In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
To be fair my original comment you are responding to wasn't directed at you. So the context might not be as clear.
The Reagan example is to illustrate how conservatives didn't just want Solar and renewables to 'compete', they were going out of their way 30 years ago to slow, besmirch, and undermine renewable tech, and that we are retreading ground we had already taken decades ago. (Having to install instead of replace new solar panels).
All of which fits into a larger trend in conservative positions.
Your Reagan example doesn't illustrate that conservatives don't want solar to compete. 30 years ago solar couldn't compete. Even today, solar isn't quite at the point where it can compete.
To spell it out - there's a difference between holding something that can compete back and not wanting to support something that can't compete.
To be honest Jonny I wouldn't expect it to ring true to you. I already know where this road leads so I'm not going to entertain your argument long. I've made my point and whether you accept it or not isn't really relevant to me.
'Even today, solar isn't quite at the point where it can compete' Ugh.. This is also why I don't want to go down this rabbit hole with you...
But for those who don't seem to understand the actual known history of energy discovery and use, here is a kid friendly illustration. (Unless of course those kids are New Earthers as the start of the timeline could be problematic).
Also if you are still having a hard time comprehending how Reagan and his camps' are one of several reasons 'Even today, solar isn't quite at the point where it can compete' perhaps you should look into Reagan and the IIASA.
There are so many examples of conservatives (and Dem's from O&G States) inhibiting renewables from enjoying similar treatment as O&G and Nuclear, it's ridiculous to me, you could with any sincerity, suggest otherwise.
Bottom line: I'm not saying this applies to you Jonny but most people on either side don't have a clue what they are talking about when it comes to energy (beyond talking points). My original point, is one should merely get a much better grasp before offering an opinion that is clearly not well thought out or considerate of the actual state of the relevant discourse (outside conservative bubbles).
If you have some data that shows the narrative of subsidies being significantly different than my description I'm still open to seeing them, not variations in calculations of one number or another, but something that shows somehow renewables are getting some sort of treatment that is better than previous energy sources?
I think you're misguided on the subsidy issue. For the most part, favorable treatments available to O&G companies are also available to renewables (ex. accelerated depreciation). On top of that renewables often get very big subsidies. For solar the big Federal subsidy (though not the only one) is the tax credit covering 30% of the capital cost. I've never heard of a subsidy to O&G or nuclear that came anywhere close to that.
Your response is a non-sequitur to my post. (I know you disagree or you presumably wouldn't have posted it)
A recent report by Scully Capital Services, an investment banking and financial services firm, commissioned by the Department of Energy (DOE), highlighted three federal subsidies and regulations — termed “show stoppers” — without which the industry would grind to a halt. These “show stoppers” include the Price Anderson Act, which limits the liability of the nuclear industry in case of a serious nuclear accident — leaving taxpayers on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions in compensation costs; federal disposal of nuclear waste in a permanent repository, which will save the industry billions at taxpayer expense; and licensing regulations, wherein the report recommends that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission further grease the skids of its quasi-judicial licensing process to preclude successful interventions from opponents. But even these long-standing subsidies are not enough to convince investors, who for decades have treated nuclear power as the pariah of the energy industry.
I mean there are more but "$100's of billions" +billions more for waste disposal was the most obvious refutation of your misinformed and clearly deceptive point.
Don't bother going on until you have something that shows in context some story of renewables getting significantly better treatment than O&G or Nuclear OVERALL not just a snapshot of the current situation. I won't even go into how the health and environmental consequences of O&G are so much worse and not calculated into these types calculations.
Nuclear is a bit different and, appropriately, my comments were directed to O&G.
You seem to be having a problem with the numbers. A large industry receiving a small subsidy (like accelerated depreciation) over a long period of time will have numbers that aggregate into a large figure. However, that doesn't mean that the industry is highly subsidized. In any given year the small subsidy wouldn't have meant much and removing the subsidy wouldn't have affected prices to a large degree.
This situation with solar is different. Remove the subsidies and the costs are much higher. For example:
What makes solar heavily subsidized is the affect of subsidies on prices, not total aggregate spending over the past century.
Better at least. But still a snapshot.
The first 15 years, the report says, are critical to developing new technologies. It finds that oil and gas subsidies, including tax breaks and government spending, were about five times as much as aid to renewables during their first 15 years of development; nuclear received 10 times as much support.
You need to provide context for this data point to be relevant. As I already pointed out, aggregate numbers are heavily influenced by the size of the industry. Moreover, you need to also demonstrate that you are showing numbers in an apples to apples comparison (i.e. if you count depreciation as a subsidy, you should do the same for solar), which I don't think your sources do.
