Europe exits climate money pit as Obama jumps in by Jongsstraw

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The EU's per capita energy use is one-half of ours. Whatever they've done to reduce their energy use has been successful. I take issue with many of the specifics of this article, but especially this:

Quote:
Obama is also doing it without learning from the European Union's green energy experience: skyrocketing energy prices, a ruinous slide into fuel poverty, solar panel financial meltdown, wind power bankruptcies and the specter of EU disintegration. As a result, the EU suffered an outbreak of realism

The EU is facing disintegration because of green energy??? That's almost like blaming the EU financial crisis on Fannie and Freddie! I thought the EU is facing disintegration because of too-tight austerity after the financial meltdown, which is causing economic collapse.

When I read such ridiculous overreach, everything else becomes suspect. Sheesh.

-----------------

Report: The Pentagon Has No Idea How Much Money It Loses to Improper Payments

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/14/report-the-pentagon-has-no-
idea-how-much-money-it-loses-to-improper-payments/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2013 4:30 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The EU's per capita energy use is one-half of ours.

And always has been. More to the point, their carbon emissions have always been less than half.

Western Europe's per capita carbon emissions topped out at 2.34 tons in 1979 and dropped to 2.09 by 2008, an 11% decrease.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2_emis/weu.dat

For some reason the CDIAC lists Germany seperately from the rest of Western Europe. Ther max carbon was 3.90 in 1979, and down to 2.61 in 2008 for a 33% drop. Sounds good, but remember this period covers the reunification of Germany, and the shutdown of very dirty Soviet-era coal plants in former East Germany.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/emissions/ger.dat

Once again, CDIAC lists the U.S. and Canada as one unit, North America. North America's highest carbon number was 5.83 tons in 1973, and dropped to 4.85 in 2008, for a 17% reduction. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2_emis/nam.dat

Quote:
Whatever they've done to reduce their energy use has been successful.

They started out lower.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2013 5:01 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sig, it's an opinion piece from the executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. It's so slanted and full of holes, it's not worth debating.

The fact is that everything that's been done in America "in the last twenty years" has been done almost exclusively despite heavy resistance, and it ain't much compared to what it could have been. Despite that, there's a lot to show for it, and what the question "is the climate any better?" ignores is just how much WORSE it might be without the efforts we have made.

Germany stand out as one of the few relatively healthy economies in the world these days, and they're all about renewable energy and combatting climate change. There's tons out there on the issue, starting with "Germany Has Built Clean Energy Economy That U.S. Rejected 30 Years Ago" (from "Clean Break: The Story of Germany's Energy Transformation and What Americans Can Learn from It", available on Amazon).

"The European Union's biggest and most powerful industrial economy is making a clean break from coal, oil and nuclear energy. It is doing something most Americans would say is impossible, but already Germany is running on 25% clean energy and it is on track to reach 80 percent by 2050. Some experts say it could reach 100 percent by then."

Germany shines compared to the rest of the world, but the rest of the world is certainly not giving up, combatting global warming is not a climate pit, and Europe is not "exiting" from renewable/green energy. The article Jong posted is an OPINION piece, and as such, and given the author, reflects just that.

I'd actually take the time to refute it and offer information about the actual changes and improvements globally, but it would be a waste of time here and I know it. I'll just await the predictable snarks....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2013 5:34 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Not in the least surprising to see Grand Wizard Al Gore's KKK, Klimate Klan Kooks. trying to dismiss the realities going on in Europe about the abysmal failures and fiscal disasters of their green energy efforts. What a pathetic and sad lot of fact deniers.

FACT : The United Kingdom removed climate change from the recent G8 agenda.

FACT : European carbon markets have collapsed with the price of carbon hitting record lows, wrecking the European Union's trading scheme for industrial CO2 emissions.

FACT : British Gas owner Centrica was buying up shale gas drilling rights in Lancashire for fracking operations.

FACT : Green investors faced bankruptcy as Spain cut subsidies even further.

FACT : Large German companies such as Siemens and Bosch abandoned the solar industry, which had lost them billions, while investments in failed solar companies, including Q-Cells and SolarWorld, destroyed 21 billion euros of capital.

FACT : German Chancellor Angela Merkel told a June energy conference in Berlin to expect reduced government spending on energy like wind and solar power to keep Germany economically competitive.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2013 5:36 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I just wonder why anyone bothered to reply. Did Jong's post add anything to any topic anywhere on the board? Was there some fact, some insight, some logic, some amusement, something at all that made it worth the time it took to read it - and then reply? The same goes for all the usual suspects. How many hours over how many years do people spend on them? For what?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2013 5:53 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I just wonder why anyone bothered to reply. Did Jong's post add anything to any topic anywhere on the board? Was there some fact, some insight, some logic, some amusement, something at all that made it worth the time it took to read it - and then reply? The same goes for all the usual suspects. How many hours over how many years do people spend on them? For what?

And the point of your post is what? We already know you're a little bitchy psycho.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2013 6:06 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
The article Jong posted is an OPINION piece, and as such, and given the author, reflects just that.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2013 6:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

NIKI, it was worth looking into. I've been hearing for a while that the EU "carbon market" has been collapsing. Well, various reasons for that, but when policy was being discussed there was a wonderful disquisition on the flaws of carbon markets (versus carbon taxes) and all of the problems with creating "exchanges" for pollution credits have come to pass. So, FWIW, I was never for the idea of pollution exchanges... not even when OUR agency created a big regional one twenty years ago.

The EU is suffering from several renewable energy policy mis-steps as well as the financial collapse, which they've also botched horribly. And, there are real costs and problems with investing in ANY new infrastructure.

The mis-steps were:

They instituted a carbon exchange instead of a carbon tax, with all of the instability that markets are heir to. A carbon market provides a way for industries or power generators which have reduced carbon emissions below specified targets get to sell their "excess" credits on an open market. In other words, it seeks to reward or "monetize" pollution reduction in a market-friendly way. But the EU was planning to use those sales to invest in green energy. When their financial system collapsed (thanks to Basel II banking rules that were even worse than ours) demand collapsed with it, and so did carbon prices and the dependent green energy investment. If one is serious about investing in new infrastructure, it can't rely on such a wobbly monetary base.

