And they are not capable of meeting even a small percentage of the US use of electricity. Nor will they be able to in the near future.
I was talking about the carbon credits. The credits are used to plant trees, not windmills. Guess you missed that point. Mark wrote: > > Dick, > > Just what are you talking about..... Alternative energy sources exist > NOW. just go to Palm Springs and look at the hill sides... anybody can > count the numbers of wind turbines.. no science involved. A > geo-thermal plant is easily identified as is a nuclear plant and a > hydoelectric dam, hearing people KNOW the difference between an > electric car and a gas/diesel motor (the deaf look for the tail pipe > or lack thereof) There is NO mystery in accountability. You simply > use oil profits to put itself out of business. > > > > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:36 AM, dick thompson > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > How would you do that and how would you enforce it. > > Reminds me of the carbon trade/carbon credits scam. You pay x > amount of dollars to plant trees somewhere and that gives you the > right to trash the regulatory laws about energy use. At what > point do you prove that those dollars actually planted trees that > are going to be taken care of and replace the carbon you used up. > That part of the equation is missing. Do you think that those > peons who plant the trees are going to insure that they grow and > prosper? If you don't enforce the one side of the equation, then > you do not have an equation at all, you have a scam, and that is > what it is. Same principle with your suggestion. I can throw x > amount of dollars at alternate energy source research but unless > it is actually tracked to make sure it is used as it is supposed > to be then it is garbage. Look at the AGW conference that was > held earlier this year. They held it in Bali and the attendees > all flew in on their private jets for a week of swanning around a > fancy resort and making soundbites about all the good they were > doing. Then they got back in their private jets and flew > elsewhere to tell us we need to conserve energy and use one sheet > of toilet paper and pay twice as much in gas tax and pay more for > heating and cooling because it is for the good of the environment > and for the cheeellllddddrrrreeeennnn. Thank you Algore. > > THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: >> Keith, who owns and therefore profits from oil exploration and >> subsequent drilling has EVERYTHING to do with whether or not it is >> actually done or even allowed. If the Gringo-American people actually >> had a vested interest in oil and its profits (not just the taxes from >> its use) you could bet that derricks would be springing up all over >> the place as well as refineries and piping systems. Why should they >> take the chance on despoiling the natural beauty of an area just to >> have a multinational take the money and run ?? Unfettered drilling >> and profit taking by oil that stayed at home would be a great boon and >> even the looneys know that and would, I'm sure, be in favor especially >> if a portion of that profit would be used solely for developing >> alternative energy and eventually CLOSING the wells and refineries. >> The Chinese get it.... but they despoil OTHER countries and areas to >> accomplish the goal of garnering profit for their Government. >> >> On Jun 27, 6:02 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Holly, >>> >>> I don't know what your comment has to do with our Nation having a >>> comprehensive energy plan. The Chinese at the behest of Cuba is >>> getting >>> ready to start drilling just a few miles off of our coastline for oil. >>> We >>> are not, because of the current Administration, who has refused to >>> allow for >>> more oil exploration, and instead is "capping and trading" energy, under >>> some policy based on fraudulent, non-existent scientific data that >>> claims we >>> are "Globally Warming". >>> >>> Again, I haven't seen you up in arms about our current lack of a >>> comprehensive energy plan. >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Hollywood >>> <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> KIT, >>>> >>>> The Chinese and Cubans are communists, they own the oil industry in >>>> their respective countries. They might well pay a private Corp. to >>>> explore for and even bring up the product (oil) but the Govt.'s of >>>> China & Cuba OWN it. >>>> >>>> On Jun 27, 5:33 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Why would we want the government involved in regulating this? Why >>>>> would >>>>> >>>> we >>>> >>>>> want the government involved in "capping or trading" energy? >>>>> >>>>> Why is our government not encouraging a Comprehensive Energy Policy, >>>>> >>>> which >>>> >>>>> promotes alternative energies while also attempting to allow for >>>>> private >>>>> entities to explore for more oil reserves, as are the Chinese and >>>>> Cubans >>>>> right off of our coast? >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:15 PM, ConservativeJack < >>>>> >>>> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I don't see anything surprising here. Alternative Energy providers >>>>>> say >>>>>> this is a good thing and that it will all be peachy in the end. >>>>>> The companies that stand to lose billions or even eventually be put >>>>>> out of business, claim it's doom and gloom. >>>>>> What else would anyone expect to be said by the opposing sides? >>>>>> So the choice is I can believe one or the other, based on what I WANT >>>>>> to believe, or I can believe that both are stating things in terms >>>>>> that suit their own interests and that things will probably end up >>>>>> (as >>>>>> always) neither as bad or good as predicted. