Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase ««12

Modeling the Earth Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Thursday, April 18, 2013 10:15 AM
SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, June 13, 2014 12:40 PM
Points: 461, Visits: 753
Jim P. (4/17/2013)
patrickmcginnis59 10839 (4/17/2013)

Now, I'm willing to play devils advocate for either side, so I'm curious about what alternative motivations for each side we can think of? Obviously big measures taken against GW run counter to simple economic performance, and these same measures might be positive to green investors. But remember, simple economic measures also point to unlimited growth in economic activity, and this doesn't seem sustainable, especially given the growth in human population, and if GW is a real issue to be concerned about, we REALLY DO need to be investing in alternative green technologies.


Well I'll let you do the pro/con research into Agenda 21.

But as far as simple things like the CFL light bulbs. The old regular light bulbs pretty much anyone could make and were cheap and disposable. Some how GE and Phillips were the first one's to market when the CFL were being shoved on us. It was done for the environment -- right? So how does saving $0.75 of electricity a month lower the carbon foot print? How much more money is GE making off the CFL bulbs?

Then there are all these wind and solar farms. For the windmill to recoup it's cost takes about 17 years. The expected life time of a windmill is about 15 years.

Then there is Solyndra. They had $535,000,000 in loan guarantees from the federal government. When they went belly up the U.S. taxpayer is on the hook for it and the CEO's walked away with millions.

When there are billions of dollars at stake for "green" energy, the altruism gets mighty powerful.


The even better thing about CFL light bulbs is that they produce the same toxic gas that was used in Germany to kill so many people. A German scientist discovered this, but with very few exceptions, the media didn't feel it was noteworthy to tell the public. All those CFLs I bought went into the garbage! I am waiting for LED lighting to become cost effective, and until then I bought a large stock of incandescent bulbs.

Sorry Mr Immelt and Mr Obama, my family is more important to me than your profits.


Dave
Post #1443984
Posted Thursday, April 18, 2013 10:18 AM
SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, June 13, 2014 12:40 PM
Points: 461, Visits: 753
patrickmcginnis59 10839 (4/17/2013)
[quote]Jim P. (4/17/2013)

Well I'll let you do the pro/con research into Agenda 21.
Then there is Solyndra. They had $535,000,000 in loan guarantees from the federal government. When they went belly up the U.S. taxpayer is on the hook for it and the CEO's walked away with millions.

These I do give you. However its not unheard of that governments have taken risky investments when driving change, look at the arpanet etc... Also, its expected that the earlier the efforts are in the processes of change, the riskier they are. Do we give up?


The US constitution does NOT give the federal government the authority to "invest" in green technology. The "conservative leadership" won't actually do something about the abuse of power, as that might preclude them from abusing that same power when they are in control. The "liberal leadership" won't do anything when the conservatives are in power for the same reason. We, the tax payers, are left paying for billion dollar vacations, jets to fly politicians all over the world, all the time being told we pollute too much. Really?


Dave
Post #1443985
Posted Thursday, April 18, 2013 11:10 AM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, July 25, 2014 4:28 PM
Points: 360, Visits: 2,255
djackson 22568 (4/18/2013)
patrickmcginnis59 10839 (4/17/2013)
[quote]Jim P. (4/17/2013)

Well I'll let you do the pro/con research into Agenda 21.
Then there is Solyndra. They had $535,000,000 in loan guarantees from the federal government. When they went belly up the U.S. taxpayer is on the hook for it and the CEO's walked away with millions.

These I do give you. However its not unheard of that governments have taken risky investments when driving change, look at the arpanet etc... Also, its expected that the earlier the efforts are in the processes of change, the riskier they are. Do we give up?


The US constitution does NOT give the federal government the authority to "invest" in green technology.
I for one however think that its good policy. Private industry won't do it unless there are incentives. I used to be sort of on the fence about this, but some projects fall into a class of endeavours where private industry just lacks even the ability to tackle this stuff. Big important questions that involve all of us are by definition public policy.

This doesn't mean that we need to discount either the conservative, liberal or whatever viewpoint, thats why we have elections to hopefully reach a concensus about big matters.

The "conservative leadership" won't actually do something about the abuse of power, as that might preclude them from abusing that same power when they are in control. The "liberal leadership" won't do anything when the conservatives are in power for the same reason. We, the tax payers, are left paying for billion dollar vacations, jets to fly politicians all over the world, all the time being told we pollute too much. Really?

I don't have to accept billion dollar vacations even when liking public investment with regard to these long term projects.

(fixed tag)
Post #1444028
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««12

Permissions Expand / Collapse