They let each nation decide what "mix" they were going to use, and didn't try to "harmonise" (that favorite EU word!) prices, or plan for big interties. It makes sense to have Spain put in solar and Germany develop wind, but in order for the energy production to balance out (wind and solar being non-constant) one must be able to shuttle energy from areas of high production to low production, at predictable rates.

Then, there was the problem of Chinese dumping solar panels at non-competitive prices all across the globe. I believe that China is actually trying to gain a world monopoly on solar panels (this should tell you where CHINA thinks the future value is!) and as they actually forced a number of producers out of business in the EU and the USA, they might make it. Google China+monopoly+solar+panel, you'll see what I mean.

Also, there are some real expenses with "going green". The current physical investment (conventional and nuclear power plants and transmission lines) are already in place. Replacing them with solar panels, wind turbines, tidal generators, and bio-mass will cost money. Also, as I mentioned before, you need big "interties": huge transmission lines which tie different production regions together. (You should look up the Pacific Intertie one day: Awesome!). None of this is without cost.

Germany and several other EU nations have committed to shuttering their nuclear plants.

The EU as a whole is dependent on imports of Russian natural gas and oil, and is resource-poor in terms of fossil fuel. (Recall that Hitler never had a source of oil for his Wehrmacht; the situation is the same throughout much of Europe except those that border on the North Sea and those that border on the recent finds in the eastern Mediterranean)

And, FINALLY (GEEZER, *smacks head* you payin' attention?) the USA's exploitation of fracked natural gas is putting energy-price pressure on the EU. So in this case, the USA is a leading factor in increasing carbon emissions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2013 6:36 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

SignyM

THANK YOU for the extremely informative post. You've tied a lot of information together into a cogent explanation. And then you went even further to brilliantly explain the shortcomings of 'market-based' solutions.

I'm curious about something though - you say you've been reading about the collapse of the EU carbon market for some time. Where have you been reading that? Your source(s) of information are obviously better than mine.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2013 6:48 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And, FINALLY (GEEZER, *smacks head* you payin' attention?) the USA's exploitation of fracked natural gas is putting energy-price pressure on the EU. So in this case, the USA is a leading factor in increasing carbon emissions.

Considering it's something I haven't been discussing at all - no. Not been paying attention.

Not sure how increasing the availability of natural gas, which produces less carbon emissions that coal, would be increasing the EUs carbon emissions. And as you note, the EU gets its natural gas from Russia, not the U.S. In fact, U.S. natural gas exports to Europe seem pretty miniscule. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_expc_s1_m.htm

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2013 10:49 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Thank you, Sig, that was quite informative.

My apologies, Kiki; you're absolutely right.

Quote:
I just wonder why anyone bothered to reply. Did Jong's post add anything to any topic anywhere on the board? Was there some fact, some insight, some logic, some amusement, something at all that made it worth the time it took to read it - and then reply? The same goes for all the usual suspects. How many hours over how many years do people spend on them? For what?

I took the bait, my bad. At least, after fifteen or so seconds considering whether to put up facts and figures to show how the author's OPINION is completely wrong, I realized the futility and spent no more time on it. Do I get points for coming to my senses, even after the fact?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2013 11:16 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2013 12:34 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Use your words, son.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2013 12:36 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Use your words, son.

But a gif can be as 10,000 words.

( Or, 1 of Niki's replies. )

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 1, 2013 3:06 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Considering it's something I haven't been discussing at all - no. Not been paying attention.

Well, since you did post in this thread earlier, and you entered into the discussion in another thread http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=55505 I assume you HAD been discussing the topic. Now I'm to take it you weren't really discussing anything at all?

Quote:
Not sure how increasing the availability of natural gas, which produces less carbon emissions that coal, would be increasing the EUs carbon emissions. And as you note, the EU gets its natural gas from Russia, not the U.S. In fact, U.S. natural gas exports to Europe seem pretty miniscule. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_expc_s1_m.htm

For someone who thinks they're s free-marketeer, you don't seem to know much about how the so-called free market works. Let me explain in detail: Thanks to the impoverishment of many, the collapse of the financial markets, and the subsequent additional impoverishment of large swaths of formerly middle-class populations, EVERYONE is struggling to find markets to sell to. If you can manufacture with cheaper energy, you have a competitive advantage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 3:33 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Considering it's something I haven't been discussing at all - no. Not been paying attention.
Well, since you did post in this thread earlier, and you entered into the discussion in another thread http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=55505 I assume you HAD been discussing the topic. Now I'm to take it you weren't really discussing anything at all?

Haven't mentioned hydropower or nukes or hybrid cars either, since that's sort'a granular detail for a big-picture discussion of global carbon emissions. I notice you haven't been talking about methane from cow farts. Guess you weren't really discussing the topic at all.

Quote:
Quote:
Not sure how increasing the availability of natural gas, which produces less carbon emissions that coal, would be increasing the EUs carbon emissions. And as you note, the EU gets its natural gas from Russia, not the U.S. In fact, U.S. natural gas exports to Europe seem pretty miniscule. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_expc_s1_m.htm
For someone who thinks they're s free-marketeer, you don't seem to know much about how the so-called free market works. Let me explain in detail: Thanks to the impoverishment of many, the collapse of the financial markets, and the subsequent additional impoverishment of large swaths of formerly middle-class populations, EVERYONE is struggling to find markets to sell to. If you can manufacture with cheaper energy, you have a competitive advantage.

And any "competitive advantage" the U.S. might gain by having more natural gas available has what to do with reducing carbon emissions? Besides the fact that if we (the U.S.) use the natural gas to produce energy instead of coal, we reduce carbon emissions?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 3:55 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

The EU has also been stumbling through a recession with austerity programs that have done little to help there economies. That does not help the energy sector.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 4:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And, FINALLY (GEEZER, *smacks head* you payin' attention?) the USA's exploitation of fracked natural gas is putting energy-price pressure on the EU. So in this case, the USA is a leading factor in increasing carbon emissions.-signy

Considering it's something I haven't been discussing at all - no. Not been paying attention.

