dream on. We saw what happens when the republicans get even one house back. It was bad enough trying to get something done without 60 senators. Once the Repubs got control of one house nothing has happened. Where are all the jobs from the job creating bills that are to flow from the house?
You must be talking about the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill of 1999. More republicons voted for it than Democrats.
That was the single worst bill passed in recent memory, even worse than the patriot act.
Oh, and about that poll? Oddly enough it didn't have a question that gauged sentiment for carbon limitations if it means significantly higher energy costs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
These polls have been giving consistent results for 2 years now. This is what we Americans really think.
If you were really interested in lowering energy costs you would want to eliminate government subsidies to Big Oil and spend those $billions on green energy. That would lower energy costs.
What you call "subsidies to Big Oil" are almost entirely the normal subtraction of business expenses. They subtract the cost of drilling and exploration from what they take in. That's normal.
Yes, yes. There's a minor advantage in moving up depreciation of something. Keep it or take it, won't make a difference in the price of gas.
Meanwhile, we've been subsidizing solar/wind installation (and research) for decades. Don't pretend you don't know that.
you do realize that the oil and gas companies get subsidies? We are not talking depreciation and the cost of doing business. We are talking cash in pocket.
Did you also know that the oil companies pay no royalties on oil extracted from the gulf?
No royalties on oil from the Gulf? Partially true. It's "certain" wells.
"Normally, when Chevron drills oil on public land, it would pay royalties to the government, ie the taxpayer. But when Chevron drills oil on certain deepwater wells in the Gulf of Mexico, it doesn't have to pay royalties to anyone. That's because back in 1996, Congress decided it would be a good idea to encourage deepwater drilling by offering royalty-free leases in certain areas that wouldn't be otherwise commercially interesting."
In 1996 it seemed a good idea (wasn't) to skip royalites on oil from the gulf. That was a long time ago. At that time it may have seemed a good idea to give them a break. After all, oil prices averages about $32 a barrel. 15 years later with oil anywhere from $75-$100 a barrel to think those same policies make sense is ridiculous. With oil selling today for $50. a barrel more it is time the oil companies started to pay for the oil they extract.
Not paying royalties is a subsidy. It is the same as cash in hand. Getting to write off equipment at rates few other can get is as good as cash in hand. There are many ways to give someone
Information on US Oil Subsidies.
The oil industry as a whole receives up to $113 billion per year in direct federal subsidies.
nothing new here. That is why it is so strange that the republicans are trying to use getting rid of the epa as an election gimmick. Do they not read the polls they do?
Physical properties of elements do not lie and greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are beyond what is considered safe from triggering uncontrolled release of methane and CO2 from natural sources. No amount of voting changes physical properties.
Don't know why this didn't go up but I'll try again.
The multiple frequency response of some super-greenhouse gasses makes them very potent and some of these are in the atmosphere for thousands of years with very little chance of being reduced.
Science has already proven that CO2 has little to no impact on climate changes. Only the ignorant are in favor of crap like this. Arctic ice is growing not shrinking. Between 2007 and today enough ice has come back to cover Manhattan 9000 times. This EPA effort is supported with bad science to out right lies.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
you must be getting your science from some pretty bad places if you think that. particularly after the multiple times that i've shown that exact comment to be wrong.
Physical properties of elements do not lie and greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are beyond what is considered safe from triggering uncontrolled release of methane and CO2 from natural sources. No amount of voting changes physical properties.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Uh, did the poll tell Americans that genuine efforts to reduce carbon emissions would make their lifestyle impossible?
That it would quadruple their electric bill? That it would triple the price of gas, forcing them to move to small apartments in cities?
Well that's good because the climate changes and will continue to do so, forever. There have been 31 ice ages and there's another one on the way. Got your mittens handy?
People don't get that the climate we have today is not the norm. If they were to look at the climate history of our planet they would see that ice ages dominate with short warm periods between them. It's hilarious that we expect the short time we live to be the norm and nothing is allowed to change.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
You don't mind "adapting" to Florida, Texas or Arizona with no a/c?
You don't mind adapting to taking two showers/week cause you can't afford the hot water? You don't mind adapting to no fruit most of the year cause it costs too much to ship it?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dugg. Yes, we are adaptable, but we evolved during weather patterns that have been milder for the most part, nor did we live in cities. If we do not adapt now, before we pass possibly unknown tipping points, no amount of adaptation will allow our bloated populations to survive. Our ability to provide ourselves with food will be destroyed. Most of us will attempt to move to the few remaining cooler areas but the wars will block the vast majority, just as we European/Americans block the desperate from reaching our shores.