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 27, 10:35 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> [Get Copyright Permissions] >>>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> E-Mail >>>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/g1/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Print >>>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/g2/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Save >>>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/s13/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Post >>>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/g3/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Get >>>>>>> >>>> Photos >>>> >>>>>>> <http://license.icopyright.net/g5/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Get >>>>>>> Reprints <http://license.icopyright.net/s17/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> >>>>>>> >>>> | >>>> >>>>>>> Reuse Options <http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jun 27, 11:12 AM EDT >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Winners and losers emerge in climate bill >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By CHRIS KAHN >>>>>>> AP Energy Writer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> NEW YORK (AP) -- In addition to raising energy prices, the climate >>>>>>> legislation that's winding through Congress would create a parallel >>>>>>> financial system with a carbon-based currency. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The House on Friday narrowly passed landmark legislation meant to >>>>>>> >>>> curb >>>> >>>>>>> greenhouse gas emissions and create an energy-efficient economy, >>>>>>> >>>> voting >>>> >>>>>>> 219-212. President Barack Obama on Saturday urged senators to follow >>>>>>> >>>>>> suit. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Everyone from small farmers to nuclear energy companies would be >>>>>>> >>>> forced >>>> >>>>>>> to re-evaluate their place in the new order. Power plants, factories >>>>>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>>>>> refineries would feel the first impact if the federal government >>>>>>> >>>> moves >>>> >>>>>>> ahead with plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from >>>>>>> >>>> 2005 >>>> >>>>>>> levels by 2020 and by about 80 percent near the end of the century. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The sharply debated bill's fate is unclear in the Senate. A major >>>>>>> struggle is expected with 60 votes needed to overcome a certain >>>>>>> Republican filibuster. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How much it will affect other industries is still a matter of >>>>>>> intense >>>>>>> debate, though the primary winners and losers are already emerging. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Winners: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable energy companies, >>>>>>> >>>> including >>>> >>>>>>> nuclear, are some of the obvious winners in a carbon economy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In addition to the billions of federal stimulus dollars they expect >>>>>>> >>>> to >>>> >>>>>>> receive, those industries can expect to see a huge boost in >>>>>>> >>>> investment >>>> >>>>>>> as utilities and power companies are forced to cut their carbon >>>>>>> emissions. Companies like Florida Power & Light Co., Arizona Public >>>>>>> Service, Southern California Edison and others are already investing >>>>>>> >>>> in >>>> >>>>>>> solar farms and other renewable energy projects, and they'll likely >>>>>>> spend even more to increase the mix of carbon-neutral energy >>>>>>> sources. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Farmers also will find new ways to make money in a carbon economy. >>>>>>> Carbon consultants like the International Carbon Bank & Exchange in >>>>>>> Florida see huge potential in agriculture for managing carbon >>>>>>> >>>> emissions. >>>> >>>>>>> Farmers that till their soil differently or apply new environmental >>>>>>> techniques can get money by cooperating with a polluter as a carbon >>>>>>> "offset." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Owners of large tracts of forest land also will get a lot of >>>>>>> interest >>>>>>> from the business community. Like farmers, environmental experts see >>>>>>> them as a huge player in the carbon economy because of their natural >>>>>>> ability to absorb carbon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Louis Blumberg, director of climate change for the Nature >>>>>>> >>>> Conservancy's >>>> >>>>>>> California chapter, envisions a system in which forest owners could >>>>>>> >>>> make >>>> >>>>>>> money simply by signing an agreement to cut down fewer trees for >>>>>>> >>>> lumber. >>>> >>>>>>> The Nature Conservancy did just that last year with the Conservation >>>>>>> Fund, a nonprofit agency that owns about 24,000 acres of redwood and >>>>>>> douglas fir forest northwest of San Francisco. The groups changed >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> logging schedule on the property, and the fund expects to receive >>>>>>> >>>> about >>>> >>>>>>> $2 million from Pacific Gas and Electric, which participates in a >>>>>>> regional climate initiative similar to the one that the >>>>>>> Waxman-Markey >>>>>>> bill would create around the country. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "This is really a model of what can happen," Blumberg said. >>>>>>> "Property >>>>>>> owners everywhere want to figure out a way to be part of this." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Losers: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyone who pays an electric bill would likely feel the impact of >>>>>>> >>>> climate >>>> >>>>>>> legislation. Utilities will try to raise rates as they invest in >>>>>>> cleaner-yet-more-expensive energy sources. Some have already >>>>>>> >>>> announced >>>> >>>>>>> plans to do so. Petroleum companies also may try to import more of >>>>>>> >>>> their >>>> >>>>>>> refined gas and heating oil from countries with no carbon law, which >>>>>>> will raise costs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental >>>>>>> Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> affect energy costs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household. >>>>>>> >>>> The >>>> >>>>>>> EPA forecasts $80 to $110 a year. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The American Petroleum Institute disputed both estimates, saying the >>>>>>> bill could cost the average household up to $3,300 by 2020. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "That is more than a few postage stamps," API President Jack Gerard >>>>>>> >>>> said >>>> >>>>>>> in a slap at Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. Markey has compared new >>>>>>> >>>> energy >>>> >>>>>>> costs to a postage stamp per day. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> API has tried to paint the bill as a job killer that would choke off >>>>>>> efforts to pull the economy out of recession. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "While we support creating new jobs, the legislation offers an >>>>>>> unnecessary and false choice of eliminating good jobs in the oil and >>>>>>> natural gas industry to create green jobs," Gerard said. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oil and gas companies have spent record amounts of money lobbying >>>>>>> Congress recently as they try to blunt the impact of the bill. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Refiners, in particular, say the inherent costs in the legislation >>>>>>> >>>> could >>>> >>>>>>> shift some fuel production outside the U.S., where refiners would >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> >>>> be >>>> >>>>>>> bound by its provisions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association also says the >>>>>>> legislation hurts them two different ways, by capping emissions from >>>>>>> refineries as well as emissions from the fuels they produce. But >>>>>>> refiners say they are not recieving enough credits. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The association says the legislation could cost U.S. refiners as >>>>>>> much >>>>>>> >>>> as >>>> >>>>>>> $58 billion a year. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Coal miners also are worried because it might cut into demand for >>>>>>> >>>> coal, >>>> >>>>>>> which is loaded with carbon. Mining also uses a lot of energy, so >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> rise in energy costs would hurt their bottom line. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The country gets about half of its electricity from coal. Some >>>>>>> >>>> utilities >>>> >>>>>>> that rely on coal to generate much of their electricity worried >>>>>>> about >>>>>>> initial versions of the legislation that they said would lead to >>>>>>> skyrocketing rates. The current version will mean much smaller >>>>>>> increases, they said. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power said the legislation >>>>>>> >>>> will >>>> >>>>>>> send rates about 25 percent higher by 2015; the initial version >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> have meant rate hikes of 65 percent to 75 percent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another big utility that relies on coal, Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke >>>>>>> Energy, said the legislation creates regulatory certainty for an >>>>>>> industry that spends billions on capital >>>>>>> >>> ... >>> >>> read more ยป- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> - Show quoted text - >>> >> > > > -- > Mark M. Kahle, , > www.filacoffee.com <http://www.filacoffee.com> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