...the fledgling oil industry in the United States first received government assistance in 1916. That was when intangible drilling costs were able to be fully (100%>30%) deducted from a company's expenses for tax purposes. In 1926, a write-off for cost depletion was introduced. That provision allowed oil companies to deduct costs based upon overall gross receipts and not just the actual value of the oil.
This is strict ignorance on your end. The destructibility of intangible drilling costs and depletion allowances are not strictly subsidies. Nor are they as valuable as the 30% tax credit. Moreover, solar benefits from MACRS which is similar to the O&G depletion allowance.
You do realize part of the aggregate subsidies are the one's meant to 'help a fledgling industry' and yet are still being used to this day?
Yes, and they are tiny (see EIA report) and today they're meant to lessen dependence on foreign oil rather than help a fledgling industry.
I think even you would admit that we no longer need those subsidies and that no tax-cut is needed to justify removing that particular 1916 subsidy?
They aren't *needed* but I'd have to review the literature in order to tell to what extent they should be considered subsidies.
Despite your insinuations it appears you are the one who seems to not comprehend the context of subsidies in the energy industry.
I don't think you understand finance and accounting well enough to understand the numbers.
I really don't even know what your point is?
Would you mind clearly stating it if you insist on continuing?
My point is that solar is much more heavily subsidized than O&G. That's true not only today but it is also true in a historical context as well. I've seen zero evidence from you that O&G has ever been subsidized as heavily as solar is today.
Well you obviously didn't read the data. You are the one who has provided 0 evidence of their claim (at least with respect to historical context).
I have asked several times and you still have nothing, so I am done with you until you provide it.
I'm also not going to argue over the definition of 'subsidy'or other nuances, when everyone knows perfectly well what we are talking about.
You'll probably have some statement to follow this, but the short lived entertainment of your argument is over for me.
The person I was responding to hasn't opined, so there is no need to continue for myself.
If you want to think renewables enjoy some unprecedented level of government assistance go right ahead, it fits right in with conservative/Republican perceptions and ideas, some of which I've highlighted before. Feel free to believe what you wish but us going back and forth on something like this will go nowhere, as has been illustrated before, when you just stop responding and wait for the next issue when you finally get cornered into an indefensible position.
Lol, I'm so tired of your high school level 'analysis'. You obviously don't know what the number mean and you're just googling for things that look relevant.
Until you are at a level where you can understand the numbers, there's really no point in debating this.
Do us all a favor then in the future, and don't.
Maybe if you provided 'numbers' for one to 'understand' it wouldn't be such a problem for you.
Go ahead and keep trying to belittle my intellect, I actually find it incredibly amusing. Maybe you could call me kiddo again, I thought that was especially cute and endearing?
Is this another debate that is going to end with you claiming some unspecified number is X and then using personal insults and attacks on provided data, to attempt to cover for the fact that you, as of yet, still haven't provided 'numbers' to support your claim? If my last example is any indication, I suppose I already know the answer...
Please just stop talking to each other; you two keep going for each other's throats all the time. It's best if both of you just never reply to each other imho.
Hey, greenhorizons -- Nyxisto already posted what you need to be arguing. You are far off the reservation right now.
On May 11 2014 05:33 Nyxisto wrote: There is a fundamental flaw in this competitiveness talk. Nuclear power plant corporations don't pay for the damage and/ or the waste disposal. Coal plant owners don't pay for global warming. If you ignore all external cost and just look at your electricity bill, sure fossil fuel sources may be cheaper, but that's gravely misleading. It's a very good idea for a government to make smart technologies affordable instead of the "free market yada yada" nonsense.
On May 11 2014 10:09 xDaunt wrote: Hey, greenhorizons -- Nyxisto already posted what you need to be arguing. You are far off the reservation right now.
On May 11 2014 05:33 Nyxisto wrote: There is a fundamental flaw in this competitiveness talk. Nuclear power plant corporations don't pay for the damage and/ or the waste disposal. Coal plant owners don't pay for global warming. If you ignore all external cost and just look at your electricity bill, sure fossil fuel sources may be cheaper, but that's gravely misleading. It's a very good idea for a government to make smart technologies affordable instead of the "free market yada yada" nonsense.
I mentioned it, however the digression was not spurred by my comment, but my comment by it, and Jonny carrying it on by responding to my response.
If you have a comment on the environmental impacts/costs of energy production or consumption please express them. Otherwise I don't really understand why you would bring Nyx's comment up?
I guess because the asymmetry between who makes the big bucks and who pays the cost is the qualitative difference here.Just discussing who gets how many cents of subsidies is probably rather tiresome.