An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure! (though it will continue to worsen for decades, none-the-less.)
The whole trouble is that solar and wind can't cut it. Solar actually adds greenhouse gas because they use NF3 in manufacture which is 1700 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas and resides in the upper atmosphere for hundreds of years. They both take up too much land and are unreliable power sources. We spend 0 amount of research dollars on thorium nuclear power plants which have been proven to work and we have thousands of years worth of it here in the US. The policies of Democrats border on the idiotic. They're controlled by the green movement. We are making strides with clean coal and CO2 separators which are patently ignored by the green movement, because they decided they don't like it. We are making 0 progress and spending a lot of money because they have tunnel vision.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Yes, but it can only be subsidiary because it gets dark at night, and cloudy, and it takes up a large amount of area that has to remain in sunlight. Almost all systems remain connected to a grid. The power bought back by the power company is questionable if it peaks at the same time and goes down at the same time. There's just going to be an unused surplus. Probably all right in the summer during the air conditioning season. But, lets face it, it will always remain subsidiary power and is nothing like gas, oil, nuclear, or constantly functioning power supplies. One estimate I saw said we can get 20 percent of our power from solar so it should definitely get a smaller amount of government money. If we just stopped subsidizing all power, it would completely collapse, so solar is getting the biggest favor in the power subsidy game. Coal and oil look big because they are used 99 percent more than solar. It's ridiculous to say it should get the same amount of money.
i meant adapting to a life that isnt dominated by burning fossil fuels and destroying the environment. not destroying the earth as fast as possible for the profit of a few people that arent me, and then adapting to the toxic hell of our creation.
someone else's profit doesnt help me in any way and i would be happy adapting to a lifestyle that isnt based around the profit of a the few selfish people that make it.
it's not my profit, so i dont give half of a f**k about it and i feel no sympathy for their "struggle" to make more of it at my expense.
I don't believe it. In my state (which is included on the "map" asserting the solar is cheaper than grid power) solar installations are subsidized generously.
Have been for years. Yet you can drive around for hours and not see an installation. Why?
someone should tell you that doing nothing just might kill you and your kids. If you are right and nothing happens thats great. If you are wrong and the scientists are correct you die. Can you afford to take that chance?
I appreciate your position. Here's another position:
If I am "right and nothing happens thats great"? Except that we'll have to drive ourselves into penury and condemn millions of people in Asia, Africa and S America to permanent hopeless poverty.
There's no substitute for fossil fuels right now. None. Why do you think China is building two coal fire plants a week for the next ten years?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
you have no sources for that at all mostly because it is bulls**t.
Even China is starting to get on the green energy bandwagon. What happened to America being a leader in industry instead of a nay sayer?
In fact, they're already cornering the green energy markets, though they continue expanding their own coal dependence too. We're way behind, and they invest much more heavily in the green industries than we.
and the best you can do is find an article from 2007. Just a bit out of date there. You need to look at what China has started to do. Something the US is backing away from. You may want air you can cut with a knife, I like to breath.
The energy they get from "renewable" sources is virtually all from hydro. Which they get by building giant dams. Something we won't do here anymore.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
When you say "renewable", people think solar/wind. But here's China's actual plan:
"Chinese Government Renewable Energy Targets for 2020
Hydro: 300 gigawatts
Nuclear: 40 gw
Biomass: 30 gw
Wind: 30 gw
Solar: 1.8 gw"
Of course, there is no Freedom of Information Act in a Communist dictatorship. The truth is their industry runs on coal. And they're building coal-fired electric plants at the rate of two per week.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
anomaly100Sep 25, 2011
2 people just buried this. I wish I could digg it again.
rodiogalSep 25, 2011
The GOP are fighting on all fronts. Vote them out, one by one.
kasha34Sep 26, 2011
Like in Nov 2010?
countess666Sep 26, 2011
for the party not in power during a major economic downturn... their victory was nothing remarkable.
kasha34Sep 26, 2011
That's correct. Which is what will happen Nov 2012 too.
99butcher99Sep 26, 2011
dream on. We saw what happens when the republicans get even one house back. It was bad enough trying to get something done without 60 senators. Once the Repubs got control of one house nothing has happened. Where are all the jobs from the job creating bills that are to flow from the house?
kasha34Sep 26, 2011
The message of the Nov 2010 election was this:
We don't want any more "job creating bills". Get it?
miklkitSep 28, 2011
We hear you party before Country thugs loud and clear. You are 110% against anything that will help get America back to work again.
