the government penalize it to "level the playing field" of its other competitors (we'll even say the cheaper pizza is more unhealthy than its competitors)?
Discuss. - Dralha, on 11/16/2008, -6/+11"building a coal plant may become riskier and more expensive."
Which is exactly as it should be. King coal better start polishing his resume. His days of poisoning the land, sea, and air with his filthy smokestacks are numbered. - inactive, on 11/16/2008, -1/+6he already said himself he was going to bankrupt coal?
No need to blame... - DarthPoo, on 11/16/2008, -2/+6The Constitution guides the function of federal government, not public opinion. If it is the federal government's job, then why don't we amend the Constitution? The EPA is an unconstitutional and illegal agency. Let the people and the states decide what is best for them; don't expect the welfare state to fix everything for you.
- greggerm, on 11/16/2008, -0/+4And yet, your extra $0.59 does very little to actually REDUCE the amount of "dirty" energy being produced.
Carbon credits and paying extra on an a la carte basis for clean energy are feel-good attempts at being a green citizen. I think we all would agree that the nation needs to be *forced* into paying more for clean energy by way of replacing our dirtier sources with better ones. We need to start using that sun-baked desert southwest for something a little more interesting than just test flying airplanes! - Trent1492, on 11/16/2008, -0/+3"Nope. The money is going to go to countries where it is cheaper to build coal power generation plants, like China. The industry is going to go to places where electricity rates are lower, like China. The sheeple is going to bitch about declining living standards."
Your right we should strive for the environment that China has: poor air, poisoned water and a Union busting government. In that matter, we too could have the quality of life found in China. - stev31h, on 11/16/2008, -0/+3ugh, didn't realize what i wrote made no sense... I just woke up.
I meant to say, the cost of coal isn't just a direct monthly bill to the consumers. It ruins the land it's mined from, workers are in hazardous health environments, and the government pays out a good amount to the coal industry for all these shortcomings of coal. The long-term negative effects will bring a price tag, so it might not be the worst thing in the world to take a hit on your electric bill for now if it means saving down the road. - SkittlesUSA, on 11/16/2008, -1/+4Shouldn't individual citizens decide if an investment is worth it? Hasn't the government invested in enough AWFUL things to show you that it really has no idea where to invest money?
So even if it raises the cost of electricity, you think the government should penalize some businesses and reward others at it sees fit? - DarthPoo, on 11/16/2008, -2/+5Its not the federal governments job to protect us from pollution. However its also not their job to subsidize coal to the point that energy prices are artificially lowered, leaving us to pay the difference in the form of increased taxes. If anything, federal intervention into pollution control has led to more pollution, because instead of being held responsible in a court of law and paying damages, they pay small fines and we pay for the cleanup via programs like Superfund. The EPA is the problem, not the solution.
- stev31h, on 11/16/2008, -2/+5in energy field, i believe so. Long term benefits of renewable energy won't be seen for a while, so sometimes it is worth it to invest money short term. You also can't neglect the money that the government must pay for health care for coal workers, superfund sites, reclamation of land, so on. That is all taxed back to the people.
And as far as your analogy, pizza is fun and delicious - coal is not. - SkittlesUSA, on 11/16/2008, -5/+8Obama already promised he would bankrupt the coal industry:
"What I've said is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is more -- that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anybody else's out there, so if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
Think it doesn't affect you? It's how you turn your lights on http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes ...
He said his plan would raise the cost of electricity: "Regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money, they will pass that money on to consumers. If you can't persuade the American people that, yes, there's going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term because of combinations of more efficient energy usage and changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliances, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, that the economy will benefit. If we can't make that argument persuasively enough, you -- you can -- you can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington, you're not gonna get that done."
Has a candidate ever been elected president promising to bankrupt an extremely important aspect of the economy? - Nemesisesq, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2I think you're mixing two different kind of risks, The risk to coal plants is purely governmental in the form of environmental regulation, The risk for alternative energy is whether or not these technologies actually produce the power they say they are going to produce!!!! All this environmental nonsense means Higher electricity prices for the consumer. (read "the Poor")
- lettruthout, on 11/15/2008, -6/+8No, they're protecting us from rampant pollution. They wouldn't have to be involved if the EPA was doing it's job instead of protecting big polluting industry.
