Gee dick.... there are not enough of them... On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:26 AM, dick thompson <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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]>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]> >> <[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]> >> <[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]> >> <[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]> 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]> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> [Get Copyright >> Permissions]<http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> >> <http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> >> E-Mail<http://license.icopyright.net/g1/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> >> <http://license.icopyright.net/g1/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | >> Print<http://license.icopyright.net/g2/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> >> <http://license.icopyright.net/g2/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | >> Save<http://license.icopyright.net/s13/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> >> <http://license.icopyright.net/s13/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | >> Post<http://license.icopyright.net/g3/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> >> <http://license.icopyright.net/g3/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Get >> >> >> Photos >> >> >> <http://license.icopyright.net/g5/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> >> <http://license.icopyright.net/g5/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Get >> Reprints <http://license.icopyright.net/s17/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> >> <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 >> >> >> > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