In this thread, and the "real news" thread, we WERE talking about reducing carbon emissions, correct? That is what the discussion has been about, yes? Well, it seems to me that you said a couple of things on the topic already. In particular, you were claiming that the USA couldn't do anything on its own because China and India were planning significant increases. So in this parallel thread, here is an example of how the USA, by exploiting cheap (fracked) natural gas ... oh, and by the way, increasing overall carbon emissions... is putting energy price pressure on the EU which is causing the EU to reduce its green energy initiatives. So... to put an absolute point on this... an example of USA policy which is causing increases in carbon emissions elsehere. Conversely, the policy, if changed, could cause a decrease in emissions elsewhere.

Wow, did I actually have to make that point explicit? It seems anyone who's been paying the least bit of attention would have seen it.

So, sorry you went the "stupid" route in defending your previous posts; I know you're smarter than that. It seems to me that you're going waaaaay out of your way to not see connections, opportunities, and areas of influence in which the USA could indeed reduce carbon emissions, not only internally but externally as well. By burying your head who-knows-where, you will NEVER come up with ideas. Not because they aren't there, but simply because you refuse to see them.

So - got any ideas for that other thread yet? Because I'll be posting there this coming weekend and I sure don't want you to look impoverished in the ideas-department. And, hey, I gave you three ideas already!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 4:17 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yes, Nick; if I'd bothered to care, I'd have mentioned that too. When times are bad, people think short term: "jobs". The human condition, we think of "now" and "me" first...sometimes second, third, fourth, too. It's always a battle to achieve things that have a global or long-term consequence, and Europe has been experiencing that aspect, too. So thanx for bringing it up. I'm so jaded at this point, and our righties' "arguments" are no more than snarks anyway, that I just don't make the effort anymore.

ETA (Cross-posting): No, he's not "discussing". Or "debating" or making "points" or even "arguing", they just snark, period. So intelligence has nothing to do with it. But you already knew that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 5:16 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
And, FINALLY (GEEZER, *smacks head* you payin' attention?) the USA's exploitation of fracked natural gas is putting energy-price pressure on the EU. So in this case, the USA is a leading factor in increasing carbon emissions.-signy

Considering it's something I haven't been discussing at all - no. Not been paying attention.
In this thread, and the "real news" thread, we WERE talking about reducing carbon emissions, correct? That is what the discussion has been about, yes? Well, it seems to me that you said a couple of things on the topic already. In particular, you were claiming that the USA couldn't do anything on its own because China and India were planning significant increases. So in this parallel thread, here is an example of how the USA, by exploiting cheap (fracked) natural gas ... oh, and by the way, increasing overall carbon emissions... is putting energy price pressure on the EU which is causing the EU to reduce its green energy initiatives. So... to put an absolute point on this... an example of USA policy which is causing increases in carbon emissions elsehere. Conversely, the policy, if changed, could cause a decrease in emissions elsewhere.

Wow, did I actually have to make that point explicit? It seems anyone who's been paying the least bit of attention would have seen it.

So, sorry you went the "stupid" route in defending your previous posts; I know you're smarter than that. It seems to me that you're going waaaaay out of your way to not see connections, opportunities, and areas of influence in which the USA could indeed reduce carbon emissions, not only internally but externally as well. By burying your head who-knows-where, you will NEVER come up with ideas. Not because they aren't there, but simply because you refuse to see them.

So - got any ideas for that other thread yet? Because I'll be posting there this coming weekend and I sure don't want you to look impoverished in the ideas-department. And, hey, I gave you three ideas already!

Okay, so you didn't read my previous post before starting the insults again.

Let me do a KIKI and ask you for cites that show U.S. natural gas production makes global carbon emissions increase. And not just an opinion piece, please.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 5:23 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
ETA (Cross-posting): No, he's not "discussing". Or "debating" or making "points" or even "arguing", they just snark, period. So intelligence has nothing to do with it. But you already knew that.

Niki, I've backed up my position with facts, many from the U.S. government's CDIAC site. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

If you can find anything wrong with their figures. please let me know. SignyM and KIKI have been ignoring them, so I've got no feedeback.

Also if you can find any evidence that SignyM's and KIKI's proposals to reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 1/3 or 1/2 or 4/5 are actually feasible, I'd be happy to see that too.

Then again, any evidence that China, India, Latin America, Africa, Russia, Asia, and the former Soviet Bloc are going to reduce, or even slow the increase of, carbon emissions would be nice.

Oh, and no opinion pieces from you either.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 5:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Also if you can find any evidence that SignyM's and KIKI's proposals to reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 1/3 or 1/2 or 4/5 are actually feasible, I'd be happy to see that too.

Oh, so you ARE discussing the topic? HAHHAHAHAHA! Thought so!

And yanno, the funny thing is, I keep saying I'm look for ideas, not proposals. In fact, I specifically said "I'm not looking for solutions to put on a development grant" (ie, a proposal). And so far, I haven't made any "proposals", I've provided three nascent ideas with the thought that perhaps they might spark other, possibly better ideas.

And finally- not that I'm trying to dictate where people post, but I keep trying to corral the discussion in the original thread, so it can be contemplated with all of the original context. So FWIW, here is the link, again.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=55505

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 6:30 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And finally- not that I'm trying to dictate where people post, but I keep trying to corral the discussion in the original thread, so it can be contemplated with all of the original context. So FWIW, here is the link, again.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=55505

Okay.

Done.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 7:45 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

"any evidence that China, India, Latin America, Africa, Russia, Asia, and the former Soviet Bloc are going to reduce, or even slow the increase of, carbon emissions would be nice."

Well, hell, that's easy, and it's worth the investment of time, for those who'll read it. Given you laid down the challenge, Geezer, I assume YOU will:

"Latin America" is a big place, it would help if you could be more specific. Nonetheless, a sampling:

Quote:
When it comes to low-carbon resilient development, Latin American countries face a unique set of challenges around economic growth and deforestation. But by adopting climate change polices and strategies, and incorporating low-carbon resilience into national plans, these countries are forging the way. Not only are they addressing national and international concerns, some are finding that there are many co-benefits to low-carbon resilience as well.

