environment.newscientist.com— Rural families can slash their energy costs, improve their health and help preserve local forests by harvesting natural gas from rotting manure, researchers argue.
May 12, 2008View in Crawl 4
We will control you, we will tax you and make you dependent on the government, individualism or as that **** from the nation likes to say "hyper individualism is bad.We are the left, we will save you from the disasters.I cant believe people are so willing to submit, stop social networking and do something real.
Moreover, there's a lot of government money going to Big Oil, and not so much going to Bulls**t Digestion. A common mistake that people make when they say, "let the market work itself out" is that they assume the government isn't already intervening. That is clearly not the case here. Among other things, the US government pays farmers to let surplus corn rot rather than sell it or give it to the hungry in 3rd world countries. So in this case, I partially agree with BikeMessenger that government intervention has the potential to mess things up. Since farming is such a difficult way to make money, the government probably shouldn't stop intervening, but something does need to change.Another problem with BikeMessenger's argument is that it assumes that the market already knows about this technology. Hell, this technology's been out for years, but it seems like folks are only starting to learn about it now. Any technology that turns waste into something beneficial is probably worth putting some thought into, and I hope we hear more about it in the near future.The initial costs of a digester may be high, but I've heard from a pretty reliable source that one of these will pay for itself a lot faster than other green technologies like solar cells. So maybe there should be some government funding/subsidies going towards digesting the tons of excrement that American livestock generate each day.
I know you really want to believe what you are saying. I understand that you are scared. I get it that you don't trust scientists, since what, they went to fancy schools and all. And that you think that they sat up one day and said, "It's the humans!" I'm sure you think that all the scientists meet in some undisclosed location every year to design more and more ways to profit from their findings. But please take your head out of your ass and stop pretending that you have any leg to stand on other than your piddly little opinion.It's getting really boring.
Shady,I also responded to Kooz's comment above.I think you make a strong point about government subsidies, and how they tend to distort the market. There is a lot of money going to Big Oil, and very little going to s**t digestion. I am as strongly opposed to farm subsidies as i am to petroleum subsidies as i am to bulls**t digestion subsidies. However, I won't argue with the intentions that started each of these programs: each started out as a way to 'correct' an 'imperfect' market situation, and in the short term may have had some small effect. But it is clear from these and other programs that the effect of government subsidies is to stifle the market and to create anomalies that otherwise would have reached a more natural equilibrium. Ex - in absence of government farm subsidy, we might be eating more fruits and vegetables instead of corn and sugar based products (and all the chemical variants and combinations of the two, think twinkie's) because they would be closer to the same price.As far as advertisement, it is evident that this is something the market can do (maybe too) well by itself. I would argue that the market is probably aware of this equipment, but has chosen not to buy it, either because of cost (maybe) but probably because, well, would you want a huge vat of s**t right next to your house?Your last point, about digesting livestock s**t in the US, is a good point. However, instead of starting a new program to subsidize the digesters to farmers, how about we strengthen the runoff pollution laws already in place? This would make digesters attractive as an easy way for farmers to 'clean up' their runoff, and produce some valuable fuel at the same time. No subsidy needed, no coaxing, just make them abide by the laws that are in place and the market will help them find the appropriate solution.-BikeMessenger
davewashereMay 13, 2008
Please reread the article, it answers your question.
Closed AccountMay 13, 2008
We will control you, we will tax you and make you dependent on the government, individualism or as that **** from the nation likes to say "hyper individualism is bad.We are the left, we will save you from the disasters.I cant believe people are so willing to submit, stop social networking and do something real.
shadywasabiMay 13, 2008
Moreover, there's a lot of government money going to Big Oil, and not so much going to Bulls**t Digestion. A common mistake that people make when they say, "let the market work itself out" is that they assume the government isn't already intervening. That is clearly not the case here. Among other things, the US government pays farmers to let surplus corn rot rather than sell it or give it to the hungry in 3rd world countries. So in this case, I partially agree with BikeMessenger that government intervention has the potential to mess things up. Since farming is such a difficult way to make money, the government probably shouldn't stop intervening, but something does need to change.Another problem with BikeMessenger's argument is that it assumes that the market already knows about this technology. Hell, this technology's been out for years, but it seems like folks are only starting to learn about it now. Any technology that turns waste into something beneficial is probably worth putting some thought into, and I hope we hear more about it in the near future.The initial costs of a digester may be high, but I've heard from a pretty reliable source that one of these will pay for itself a lot faster than other green technologies like solar cells. So maybe there should be some government funding/subsidies going towards digesting the tons of excrement that American livestock generate each day.
frostbytMay 13, 2008
PSAThis natural heating cycle the earth is going into can be misinterpreted for global warming.The more you knows.
amoro99May 13, 2008
I know you really want to believe what you are saying. I understand that you are scared. I get it that you don't trust scientists, since what, they went to fancy schools and all. And that you think that they sat up one day and said, "It's the humans!" I'm sure you think that all the scientists meet in some undisclosed location every year to design more and more ways to profit from their findings. But please take your head out of your ass and stop pretending that you have any leg to stand on other than your piddly little opinion.It's getting really boring.
bikemessengerMay 25, 2008
Shady,I also responded to Kooz's comment above.I think you make a strong point about government subsidies, and how they tend to distort the market. There is a lot of money going to Big Oil, and very little going to s**t digestion. I am as strongly opposed to farm subsidies as i am to petroleum subsidies as i am to bulls**t digestion subsidies. However, I won't argue with the intentions that started each of these programs: each started out as a way to 'correct' an 'imperfect' market situation, and in the short term may have had some small effect. But it is clear from these and other programs that the effect of government subsidies is to stifle the market and to create anomalies that otherwise would have reached a more natural equilibrium. Ex - in absence of government farm subsidy, we might be eating more fruits and vegetables instead of corn and sugar based products (and all the chemical variants and combinations of the two, think twinkie's) because they would be closer to the same price.As far as advertisement, it is evident that this is something the market can do (maybe too) well by itself. I would argue that the market is probably aware of this equipment, but has chosen not to buy it, either because of cost (maybe) but probably because, well, would you want a huge vat of s**t right next to your house?Your last point, about digesting livestock s**t in the US, is a good point. However, instead of starting a new program to subsidize the digesters to farmers, how about we strengthen the runoff pollution laws already in place? This would make digesters attractive as an easy way for farmers to 'clean up' their runoff, and produce some valuable fuel at the same time. No subsidy needed, no coaxing, just make them abide by the laws that are in place and the market will help them find the appropriate solution.-BikeMessenger