It has never happened in history that companies make money with something that they're never going to pay for themselves. That's why all the 'let the market decide' approach is about to fail here. Companies are always going to look at what makes them the most money. The benefit of renewable energy or similar technologies and the drawback of fossil sources will only hit in a few generations and even the drawbacks that are happening now, for example dangerous working conditions, environmental hazards and what not, are not hitting the people that are responsible for it.
I personally don't want a cheap energy bill for the cost of my grandchildren living in a swamp or something. We are not seeing much green energy at the moment in countries that are not actively giving incentive to build up the infrastructure. Promoting industries that create highly productive jobs(not just in the energy sector) and keep the costs for society low generally sounds like a really smart idea to me.
I'm starting to wonder if this guy isn't some sort of plant by the democratic party to undermine the constituency that supports people like Gohmert. Each successive video he seems to be more and more like an Ali G character and less like a serious intellectual (although his credentials indicate otherwise).
On a side note I think this means he has excluded himself from further discussion by invoking the seemingly inevitable Nazi comparison so commonly seen during the dying throws of current debates?
I love him; such a great guy. Marching out the Nazi line is worn out and lazy speechwriting, I give you that. Washington's awash in it. However, when he puts the spotlight on "fascist intolerance," that's much in keeping with what we've been seeing on the right (not the libertarian, more of the social wing). Not content with disagreement, the hate is directed at the people holding those views. It's not free and open debate, it's personalized and intended towards destruction. It's all happening under lawful protections both ways, but you can't help but criticize the societal norms behind them egging this behavior on. Not some fringe view, but a very mainstream interpretation of the Christian faith. Or, as Gohmert says, those that can't tolerate other's intolerance.
When the voters approved Prop 22 in California, it passed with over 60% support. This is California, not some backwoods state, or what Obama might call bitter clingers to guns and religion. CA supremes declared it unconstitutional. Next fight was Prop 8, a constitutional amendment. District court threw it out and shucks, nobody had standing to appeal it apparently (So says the US Supreme Court). But I digress--California voted twice to make only marriage between a man and a woman valid or recognized in California. That view could cost you your job or your promotion. What gives?
Krauthammer might be a back-bencher type, but he says it too well
Solar panels on the White House roof became operational Friday as President Barack Obama unveiled hundreds of measures to expand the use of clean-energy sources in front of a crowd gathered at a Walmart department store in Mountain View, California — a location chosen for its commitments to renewable-energy efforts.
Obama told the crowd that the transition to “a clean-energy future” would create jobs and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
In a largely symbolic gesture to show his personal commitment to reducing the U.S.'s carbon footprint, Friday also saw the White House go live with reinstalled solar panels
Former president Jimmy Carter first installed the panels in 1979 amid the Arab oil embargo that caused a nation-wide energy crisis. At the time, he said they could either serve as an “example of a road not taken” or “a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.”
One of the first acts undertaken by his successor, Ronald Reagan, was to remove the solar panels and recommit the nation to fossil fuels because, as his chief-of-staff explained, Reagan felt solar power was "just a joke."
“Solar panels on the White House are a really impressive message: solar is here, we are doing it, and we can do a lot more,” Ernest Moniz, secretary of energy, said in a video posted Friday on the White House website. “The clean energy revolution is not something for the distant future — it’s happening right now.”
During his address at Walmart on Friday, Obama announced over 300 measures to battle climate change. The president chose the store because of its efforts to switch to renewable energy.
"This Wal-Mart is different and that’s why I’m here,” Obama told the audience. He noted that a few years ago, the store decided to put solar panels on the roof and replace some traditional light bulbs with LEDs. Additionally it made refrigerator cases more efficient and put in a charging station for electric vehicles.”
Obama said Walmart’s upgrades created dozens of construction jobs and helped the store save money on its energy bills.
“More and more companies like Walmart are realizing that wasting less energy isn’t just good for the planet — it’s good for business; it’s good for the bottom line; and it means jobs,” the president said.
The measures unveiled on Friday would similarly create jobs and cut carbon pollution through the use of solar power and other renewable-energy sources, a White House statement said.
I love him; such a great guy. Marching out the Nazi line is worn out and lazy speechwriting, I give you that. Washington's awash in it. However, when he puts the spotlight on "fascist intolerance," that's much in keeping with what we've been seeing on the right (not the libertarian, more of the social wing). Not content with disagreement, the hate is directed at the people holding those views. It's not free and open debate, it's personalized and intended towards destruction. It's all happening under lawful protections both ways, but you can't help but criticize the societal norms behind them egging this behavior on. Not some fringe view, but a very mainstream interpretation of the Christian faith. Or, as Gohmert says, those that can't tolerate other's intolerance.