This vulnerability and the need for political action has been recognised: Latin American countries have joined the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and are beginning to prepare mitigation and adaptation actions. Some have included these efforts into their national development planning — 12 out of 17 countries in the region have included climate change in their national development plans. The countries furthest forward in terms of climate change strategies and plans in the region are Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Peru. Details and tons more at http://www.iied.org/what-does-low-carbon-resilience-look-latin-america]

You can consider it an "opinion piece" if you wish, but it contains FACTS, focus on those if you would.

Individually:

"Brazil’s Major Victory in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions", http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2009/11/24/529_brazil_forest_c
onservation_victory/

Chile:

Quote:
Wine makers in Chile are measuring carbon footprint of Chile wine and investing in carbon offsets, carbon neutral transport and reducing their carbon footprint.

Two years later, it launched the first carbon-neutral wine in Latin America (Nuevo Mundo) and became the first carbon-neutral winery in South America. It reduced its emissions by building a waste water treatment plant and by buying carbon credits.

Cono Sur, also an organic producer, invested in waste gas power in Germany and wind power plants in Turkey and India to compensate for its greenhouse gas emissions during product delivery. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/chile/101111/carbon-footprint-wine]

And:

Quote:
Santiago, Chile was subject to serious air quality problems in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a result of increased industrial and transportation emissions. In an effort to improve air quality, the government implemented a number of policies including an emission trading program to reduce and cap emissions of particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10) from stationary sources. The emission trading program was viewed by many as a way to provide industry with flexibility to develop source-specific approaches to meet the reduction target at a lower cost and to reduce government administrative requirements. The environmental objective of the program, to reduce PM10 emissions from stationary sources by 50%, was met by 1998. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/international/chile/et_santiago.pdf]

Colombia:

Quote:
Over half a million tons of CO2 equivalent emissions are to be saved in Colombia The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) will support a $10.5 million project to set up a system of Verified Emissions Reductions (VERs) in Colombia, with the aim of cutting over half a million tons of carbon emissions over four years through a voluntary trading system, among other measures. http://www.iadb.org/en/news/news-releases/2011-09-05/reduced-carbon-di
oxide-emissions-in-colombia,9520.html

Quote:
Bus Rapid Transit Systems Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Gain in Popularity

This summer, the bus rapid transit system of Bogotá, Colombia, earned the distinction of being the world’s first mass transport project to be approved for participation in the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). As such, it is a model for similar transport-related CDM initiatives in the pipeline worldwide. Brazil, Chile, China, Ecuador, Laos, Panama, and Peru are all establishing or planning mass transport systems based on rapid buses, according to the Andean Development Corporation, the multilateral financial institution that helped develop the bid. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4660]

Costa Rica:

Quote:
Costa Rica has set its sights high in terms of reducing the country’s carbon emissions. It aims to be the world’s first carbon-neutral country by 2021. That’s going to require a lot of effort on different fronts.

Nine companies received recognition during the Second Environmental Congress, organized by MINAET and the Costa Rican Chamber of Industries, which has held at San José’s Radisson Hotel on June 28.

Companies such as Bridgestone, Intel Costa Rica, Travel Excellence, Florida Bebidas, FLorex, Holcim Costa Rica, Geocycle, Cooperativa de Productores de Leche Dos Pinos R.L and Plycem were acknowledged for taking steps to analyze emissions sources – from energy and fuel consumption to residual wastes and water use – and for finding areas to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.

William Alpízar, director of MINAET’s climate change program, noted that “the union of public policy … [and] these businesses will carry us successfully to our goal of low-emissions development for the country.” Alpízar said efforts by the nine companies represent a reduction of approximately 700,000 tons of CO2 emissions in Costa Rica since 2010.

“The forestry sector offsets approximately three million tons [of CO2 annually], Alpízar said. With these 9 businesses reducing their emissions by 700,000 tons, if we had 20 businesses do the same we’d be approaching what our forestry sector offsets. That’s not negligible,” Alpízar added.

Recognizing businesses that make efforts to reduce their carbon footprint is the first step in developing a national carbon registry. The second step is creating a carbon market to allow businesses to purchase or trade carbon credits after they have reduced emissions as much as possible.

The development of a carbon market for major industries is part of Costa Rica’s approach to lowering the overall level of emissions. The country is also testing a program called Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA) in the agricultural sector, led by coffee cooperative Coopedota, which produces the world’s first certified carbon-neutral coffee. NAMA focuses on water use, cogeneration of electricity from coffee waste and distillation of biodiesel from byproduct. http://www.ticotimes.net/Business/Companies-receive-nod-for-carbon-eff
orts_Friday-July-06-2012]

Mexico:

Quote:
Mexico passes climate-change law

The Mexican legislature passed one of the strongest national climate-change laws so far on 19 April. Mexico, which ranks 11th in the world for both the size of its economy and its level of carbon emissions, joins the United Kingdom in having legally binding emissions goals aimed at stemming the effects of climate change. http://www.nature.com/news/mexico-passes-climate-change-law-1.10496]

Quote:
Mexico City slashes greenhouse gas emissions

The government of Mexico City announced on Monday that the city has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 6.28 million tons since 2008. The milestone is the latest in the city’s wide-sweeping (and aptly named) Green Plan (”Plan Verde”), which covers an array of systems including transportation, energy and water conservation, solid waste management and air quality. http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/mexico-city-slashes-greenh
ouse-gas-emissions-on-track-for-2012-target/17913]

Peru:

Quote:
Kenya, Peru Join List of Countries Advancing Climate Change Laws

Peru has taken the more concrete steps of the two, by passing a government resolution last week that would lower carbon emissions and address the negative effects of climate change it is already experiencing. “If we don’t do something we will have problems with water supplies along the coasts,” said Mariano Felipe Soldan of the country’s strategic planning office. “We are already seeing temperature changes.” http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/02/kenya-peru-join-list-of-countries-
advancing-climate-change-laws/#keeyLQAQDh1GaauG.99]