You have had you tax cuts and unfunded wars for a decade now. So.........
WHERE ARE THE JOBS????
kasha34Sep 28, 2011
@miklkit
Where are the jobs? We were doing just fine until the sub-prime mortgage bomb the Dems lit in the mid 90s finally went off in 2008.
miklkitSep 28, 2011
No you were not doing fine. You own the worst record on job creation on record. Aren't you proud?
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/28/256605/chart-lower-taxes-on-the-rich-dont-lead-to-job-growth/
You must be talking about the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill of 1999. More republicons voted for it than Democrats.
That was the single worst bill passed in recent memory, even worse than the patriot act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act
miklkitSep 28, 2011
Oops! Just came across another Big Oil subsidy. Or tax break. Same thing.
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/671931/perry_appointees_may_raid_public_school_funds_to_give_oil_refineries_$135_million_tax_break/
rodiogalSep 28, 2011
The GOP hasn't controlled the House since Newt & one thing is clear: The 112th GOP Congress doesn't have a clue.
Byers remorse abounds!
:D OBAMA 2012!
rodiogalSep 28, 2011
OH here it is now. Never-mind Digg
arpadSep 25, 2011
I just buried it. I wish I could bury it again.
Oh, and about that poll? Oddly enough it didn't have a question that gauged sentiment for carbon limitations if it means significantly higher energy costs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitSep 25, 2011
These polls have been giving consistent results for 2 years now. This is what we Americans really think.
If you were really interested in lowering energy costs you would want to eliminate government subsidies to Big Oil and spend those $billions on green energy. That would lower energy costs.
https://sites.google.com/site/nvcphotos/11
kasha34Sep 26, 2011
What you call "subsidies to Big Oil" are almost entirely the normal subtraction of business expenses. They subtract the cost of drilling and exploration from what they take in. That's normal.
Yes, yes. There's a minor advantage in moving up depreciation of something. Keep it or take it, won't make a difference in the price of gas.
Meanwhile, we've been subsidizing solar/wind installation (and research) for decades. Don't pretend you don't know that.
99butcher99Sep 26, 2011
you do realize that the oil and gas companies get subsidies? We are not talking depreciation and the cost of doing business. We are talking cash in pocket.
Did you also know that the oil companies pay no royalties on oil extracted from the gulf?
kasha34Sep 26, 2011
Oil subsidies? Cash in pocket? Cite please.
No royalties on oil from the Gulf? Partially true. It's "certain" wells.
"Normally, when Chevron drills oil on public land, it would pay royalties to the government, ie the taxpayer. But when Chevron drills oil on certain deepwater wells in the Gulf of Mexico, it doesn't have to pay royalties to anyone. That's because back in 1996, Congress decided it would be a good idea to encourage deepwater drilling by offering royalty-free leases in certain areas that wouldn't be otherwise commercially interesting."
99butcher99Sep 26, 2011
you wanted links to how oil companies are subsidized. here you go. One out of thousands. When something is easy to find sources are usually not required.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?_r=1
In 1996 it seemed a good idea (wasn't) to skip royalites on oil from the gulf. That was a long time ago. At that time it may have seemed a good idea to give them a break. After all, oil prices averages about $32 a barrel. 15 years later with oil anywhere from $75-$100 a barrel to think those same policies make sense is ridiculous. With oil selling today for $50. a barrel more it is time the oil companies started to pay for the oil they extract.
99butcher99Sep 26, 2011
Not paying royalties is a subsidy. It is the same as cash in hand. Getting to write off equipment at rates few other can get is as good as cash in hand. There are many ways to give someone
Information on US Oil Subsidies.
The oil industry as a whole receives up to $113 billion per year in direct federal subsidies.
miklkitSep 28, 2011
You want evidence? Here it comes.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/big_oil_spigot.html
http://www.good.is/post/transparency-how-much-does-the-united-states-subsidize-energy/
https://sites.google.com/site/nvcphotos/11
Who cares? It's not much. $35 billion here, $72 billion there.............
kasha34Sep 28, 2011
Those are not subsidies, regardless of what the article says. They're the normal subtracting of business expenses from receipts.