- toejamz, on 11/17/2008, -0/+2Your "free market" doesn't have financial signals to cover the costs of:
1) Mercury polution.
2) Climate change due to CO2.
3) Acid rain from the sulphuric acid.
4) Habitat destruction from coal mining.
Free market works because price changes are a signal for the actual cost of doing business. But coal plants essentially are profitable by stealing the wealth highlighted in the above 4 (and other) points from other people, to be deposited into the pockets of the coal power companies. - fluxion, on 11/16/2008, -2/+4i can afford it actually. i cant, however, afford to raise my kids in a place like ***** Beijing China
- Khast, on 11/16/2008, -2/+4Welcome to Beijing, USA (Referring to the air quality)
Do you really want major US cities to have air quality like China? - LBWayward, on 11/16/2008, -1/+3CO2 causes ocean acidification, causes coral death, causes ecosystem collapse. for example
- SkittlesUSA, on 11/16/2008, -1/+3Yeah but you actually have to PROVE damage has been done to public goods by CO2 (which nothing has).
- waldo21, on 11/16/2008, -2/+4 CO2 emissions have little to do with air quality. I am all for eliminating all other forms of air pollutants currently monitored under the environmental protection act, and in fact I am in favor of increasing the regulation on PM 2.5 emissions. These are the emissions that are the most dangerous to vulnerable populations and are the ones that are mainly responsible for the regional haze.
CO2 does not worsen air quality. If we start regulating CO2 emissions right now, that will put at us an economic disadnvantage copared to developing nations. Do you have any idea how much it costs to control CO2 emissions even where it is feasible ??? The cap and trade if implemented would soon extend far past the regulation of power plants. Cement factoreis are one of the larget contributors of CO2, as the baking process releases the stored carbon. Cement prices are expensive enough, and we already import some from China. If cap and trade limits are imposed, we will be importing even more from China, so there would be no CO2 reduction in that instance. The same would happen for many other industries and factories as well. Instead of building or producing in the states, they will just build factories and produce in countries that do not have CO2 regulations. CO2 is a diffuse global issue and not localized, so there would not be a significant net decrease in emissions... .until a global accord was reached where all countries had to participate. - Trent1492, on 11/16/2008, -0/+2Dugg for the appropriate use of expletives as an adjective.
- sodade, on 11/16/2008, -1/+3Yes. I think that the government is responsible for promoting the general well being of our society and not turning into ***** China is a worthwhile endeavor. The government has a responsibility for setting up the playing field of the market so that it encourages corporations that are a net benefit to society and taxes the ***** out of evil corporations ***** dioxin into our shared environment.
- stev31h, on 11/16/2008, -1/+2Well, as far as government's awful investments, i'm a firm believer in the precautionary principle but thats a completely different topic...
I believe that you should penalize some businesses and reward others. Penalizing the coal industry might make them tighten up their practices and look for cleaner ways to go about their business. Mining engineering is one of the most lucrative paying jobs you can get with an undergraduate degree, and these coal companies are raking in major profits. Rewarding other up-and-coming energies can at least let these companies compete, and be accepted by society. I don't think the majority of people look at the whole picture, they only see their monthly electricity bill, so government intervention isn't necessarily a bad thing here. - Trent1492, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1"I think whether or not the coal industry is alive and thriving should be in the hands of the market, not the government."
If actions of the market are going to result or result in tens of thousands of deaths then SOCIETY has a interests in regulating the market. Sorry but what is good for business is not always good for society. In other words, the market is not magic. - BlatheringIdiot, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1'Has a candidate ever been elected president promising to bankrupt an extremely important aspect of the economy?'
YES!- twice.
See: Bush 43 - billricardi, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Let me see. I actually am involved in the process and know exactly how it works.
You aren't.
I'll allow Digg to decide who to believe. - rustintable, on 11/16/2008, -1/+2You should try using that brain for a doorstop it would be put to better use.
New jobs of the information age. Agent of misinformation. - rustintable, on 11/16/2008, -1/+2Duh..
- rustintable, on 11/16/2008, -1/+2Any idiot can see that we need to clean things up and short term costs are no big deal for long term benefits.
- zacharytelschow, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1"Building wind turbines creates jobs."