Quote:
Green office: WWF Peru compensates for its carbon footprint and promotes sustainable energies

As in recent years, WWF Peru received the Gold Standard certification last August, thus confirming their carbon footprint compensation. Gold Standard is a voluntary certification mechanism that grants carbon credits to companies and organizations, among others, that decide to compensate for their greenhouse gas emissions investing the amount equivalent to their emissions through Gold Standard, in projects that promote the use of clean energies and energetic efficiency. http://peru.panda.org/en/keep_updated/news/?195411/GreenofficeWWFPeru]

Africa:

Quote:
SA business reduces carbon

Johannesburg - South Africa's top 100 listed companies have materially reduced their greenhouse gas emissions, according to the 2012 Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). http://www.fin24.com/Economy/SA-business-reduces-carbon-20121123]

"Tax Policy to Reduce Carbon Emissions in South Africa", http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2009/05/
18/000158349_20090518093557/Rendered/PDF/WPS4933.pdf

Russia:

Quote:
First emission reductions transferred from Russia for Fortum's use

The new unit at Tyumen CHP-1 has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 173,500 tonnes. During its first year of operation, the plant has contributed to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 173,500 tonnes. http://www.fortum.com/en/mediaroom/pages/first-emission-reductions-tra
nsferred-from-russia-for-fortums-use.aspx]

"Russia Steps Up Efforts To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emission", http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Russia_Steps_Up_Efforts_To_Reduce_
Greenhouse_Gas_Emission_999.html

Quote:
Russia stands out as something of an outlier, having reduced its emissions nearly 30 percent from 1990 levels. http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/07/global-co2-emissions-incr
eases-dwarf-recent-u-s-reductions/]

(Note: See below; they've stayed relatively flat ever since.)

Sorry, but that's as much time as I'm willing to spend on it. Asia, like "Latin America", is comprised of many countries and I'm not willing to look at each individually. Ditto the "Soviet Bloc".

There are facts, figures and details available at each of the links I posted for further information.

What you deniers don't understand is that this is happening all over the world, and has been for a long time. The rest of the world isn't denying climate change or the need to reduce carbon emissions; all you hear from your side is denial, so you don't get the whole picture, or even a slice of it. Some of these articles are from last year or the year before; I could go back much further, because the WORLD has been thinking about and dealing with this issue for a very long time, it's just in America that we're still playing the denial game.

You'll get no argument from me when it comes to China and India, just FYI.

However, both are now accepting of the problem and making a START on it:

"China reduces emissions by carbon trade", http://www.china.org.cn/video/2011-12/09/content_24110297.htm

"India to reduce carbon emission by 25% by 2020", http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/india/India-to-reduce-carbon-e
mission-by-25-by-2020/Article1-482495.aspx

If you don't like that it's about their INTENT to reduce further, there's this from last year:

Quote:
“In India, our efforts over the last two decades have yielded positive results. Over the period 1994-2007, our emissions-GDP intensity, excluding agriculture, has declined nearly 25 per cent,” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in his address during the plenary session of the Rio+20 summit in Rio De Janeiro. http://www.firstpost.com/world/india-working-to-reduce-carbon-emission
s-pm-354327.html]

Yeah, they qualify at as "emissions-GDP intensity", and exclude agriculture, and all the other games, but they're starting to pay attention now.

The REST of the world, however, (especially Europe) is awake and working on the problem. Some countries are coming in late, others have been there for a long time. The country having the worst problem even ACKNOWLEDGING global warming seems to be the U.S. Despite that, "since 2005, U.S., Japanese, and European emissions have all decreased between 5 and 15 percent. Russian emissions have stayed relatively flat, while both Indian and Chinese emissions have increased about 60 percent. Indian emissions, despite having a percentage increase comparable to those of China since 1990 and 2005, are still a fraction of the size of Chinese emissions, the result of a much lower starting point." ( http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/07/global-co2-emissions-incr
eases-dwarf-recent-u-s-reductions/)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 3, 2013 6:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yep, the USA is a laggard in this area, as we are in so many others (education, health care, median income, etc.) Good to know there are so many efforts out there, from huge solar panel installations to electricty-generating soccer balls!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 3, 2013 7:32 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Good to know so many GOVERNMENTS are paying attention and looking for ways to encourage their citizens! But that ours should sharpen up...

Nothing from Geezer? I took his challenge, has he nothing to say? Those were, by the way, just a tiny sampling of what I got when I Googled "______ reduces carbon emissions". I didn't take a lot of time to choose between them, just posted the first one or two I found for each.

Geezer?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 2:54 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Nothing from Geezer? I took his challenge, has he nothing to say? Those were, by the way, just a tiny sampling of what I got when I Googled "______ reduces carbon emissions". I didn't take a lot of time to choose between them, just posted the first one or two I found for each.

Geezer?

Sorry, I was out of town yesterday.

All very nice, but not backed up by data.

Per CDIAC, none of the countries listed above has reduced carbon emissions per capita as much as the U.S., even with what SignyM considers our lackluster performance. Very few have reduced it at all. Most are increasing. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_coun.html

In the other climate thread, 1KIKI quoted studies that showed that China's emissions went up 9.9% in 2012, and India's increased 7.5%. I tend to follow actual performance, rather than promises.

As noted in the Nature article about Mexico, above:

"Despite the rosy assessments, however, this portfolio approach may face some of the same hurdles as the international efforts. “We’re very good at making laws. And then the problem is enforcing them,” says Juan Bezaury, an expert in Mexican public policy with the Nature Conservancy in Arlington."

And once again, this doesn't mean that I don't think that the U.S. should pursue energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 3:07 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Your statement was specifically "any evidence that China, India, Latin America, Africa, Russia, Asia, and the former Soviet Bloc are going to reduce, or even slow the increase of, carbon emissions would be nice."

I provided same. It absolutely kills you to do ANYTHING besides negate, refute, nitpick, ignore, deny, doesn't it? There are facts and figures in many of those articles about carbon emissions SPECIFICALLY REDUCED in some of those places, just as you requested.