Why Oil & Gas Tax Treatments Are Not Unique or “Subsidies”
http://www.api.org/policy/tax/upload/Oil-Gas-Tax-Treatments-Not-Subsidies_April2011.pdf
oracleoflightSep 25, 2011
Yet many in the GOP want to end the EPA as we know it, even though Nixon signed it into being
99butcher99Sep 25, 2011
nothing new here. That is why it is so strange that the republicans are trying to use getting rid of the epa as an election gimmick. Do they not read the polls they do?
kasha34Sep 26, 2011
Once you point out it will triple our electric bill -- we don't want it.
skyislandSep 25, 2011
Physical properties of elements do not lie and greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are beyond what is considered safe from triggering uncontrolled release of methane and CO2 from natural sources. No amount of voting changes physical properties.
Don't know why this didn't go up but I'll try again.
The multiple frequency response of some super-greenhouse gasses makes them very potent and some of these are in the atmosphere for thousands of years with very little chance of being reduced.
rodiogalSep 28, 2011
Is someone trying to suppress my comment replies? I just replied to Kashsa & can't find it.
Here it is again:
The GOP hasn't controlled the House since Newt & one thing is clear: The 112th Congress doesn't have a clue as to how to govern and pass policy.
Most of the ppl that voted the #TeaParty & #GOP in during the last midterm have BUYERS REMORSE now.
:D OBAMA 2012!
anomaly100Sep 25, 2011
2 people just buried this. I wish I could digg it again.
norman619Sep 25, 2011
Science has already proven that CO2 has little to no impact on climate changes. Only the ignorant are in favor of crap like this. Arctic ice is growing not shrinking. Between 2007 and today enough ice has come back to cover Manhattan 9000 times. This EPA effort is supported with bad science to out right lies.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Sep 26, 2011
you must be getting your science from some pretty bad places if you think that. particularly after the multiple times that i've shown that exact comment to be wrong.
yet you keep saying it.
skyislandSep 25, 2011
Physical properties of elements do not lie and greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are beyond what is considered safe from triggering uncontrolled release of methane and CO2 from natural sources. No amount of voting changes physical properties.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dougnic55Sep 26, 2011
yah but the rich don't get it...so it won't happen...
kasha34Sep 25, 2011
Uh, did the poll tell Americans that genuine efforts to reduce carbon emissions would make their lifestyle impossible?
That it would quadruple their electric bill? That it would triple the price of gas, forcing them to move to small apartments in cities?
Did the poll tell Americans that "eating local" means no oranges north of Florida? No bananas anywhere in the US?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Sep 25, 2011
the funny thing about humans is that we can adapt to new lifestyles and some of us arent afraid of change.
bcronosSep 25, 2011
Well that's good because the climate changes and will continue to do so, forever. There have been 31 ice ages and there's another one on the way. Got your mittens handy?
norman619Sep 25, 2011
People don't get that the climate we have today is not the norm. If they were to look at the climate history of our planet they would see that ice ages dominate with short warm periods between them. It's hilarious that we expect the short time we live to be the norm and nothing is allowed to change.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Sep 25, 2011
You don't mind "adapting" to Florida, Texas or Arizona with no a/c?
You don't mind adapting to taking two showers/week cause you can't afford the hot water? You don't mind adapting to no fruit most of the year cause it costs too much to ship it?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elisevilleSep 26, 2011
dugg. Yes, we are adaptable, but we evolved during weather patterns that have been milder for the most part, nor did we live in cities. If we do not adapt now, before we pass possibly unknown tipping points, no amount of adaptation will allow our bloated populations to survive. Our ability to provide ourselves with food will be destroyed. Most of us will attempt to move to the few remaining cooler areas but the wars will block the vast majority, just as we European/Americans block the desperate from reaching our shores.
An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure! (though it will continue to worsen for decades, none-the-less.)
yurmutha412Sep 27, 2011
The whole trouble is that solar and wind can't cut it. Solar actually adds greenhouse gas because they use NF3 in manufacture which is 1700 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas and resides in the upper atmosphere for hundreds of years. They both take up too much land and are unreliable power sources. We spend 0 amount of research dollars on thorium nuclear power plants which have been proven to work and we have thousands of years worth of it here in the US. The policies of Democrats border on the idiotic. They're controlled by the green movement. We are making strides with clean coal and CO2 separators which are patently ignored by the green movement, because they decided they don't like it. We are making 0 progress and spending a lot of money because they have tunnel vision.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitSep 28, 2011
But it is so much better than subsidized oil, and it will get more efficient as our technology improves.
