Capt. JG wrote:
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"katy" wrote in message
. com...
KLC Lewis wrote:

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's
see just how much "concern" remains.


At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an
economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That
conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should
be studied.

Not at all. It's a reality-based approach. Environmental Science is
integrally linked to economics. Wasn't that an argument in this thread?
If you take the money away, the problem will go away, right?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

That is partially my point, yes, but not entirely. Remove the "boondoggle"
aspect, including all the government handouts, corporate welfare, grants,
etc., and the clamor over "We've go to act NOW!" will likely diminish
significantly. None of this is about "Saving the Planet," as it is being
touted. Rather, it's about keeping the planet static -- which is an
impossibility.

In the course of human history, we have adapted to an ever-changing
planet. That is what has allowed us to thrive. The most rational reaction
to coastal flooding is to move further inland -- not to attempt to keep
the oceans from rising. If Las Vegas runs out of water, it's not a
national disaster, but chickens coming home to roost. The human ability to
modify our environment only goes so far -- in the end, we have to accept
that the Earth itself is far more powerful than we are, and adapt to its
changes.



Interesting way to look at the disaster that's our own making... I think we
need to fix our problems, urgent problems that affect the hordes of people
who would move away from the coasts (for example) but are unable to do so.
There's an economic issue that is being swept under the rug with this sort
of argument. Not only are the vast numbers of poor unable to "just move,"
but the cost of relocating them and/or populations centers is non-trivial,
and would make the currect financial debacle look like a zit on a flea's
butt.




It's somewhat ironic, the people who should be embracing this concept,
that is that we should try to do something about global warming, man
made or not, are the same who are saying "nothing can be done". There
exists opportunity for making great gobs of money here. Just look at
wind turbine production in the US.

In 2006, there were only two blade production facilities in the US, by
the end of 2008 there were eight. By 2011 the US is expected to exceed
Germany in installed wind energy conversion plant. These things are not
cheap, about a dollar a watt installed cost, and we are talking about
thousands of megawatts, somebody is making money. That they are
coincidently doing something positive for the environment is nice, but
is certainly not the motive driving these installations.

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think
tree huggers are providing the capital for these?

Cheers
Martin

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think
tree huggers are providing the capital for these?

-

yep cause there are more of us than of you and we pay taxes just like
you do.
we also volinteer to clean up trash, mitigate dump sites, replant
trees, make parks, keep trials clear, fight wild fire, tend forests,
clean up creeks and rivers, teach kids how to do for themselves, and
several hundred other things.

while you conservitives dump **** in all the lands and waters and
build **** hole houses and in general pursue your god the doller.

On Jan 9, 11:01*am, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:19:49 -0800 (PST), Two meter troll
said:

while you conservitives

Um...you're making yourself look silly. I think you should go back and read
a few of Marty's posts before calling him that particular name.

I dont really give a flying fig he used a general term as did I.

the old greenies dont pay taxes argument is and always was BS.

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:58:20 -0500, Marty said:

In 2006, there were only two blade production facilities in the US, by
the end of 2008 there were eight. By 2011 the US is expected to exceed
Germany in installed wind energy conversion plant. These things are not
cheap, about a dollar a watt installed cost, and we are talking about
thousands of megawatts, somebody is making money. That they are
coincidently doing something positive for the environment is nice, but
is certainly not the motive driving these installations.

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think
tree huggers are providing the capital for these?

So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?

So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste
in the environment as they feel like.

Cheers
Martin

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think
tree huggers are providing the capital for these?

So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend
taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?

So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste
in the environment as they feel like.

??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as
not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?


Do you think we don't subsidize other industries?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:17:30 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as
not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?


Do you think we don't subsidize other industries?

Ah, the old game of justifying bad behavior by pointing at other bad
behavior.


So, we do then subsidize other industries, which isn't in keeping with "free
market" ideology. Which ones should we stop subsidizing? How about the US
arms industry? How about agribusiness? The former kills 1000s every year,
while subsidizing wind farms would promote energy production which isn't
soley dependent upon foreign oil.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:56:02 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Ah, the old game of justifying bad behavior by pointing at other bad
behavior.


So, we do then subsidize other industries, which isn't in keeping with
"free
market" ideology. Which ones should we stop subsidizing? How about the US
arms industry? How about agribusiness? The former kills 1000s every year,
while subsidizing wind farms would promote energy production which isn't
soley dependent upon foreign oil.

And you simply continue to repeat the same fallacious line of argument.

However, I'm still interested in whether Marty thinks wind farms would be
profitable absent subsidies.


Which fallacious line is that? That we don't subsidize other, much larger
industries that do a lot more human and economic damage? Sorry if the facts
get in the way of your ideology.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On 9 Jan 2009 09:29:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?

They seem to cost about 2cents/kwhr more than conventional coal
plants. In Iowa they provide 5% of the juice . It cost about a buck a
watt to install it, two mill per tower. If the wind blew all the time
a typical windmill would produce energy at the same rate as a 30
bbl/day oil well. You would need more than twice that much crude to
generate that much juice, of course. Another freeby is the methane
from a landfill. Des Moines gets 6.4 megawatt from eight Caterpillar
engines. That' 1070 hp electrical each.. The shaft work from the
engines would be greater.

Casady

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think
tree huggers are providing the capital for these?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste
in the environment as they feel like.

??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?


Why not? You post them all the time.

Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly
idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some
environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green"
energy. More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to
capitalize these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset
their own pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other
reduction technology. Profit is a powerful motivator.

They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why
Texas has so much installed wind plant.

Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG.

Not that I really like either.


Cheers
Martin

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you
think tree huggers are providing the capital for these?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend
taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?
So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste
in the environment as they feel like.

??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as
not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?


Why not? You post them all the time.

Anyway, yes, they offer enough profit; although it's for thoroughly
idiotic reasons. One reason, though somewhat minor is that some
environmentalists are foolish enough to pay a premium for "green" energy.
More important are heavy industries who find that it's great to capitalize
these projects and use the resultant carbon credits to offset their own
pollution and thereby not have to invest heavily in other reduction
technology. Profit is a powerful motivator.

They do make money otherwise, do a little work with Google and see why
Texas has so much installed wind plant.

Even given that, I'd rather the guvmint subsidize clean energy than AIG.

Not that I really like either.


Cheers
Martin



I guess I'm one of those "environmentalists," since I do pay extra every
month for clean energy.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com