Perfect example of why I don't bother as much anymore. Facts and figures mean nothing, unless they support what those here on the right want them to. Why bother trying to debate or even discuss with them?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, moving the goalposts is always a handy rightwing tactic, Niki.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:48 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Your statement was specifically "any evidence that China, India, Latin America, Africa, Russia, Asia, and the former Soviet Bloc are going to reduce, or even slow the increase of, carbon emissions would be nice."

I provided same. It absolutely kills you to do ANYTHING besides negate, refute, nitpick, ignore, deny, doesn't it? There are facts and figures in many of those articles about carbon emissions SPECIFICALLY REDUCED in some of those places, just as you requested.

Mostly governments saying they're going to reduce, or governments trading carbon credits to other governments, which doesn't really help much. And for most of those countries, not only is emissions per capita still going up or remaining, at best, stable, but the populations are going up as well.
India's population has increased by 190 million in the last 12 years, and is on track to surpass China, so even if they stopped all increase per capita, their net emissions would still go up.

In another thread you started, http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=55562 you posted articles about "Major Asian cities underwater. Millions trapped in poverty. Africa plunged into drought and plagued by food shortages. Flooding of Biblical proportions." This within the next 20 to 30 years.

The promised reductions you listed, even if they are actually delivered, aren't going to cut it if the scenario you cited is factual.

Per CDIAC, global carbon emissions in 1990, the Kyoto Accord goal, were around 6.1 trillion tons. In 2011 they were around 9.5 trillion tons. We'd need a 1/3 reduction in carbon, worldwide, to get to the Kyoto accord goal. Considering that China and India, despite the feel-good artilces you posted, are increasing their carbon 9.9% and 7.5% annually, and have been for quite some time, expecting them to reduce emissions by 1/3 is really not in the cards.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

GEEZER, you didn't ask if the reductions are "going to cut it", you asked for ANY EVIDENCE. You got evidence. Stick it, yanno?

Also, asking every nation to reduce it's carbon output by 1/3 is ridiculous. If the USA is at "10" in terms of per capita output, China is at a "1", India is even lower ("0.7"), and some parts of Africa are at "0.1".

Having gone thru the math twice before, I will repeat myself and hope that it sticks with you this time: The USA can reduce its carbon output by 50% without lowering its standard of living or industrial output - a technical possibility, seeing that most of the EU is already at that level. If we could take those savings and spread them out to the rest of the world, we could bring up all of south Asia and Africa to a percapita of "1"... roughly the same as China, Costa Rica, or Cuba. Not luxurious, but liveable. There are other profligate energy-wasters that could cut back: Qatar, Australia, Canada etc. So it isn't necessary that EVERY nation reduce its carbon output. Some should increase, other should decrease.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 7:09 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, moving the goalposts is always a handy rightwing tactic, Niki.

It always has to be partisan with you folks, doesn't it?

So what rightwing policies have I been espousing in the recent climate change discussions?

Have I denied climate change? No.

Have I been against energy efficiency, renewable energy, or greenhouse gas emmissions reduction? No.(In fact I've supported it.)

Have I criticized President Obama's recent proposals? No.(In fact I noted I considered them a good start.)

Have I said anything about leaving it to private industry or the free market? No.

Pretty much all I've done is show, using data provided by the U.S. Government, and by 1KIKI, that the U.S. and the EU alone can't reduce carbon emissions enough to stop the global increase, and that other major carbon producers, such as China and India, haven't demonstrated(by lowering emissions) that they are planning to slow down any time soon.

I'm sorry if this upsets you. I'm not happy about it myself. But telling yourself otherwise seems to me to fly in the face of the data.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 7:09 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Thank you, Sig. He'll keep moving the goalposts, ignoring what I SPECIFICALLY responded to, and anything anyone writes won't stick, we already know that. So I'm not about to bother further. It was worth the time and effort because I knew I could easily respond to his initial challenge; I knew there would be no follow up because he would ignore, negate, deny, rationalize, snark, etc., etc., whatever I put up. I was not at all surprised to be proven right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 8:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

As far as I can tell, Geezer, all Libertarians are rightwing. So, in general, I consider you a rightwinger. I'm sure you'll think that I really don't know all the details, the ins-and-outs, but Libertarians (in my view) are ultimately whores to corporatism because of their adherence to a process which can ONLY benefit the wealthy, and that (in my view) counts as rightwing.

The fact that you didn't come up with ANY solutions to the climate shift issue - because they would cross your Libertarian pro-market philsophy - pretty much cements my view of you. You would have to go a long way... much farther than the tepid support you've offered a tepid speech- in order to dedirect my opinion. I get that you don't consider my opinion as counting for much, but all-in-all, I think I'm correct.

And... WAY TO GO for evading the issue of MOVING GOALPOSTS! Left, right, green , libertarian, or venusian, it's a cheap rhetorical trick. Alongside the one you just did, which is distraction. And let me name you a few others that you routinely do: strawmanning and Post hoc ergo propter hoc. In fact, as I consider this list

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

I see quite a bit of you there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 8:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I was not at all surprised to be proven right.

I would be very much surprised if you were proven wrong.

One of the deficits on this forum is a clear intent to construct honest arguments which pay attention to reality. Perhaps online fora simply aren't the best medium; anonymous discussions have a tendency to devolve to emotional outbursts.

Still, it seems we have diverse set of international participants here, all smart enough to be attracted to a very unconventional TV show. If it can't happen here, were CAN it happen? It would be nice (sigh).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 8:34 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Also, asking every nation to reduce it's carbon output by 1/3 is ridiculous. If the USA is at "10" in terms of per capita output, China is at a "1", India is even lower ("0.7"), and some parts of Africa are at "0.1".

Nope.

Looking just at per capita, the U.S. is at 4.9 tons, China at 1.4, and India at .4.(2008 figures from CDIAC, where all figures below will come unless otherwise attributed. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_coun.html )

But you must factor in population. after you do that, it's like this:

U.S. total is 1.546 trillion tons a year (2008 figures) and has been pretty steady since 2000.