https://sites.google.com/site/nvcphotos/11
yurmutha412Sep 28, 2011
Yes, but it can only be subsidiary because it gets dark at night, and cloudy, and it takes up a large amount of area that has to remain in sunlight. Almost all systems remain connected to a grid. The power bought back by the power company is questionable if it peaks at the same time and goes down at the same time. There's just going to be an unused surplus. Probably all right in the summer during the air conditioning season. But, lets face it, it will always remain subsidiary power and is nothing like gas, oil, nuclear, or constantly functioning power supplies. One estimate I saw said we can get 20 percent of our power from solar so it should definitely get a smaller amount of government money. If we just stopped subsidizing all power, it would completely collapse, so solar is getting the biggest favor in the power subsidy game. Coal and oil look big because they are used 99 percent more than solar. It's ridiculous to say it should get the same amount of money.
particleman420Sep 26, 2011
i meant adapting to a life that isnt dominated by burning fossil fuels and destroying the environment. not destroying the earth as fast as possible for the profit of a few people that arent me, and then adapting to the toxic hell of our creation.
kamtsaSep 26, 2011
Profit is good.
ninhSep 26, 2011
That profit makes it possible that you live better (and most likely longer) than a king in the 18th century.
particleman420Sep 26, 2011
someone else's profit doesnt help me in any way and i would be happy adapting to a lifestyle that isnt based around the profit of a the few selfish people that make it.
it's not my profit, so i dont give half of a f**k about it and i feel no sympathy for their "struggle" to make more of it at my expense.
kamtsaSep 28, 2011
Yes, poverty for all, That the socialist messages we keep getting from particle and Obama.
particleman420Sep 26, 2011
profit at the expense of everyone else is not good.
kamtsaSep 28, 2011
And poverty for all is your socialist ideal.
miklkitSep 25, 2011
BU**SH**!!
https://sites.google.com/site/nvcphotos/11
kasha34Sep 25, 2011
I don't believe it. In my state (which is included on the "map" asserting the solar is cheaper than grid power) solar installations are subsidized generously.
Have been for years. Yet you can drive around for hours and not see an installation. Why?
Cause the "pay off" is 25 or 30 years.
Translation:
That means there IS no payoff.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elisevilleSep 26, 2011
Both of them. The first Bush is the one that started rewriting Dr. Hansen's findings in the '80s.
99butcher99Sep 25, 2011
someone should tell you that doing nothing just might kill you and your kids. If you are right and nothing happens thats great. If you are wrong and the scientists are correct you die. Can you afford to take that chance?
kasha34Sep 26, 2011
I appreciate your position. Here's another position:
If I am "right and nothing happens thats great"? Except that we'll have to drive ourselves into penury and condemn millions of people in Asia, Africa and S America to permanent hopeless poverty.
There's no substitute for fossil fuels right now. None. Why do you think China is building two coal fire plants a week for the next ten years?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
99butcher99Sep 26, 2011
you have no sources for that at all mostly because it is bulls**t.
Even China is starting to get on the green energy bandwagon. What happened to America being a leader in industry instead of a nay sayer?
elisevilleSep 26, 2011
In fact, they're already cornering the green energy markets, though they continue expanding their own coal dependence too. We're way behind, and they invest much more heavily in the green industries than we.
kasha34Sep 26, 2011
They're cornering the market on manufacturing solar panels, for example. To sell to us. For themselves, they back coal.
kasha34Sep 26, 2011
No sources?
"China is completing two new coal plants per week. "
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/chinas-2030-co2/
"China is now building about two power stations every week,"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6769743.stm
China doesn't back solar or wind.
Coal, nuclear and hydropower.
Of course, they're happy to build solar panels and wind turbines and sell them to us. Why not?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
99butcher99Sep 26, 2011
and the best you can do is find an article from 2007. Just a bit out of date there. You need to look at what China has started to do. Something the US is backing away from. You may want air you can cut with a knife, I like to breath.
countess666Sep 26, 2011
china also has a commitment to having 20% of its energy come from renewable sources by 2020. and its actually getting there.
17% of its electric power already came from renewable sources in 2007!
kasha34Sep 26, 2011
The energy they get from "renewable" sources is virtually all from hydro. Which they get by building giant dams. Something we won't do here anymore.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Sep 26, 2011
When you say "renewable", people think solar/wind. But here's China's actual plan:
"Chinese Government Renewable Energy Targets for 2020
Hydro: 300 gigawatts
Nuclear: 40 gw
Biomass: 30 gw
Wind: 30 gw
Solar: 1.8 gw"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6769743.stm
Of course, there is no Freedom of Information Act in a Communist dictatorship. The truth is their industry runs on coal. And they're building coal-fired electric plants at the rate of two per week.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
99butcher99Sep 26, 2011
again, a 2007 report. Lets at least get in the same decade. Next you will be giving links to the 1900s