When the voters approved Prop 22 in California, it passed with over 60% support. This is California, not some backwoods state, or what Obama might call bitter clingers to guns and religion. CA supremes declared it unconstitutional. Next fight was Prop 8, a constitutional amendment. District court threw it out and shucks, nobody had standing to appeal it apparently (So says the US Supreme Court). But I digress--California voted twice to make only marriage between a man and a woman valid or recognized in California. That view could cost you your job or your promotion. What gives?
I think we all know the religious vote is what got those pieces to pass(people claiming a religion were far more likely to vote for the props except for Jewish people (who overwhelmingly support gay marriage [a bit odd there is such a gap considering they follow the same God as the Christians who are so against it. {I guess Jesus's teachings somehow made gay marriage more unacceptable than the Jewish religion teaches?}]). So clinging to their religion couldn't be a more apt description of most people who are against gay marriage.
In time Krauthammer and people like him on this issue will eventually be seen as the Stodgy old men they are, not only by most people outside of their circles as they currently are, but by the new generations of republicans who simply don't hold on to those types of antiquated views.
Today, 61% of Republicans and Republican leaners under 30 favor same-sex marriage while just 35% oppose it. By contrast, just 27% of Republicans ages 50 and older favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry.
On May 11 2014 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Your Reagan example doesn't illustrate that conservatives don't want solar to compete. 30 years ago solar couldn't compete. Even today, solar isn't quite at the point where it can compete.
To spell it out - there's a difference between holding something that can compete back and not wanting to support something that can't compete.
To be honest Jonny I wouldn't expect it to ring true to you. I already know where this road leads so I'm not going to entertain your argument long. I've made my point and whether you accept it or not isn't really relevant to me.
'Even today, solar isn't quite at the point where it can compete' Ugh.. This is also why I don't want to go down this rabbit hole with you...
But for those who don't seem to understand the actual known history of energy discovery and use, here is a kid friendly illustration. (Unless of course those kids are New Earthers as the start of the timeline could be problematic).
Also if you are still having a hard time comprehending how Reagan and his camps' are one of several reasons 'Even today, solar isn't quite at the point where it can compete' perhaps you should look into Reagan and the IIASA.
There are so many examples of conservatives (and Dem's from O&G States) inhibiting renewables from enjoying similar treatment as O&G and Nuclear, it's ridiculous to me, you could with any sincerity, suggest otherwise.
Bottom line: I'm not saying this applies to you Jonny but most people on either side don't have a clue what they are talking about when it comes to energy (beyond talking points). My original point, is one should merely get a much better grasp before offering an opinion that is clearly not well thought out or considerate of the actual state of the relevant discourse (outside conservative bubbles).
If you have some data that shows the narrative of subsidies being significantly different than my description I'm still open to seeing them, not variations in calculations of one number or another, but something that shows somehow renewables are getting some sort of treatment that is better than previous energy sources?
I think you're misguided on the subsidy issue. For the most part, favorable treatments available to O&G companies are also available to renewables (ex. accelerated depreciation). On top of that renewables often get very big subsidies. For solar the big Federal subsidy (though not the only one) is the tax credit covering 30% of the capital cost. I've never heard of a subsidy to O&G or nuclear that came anywhere close to that.
Your response is a non-sequitur to my post. (I know you disagree or you presumably wouldn't have posted it)
A recent report by Scully Capital Services, an investment banking and financial services firm, commissioned by the Department of Energy (DOE), highlighted three federal subsidies and regulations — termed “show stoppers” — without which the industry would grind to a halt. These “show stoppers” include the Price Anderson Act, which limits the liability of the nuclear industry in case of a serious nuclear accident — leaving taxpayers on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions in compensation costs; federal disposal of nuclear waste in a permanent repository, which will save the industry billions at taxpayer expense; and licensing regulations, wherein the report recommends that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission further grease the skids of its quasi-judicial licensing process to preclude successful interventions from opponents. But even these long-standing subsidies are not enough to convince investors, who for decades have treated nuclear power as the pariah of the energy industry.
I mean there are more but "$100's of billions" +billions more for waste disposal was the most obvious refutation of your misinformed and clearly deceptive point.
Don't bother going on until you have something that shows in context some story of renewables getting significantly better treatment than O&G or Nuclear OVERALL not just a snapshot of the current situation. I won't even go into how the health and environmental consequences of O&G are so much worse and not calculated into these types calculations.