China's total is 1.917 trillion tons a year (2008). This is 1 trillion tons a year more than the 2000 total (more than doubled).

India, is 475 billion tons (2008), 150 billion tons a year more than in 2000.

So in 2008 China and India combined pumped out 1.15 trillion more tons of carbon than they did in 2000.

And China and India are still going up, per 1KIKI's cite, at a 9.9% increase in 2011 for China, and 7.5% for India.

Quote:
Having gone thru the math twice before, I will repeat myself and hope that it sticks with you this time: The USA can reduce its carbon output by 50% without lowering its standard of living or industrial output - a technical possibility, seeing that most of the EU is already at that level.

But as noted before, the EU didn't REDUCE it's emissions to half of the U.S., it never GOT to half the U.S.

Remember that the EU isn't just Germany, France, and the other developed countries of Western Europe. It's also Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and a lot of other former Soviet Bloc countries with low energy production and usage, but also per capita GDP down around 10,000 euros (France, for comparison, is around 30,000 euros per capita). There's lots of the EU where standards of living are much poorer than the U.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union

Quote:
If we could take those savings and spread them out to the rest of the world, we could bring up all of south Asia and Africa to a percapita of "1"... roughly the same as China, Costa Rica, or Cuba. Not luxurious, but liveable. There are other profligate energy-wasters that could cut back: Qatar, Australia, Canada etc. So it isn't necessary that EVERY nation reduce its carbon output. Some should increase, other should decrease.

Total global carbon emissions are 8.769 trillion tons (2008). U.S. emissions are 1.546 trillion tons. So the U.S. produces 17.6% of global carbon. Even IF you could reduce U.S. emissions by 50% (773 billion) tomorrow, or in the near-term (say 15 to 20 years) - and that's a big "IF" - global emissions would still be 7.996 trillion tons p/y. The Kyoto Accord goal is 6.141 trillion tons p/y (1990 global per CDIAC).

This also assumes that China and India suddenly stop their 9.9% and 7.5% annual increases in emissions. Note above that they increased annual carbon emissions by 1.15 trillion tons in just eight years. At that rate (and I haven't seen any indication in the data that they're slowing down) the 773 billion annual reduction from a 50% U.S. drop will be overwhelmed in under six years. Even if the U.S. stopped emitting carbon altogether, in ten or so years China and India would make up any gains.

So unless you have a plan to make China and India completely stop all increases in carbon emissions...

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 8:42 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
As far as I can tell, Geezer, all Libertarians are rightwing. So, in general, I consider you a rightwinger. I'm sure you'll think that I really don't know all the details, the ins-and-outs, but Libertarians (in my view) are ultimately whores to corporatism because of their adherence to a process which can ONLY benefit the wealthy, and that (in my view) counts as rightwing.

Yep. I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:
The fact that you didn't come up with ANY solutions to the climate shift issue - because they would cross your Libertarian pro-market philsophy - pretty much cements my view of you.

What part of "I think President Obama's plan would be a good start" don't you understand?

I get the point that it's all partisan with you.

I expect that when someone says "Good morning" to you, you reply with, "Well, not for the folks in Fukushima, you rightwing apologist for the Nuclear cabal."

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 11:01 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Niki, I've backed up my position with facts, many from the U.S. government's CDIAC site."

And I showed your position was wrong with OTHER FACTS from the exact same CDIAC site, as well as other facts from other sites - a post AFAIK you've failed to address.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 11:18 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
As far as I can tell, Geezer, all Libertarians are rightwing.

They're not, but that speaks volumes to your lack of political knowledge.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 11:23 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Have I been against energy efficiency, renewable energy, or greenhouse gas emmissions reduction? No."

Actually, yes you have been. You have quite a history of it. And these are positions you've never retracted, despite being proven wrong.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=52969

kiki

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2012/08/common-metals-can-make
-cheap-sustainable-solar-panels?et_cid=2808538&et_rid=290390323&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.laboratoryequipment.com%2fnews%2f2012%2f08%2fcommon-metals-can-make-cheap-sustainable-solar-panels

With enough sunlight falling on home roofs to supply AT LEAST HALF of America’s electricity ... (emphasis mine) ... We could supply half of our electricity through solar power.

geezer

So where do we store this electricity at night or when it's cloudy?

kiki

First, NO ONE claimed that solar could meet 100% of demand, but that it could REDUCE our dependence on fossil fuel, and hence generation of global warming gasses. That in itself renders your objection moot.

And Kwicko provided one answer which is to use solar energy during the day when the sun is shining brightly, which is one of the times of peak demand (for AC).

geezer

Problem is where to get that energy during the night, then.

kiki

So grid operators have devised schemes to store electricity in other forms when they have extra, in order to draw on it when there is a shortfall. How they do that is by pumping water into a reservoir when they have spare electricity then generating hydro-power from that water when demand is high.

geezer

The other issue with Kiki's plan is that the technology she wants to rely on is pretty much at the lab experiment stage right now, and there's lots of ways for things to not work out.

kiki

As of March 2012 ... the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) reports that pumped storage hydropower (to store excess generated electricity) accounts for more than 99% of bulk storage capacity worldwide, around 127,000 MW.[1] PSH energy efficiency varies in practice between 70% to 75%.[1]

geezer

crickets

So really, old man, why are you lying ... again?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 4, 2013 12:43 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
As far as I can tell, Geezer, all Libertarians are rightwing. So, in general, I consider you a rightwinger. I'm sure you'll think that I really don't know all the details, the ins-and-outs, but Libertarians (in my view) are ultimately whores to corporatism because of their adherence to a process which can ONLY benefit the wealthy, and that (in my view) counts as rightwing.

Yep. I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

Libertarians have two strange beliefs (and yes, they are beliefs) wrapped up in one: That "if only people would" behave as individual actors in a free
"marketplace", then all would be well. What Libertarians fail to understand is "the marketplace" will NEVER remain as individual or small-business players. Power concentrates, it ALWAYS concentrates, even without government. The only force which can counter a collective group (of business owners, for example) is another collective group.