Broken glass fallacy at its finest. Doing something less efficient and more expensive creates jobs. They let too many freaking people vote in this country... - stev31h, on 11/16/2008, -2/+3So you believe the coal industry should be alive and thriving? If money is the cost, how about the clean-up costs we will pay for supporting a coal industry?
- pstroll, on 11/16/2008, -2/+3Too bad thermodynamics has the only vote that counts.
- zacharytelschow, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1"...it takes years and MILLIONS for any decent sized power plant to go commercial."
It takes years and hundreds of hours of study to get any college degree worth something. Since the time and cost are so high, it probably doesn't pay to bother. - seeingright, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1@skittles.. you got it right about the market should control the energy in this Country.. the rest of these "green beans" are drinking heavy doses of Kool-aide.. 50% of the electricity in America is generated by coal.. if Obama has his way we will find the "off" switch faster than ever.. Oh I forget we can all move out in the sticks and invest in a few batteries and some wind power.. that should give us enough juice to play a video game or two for a few hours..
- notadiggtard, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Surprised?Obama said he would make sure power cost skyrockets and would bankrupt coal plants.He also said $4 gas was fine,he just wanted it to reach that price a bit more slowly.I'm sure he also would like the $4 price to be entirely due to taxes,not market forces too.The first Obama voter who whines to me about it gets my foot up their ass to the knee.
- soupdawg30, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Hmm, you're right there should have been a question mark in there.
Oops. - honukai, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1Wow...someone actually understands environmental economics?
- inactive, on 11/16/2008, -3/+4"Where do you think that money is going to go? It's going to go to wind. It's going to go to solar. It's going to go to something that's going to get built,"
---
Nope. The money is going to go to countries where it is cheaper to build coal power generation plants, like China. The industry is going to go to places where electricity rates are lower, like China. The sheeple is going to bitch about declining living standards. - GovernmentsGun, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1To all the ad hominem users...
- rogerd2, on 11/16/2008, -1/+2Coal companies lease federal land for coal mines at low prices that subsidize the industry. And energy industries such as coal, oil, and nuclear are heavily subsidized by DOE research (the amount for wind & solar is paltry, by comparison). The federal government is already heavily involved in our energy sector.
The coal industry is not your cheaper, tastier pizza. It privatizes the profit and socializes the cost. Coal mines leave behind underground coal fires, water pollution, and subsidence. In coal towns, houses fall into old coal mines, as do parking lots and roads. Mine subsidence in Western Pennsylvania alone puts 200,000 people at risk in Allegheny and Butler counties, according to the PA Department of Environmental Protection.
Who pays the deal with water pollution, coal fires, and subsidence? Taxpayers. Who profits from the coal mines? Private companies. And once the mine closes, the economy collapses.
On the other end of coal power, coal fired power plants pollute lakes & rivers with mercury. According to the EPA, 1 in 6 women have enough mercury in their bloodstream to endanger a developing fetus, most from mercury emitted by burning coal. This leads to developmental disabilities, which have their own human and economic toll.
Who pays to clean up water pollution from coal fired power plants? Taxpayers. Who pays for kids who develop development disabilities because of mercury exposure? Their families and the taxpayers.
Who profits? Coal companies. - DewCrew88, on 11/16/2008, -1/+2if anyone thinks that this is a good idea your sadly mistaken....
the epa killed the auto industry in america and has its eyes set on the entire nation now - xero69, on 11/16/2008, -1/+2This is excellent news as there is no such thing as a zero emissions coal plant and clean coal is an oxymoron. I'm hoping someone can make an affordable residential system soon as I want to get my house OFF of the grid. Efficient home appliances + residential solar or geothermal FTW
- billricardi, on 11/17/2008, -0/+1What exactly does this have to do with my comments? It doesn't change the fact that the fat cats make it insanely hard to hook mid sized alternative energy up to the grid.
I mean, it sounds pithy. But what an awful analogy. - Smedley42, on 11/16/2008, -0/+1"That will eventually make coal power more expensive, which climate-change action advocates hope will make solar, wind, nuclear and other low-carbon technologies more competitive." More competitive with Coal power's higher cost; there's no lowering of the cost of power generated by alternative means.
And so the cost of electricity to the consumer will increase. We all will pay more, not just the utilities.
TANSTAAFL -
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is