Also BTW- my figures of per capita carbon emissions are different from yours, and my calcuations were on a spreadsheet which I dumped. But I based my calcs on several assumptions, one of which is that China would essentially stay the same. The other is that I was not trying to match the Kyoto Protocol, just looking to see what we would have to do to stay at parity with today. If I can, I will try to recreate the spreadsheet, which had the regional populations and per-capita carbon emissions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 5, 2013 2:43 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sig, I tend to agree with you about Libertarians. In my case, it's only from observation of those here, since I haven't delved into the issue in depth, but I've yet to see much evidence to disprove what you wrote from those here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 5, 2013 4:10 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Niki, I've backed up my position with facts, many from the U.S. government's CDIAC site."

And I showed your position was wrong with OTHER FACTS from the exact same CDIAC site, as well as other facts from other sites - a post AFAIK you've failed to address.

Maybe I missed it in your hate-spewing. Copy and post it again and I'll prove you wrong again.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 5, 2013 4:35 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And these are positions you've never retracted, despite being proven wrong.

The position that it's gonna be difficult to replace fossil energy with renewbles? Yeah. I stick by that.

Doesn't mean it can't, or shouldn't, be done, but I'd rather go in with a realistic view of the problems rather than the "Oh, solar (or wind, or tidal, or geothermal, or ocean thermal differential, or crystals, or whatever) is going to solve all our problems" attitude I see here a lot.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 5, 2013 4:49 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Libertarians have two strange beliefs (and yes, they are beliefs) wrapped up in one: That "if only people would" behave as individual actors in a free
"marketplace", then all would be well. What Libertarians fail to understand is "the marketplace" will NEVER remain as individual or small-business players. Power concentrates, it ALWAYS concentrates, even without government. The only force which can counter a collective group (of business owners, for example) is another collective group.

So it's okay power concentrates into YOUR collective group, since your motives are pure? I could name some countries where that didn't turn out too well, but we've beat that horse to dust.

Quote:
Also BTW- my figures of per capita carbon emissions are different from yours, and my calcuations were on a spreadsheet which I dumped.

Most of mine are from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, part of the Department of Energy. I consider them pretty sound.

Quote:
But I based my calcs on several assumptions, one of which is that China would essentially stay the same.

Stay the same as in keep emissions at their current level? Given the historical data from CDIAC, there's nothing that supports this assumption. China's emissions have been going up rapidly.

Quote:
The other is that I was not trying to match the Kyoto Protocol, just looking to see what we would have to do to stay at parity with today. If I can, I will try to recreate the spreadsheet, which had the regional populations and per-capita carbon emissions.

That would be an easier goal, but articles you and Niki have cited would seem to indicate that current carbon emissions are not sustainable if we wish to avoid climate change.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 5, 2013 5:05 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Actually, yes you have been. You have quite a history of it. And these are positions you've never retracted, despite being proven wrong.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=52969

BTW, why I stopped being involved in this discussion.

Quote:

kiki
Quote:
As of March 2012 ... the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) reports that pumped storage hydropower (to store excess generated electricity) accounts for more than 99% of bulk storage capacity worldwide, around 127,000 MW.[1] PSH energy efficiency varies in practice between 70% to 75%.[1]

Pumped storage in the U.S. is around 21.8 Gigawatts. Sounds like a lot. However, generating capacity in the U.S. is 945 GW. So all the pumped storage in the U.S. can hold slightly more than 2% of the power that can be generated. Yep. That's a solution.

http://www.steamtablesonline.com/electricity/electricity-installed-cap
acity.aspx

So you saw a big number (127,000MW) and thought that was impressive without checking on what it actually meant. What it meant was that it was pointless to continue the discussion with you.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 5, 2013 5:29 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

And I know I keep hammering this point, but it seems important.

Here's China's carbon emissions per year from 2002 to 2011 (from CDIAC).

2002 = 1.00 trillion tons

2003 = 1.234 tt (23% increase)

2004 = 1.442 tt (17% increase)

2005 = 1.578 tt (9.4% increase)

2006 = 1.749 tt (10.8% increase)

2007 = 1.852 tt (6% increase)

2008 = 1.917 tt (3.3% increase)

2009 = 2.096 tt (9.3% increase)

2010 = 2.260 tt (7.8% increase)

2011 = 2.484 tt (9.9% increase)

Ten year increase is 248%.

ETA: actually 148%. Damn fingers. But my point still holds.

The U.S. went from 1.541 in 2002 to 1.473 in 2011, a 4.5% decrease.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 5, 2013 7:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Libertarians have two strange beliefs (and yes, they are beliefs) wrapped up in one: That "if only people would" behave as individual actors in a free "marketplace", then all would be well. What Libertarians fail to understand is "the marketplace" will NEVER remain as individual or small-business players. Power concentrates, it ALWAYS concentrates, even without government. The only force which can counter a collective group (of business owners, for example) is another collective group. -signy

So it's okay power concentrates into YOUR collective group, since your motives are pure? I could name some countries where that didn't turn out too well, but we've beat that horse to dust.-geezer

My point is that I recognize that power concentrates, and that people have collectivized (or have been collectivized) since the dawn of human history. People, no matter what else we might think of them, are a social species. And unfortunately, most people also seem willing to be exploited- to a point- in exchange for the security and goods that come from being included in an organization. People are seldom individual, rational actors. If we were, we wouldn't have wars and other massive collective sacrifices.

In addition, "the market" is a fiercely exploitative and collectivising force, and "efficiency" and "economies of scale" direct markets towards widespread centralization and integration.

What I'm wondering is how BEST to decentralize societies and power, and along what lines. There are some problems that can only be addressed on the scale of the problem itself- eg water management on a river system. Also, I can imagine that a limited government- a government which sets rules on aggregation of power- may in fact be the best way to disperse power throughout. One thing I know for sure- market forces do not create the kind of equality that you seek.

As far as carbon dioxide... re-creating that spreadsheet is going to take some time. Family is pissed that I've spent so much time here, so it will have to wait a couple of weeks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 5, 2013 3:31 PM