Nuclear is a bit different and, appropriately, my comments were directed to O&G.
You seem to be having a problem with the numbers. A large industry receiving a small subsidy (like accelerated depreciation) over a long period of time will have numbers that aggregate into a large figure. However, that doesn't mean that the industry is highly subsidized. In any given year the small subsidy wouldn't have meant much and removing the subsidy wouldn't have affected prices to a large degree.
This situation with solar is different. Remove the subsidies and the costs are much higher. For example:
What makes solar heavily subsidized is the affect of subsidies on prices, not total aggregate spending over the past century.
Better at least. But still a snapshot.
The first 15 years, the report says, are critical to developing new technologies. It finds that oil and gas subsidies, including tax breaks and government spending, were about five times as much as aid to renewables during their first 15 years of development; nuclear received 10 times as much support.
You need to provide context for this data point to be relevant. As I already pointed out, aggregate numbers are heavily influenced by the size of the industry. Moreover, you need to also demonstrate that you are showing numbers in an apples to apples comparison (i.e. if you count depreciation as a subsidy, you should do the same for solar), which I don't think your sources do.
...the fledgling oil industry in the United States first received government assistance in 1916. That was when intangible drilling costs were able to be fully (100%>30%) deducted from a company's expenses for tax purposes. In 1926, a write-off for cost depletion was introduced. That provision allowed oil companies to deduct costs based upon overall gross receipts and not just the actual value of the oil.
This is strict ignorance on your end. The destructibility of intangible drilling costs and depletion allowances are not strictly subsidies. Nor are they as valuable as the 30% tax credit. Moreover, solar benefits from MACRS which is similar to the O&G depletion allowance.
You do realize part of the aggregate subsidies are the one's meant to 'help a fledgling industry' and yet are still being used to this day?
Yes, and they are tiny (see EIA report) and today they're meant to lessen dependence on foreign oil rather than help a fledgling industry.
I think even you would admit that we no longer need those subsidies and that no tax-cut is needed to justify removing that particular 1916 subsidy?
They aren't *needed* but I'd have to review the literature in order to tell to what extent they should be considered subsidies.
Despite your insinuations it appears you are the one who seems to not comprehend the context of subsidies in the energy industry.
I don't think you understand finance and accounting well enough to understand the numbers.
I really don't even know what your point is?
Would you mind clearly stating it if you insist on continuing?
My point is that solar is much more heavily subsidized than O&G. That's true not only today but it is also true in a historical context as well. I've seen zero evidence from you that O&G has ever been subsidized as heavily as solar is today.
Well you obviously didn't read the data. You are the one who has provided 0 evidence of their claim (at least with respect to historical context).
I have asked several times and you still have nothing, so I am done with you until you provide it.
I'm also not going to argue over the definition of 'subsidy'or other nuances, when everyone knows perfectly well what we are talking about.
You'll probably have some statement to follow this, but the short lived entertainment of your argument is over for me.
The person I was responding to hasn't opined, so there is no need to continue for myself.
If you want to think renewables enjoy some unprecedented level of government assistance go right ahead, it fits right in with conservative/Republican perceptions and ideas, some of which I've highlighted before. Feel free to believe what you wish but us going back and forth on something like this will go nowhere, as has been illustrated before, when you just stop responding and wait for the next issue when you finally get cornered into an indefensible position.
Lol, I'm so tired of your high school level 'analysis'. You obviously don't know what the number mean and you're just googling for things that look relevant.
Until you are at a level where you can understand the numbers, there's really no point in debating this.
Do us all a favor then in the future, and don't.
Maybe if you provided 'numbers' for one to 'understand' it wouldn't be such a problem for you.
Go ahead and keep trying to belittle my intellect, I actually find it incredibly amusing. Maybe you could call me kiddo again, I thought that was especially cute and endearing?
Is this another debate that is going to end with you claiming some unspecified number is X and then using personal insults and attacks on provided data, to attempt to cover for the fact that you, as of yet, still haven't provided 'numbers' to support your claim? If my last example is any indication, I suppose I already know the answer...
The solar tax credit is worth 30% of the installed cost of the solar system. Since the installed cost is virtually all the cost (88% according to source), it represents nearly 30% of the total cost (26% according to source, which roughly matches 0.88*0.30=.264). That's huge.
By comparison, the intangible drilling costs (IDC) you brought up don't amount to nearly as much. All business expenses are deducted either by expensing or depreciation / amortization. The IDC 'subsidy' is a form of accelerated depreciation and subsidizes O&G production by lowering taxes owed in the near term in exchange for raising taxes owed in the future, which creates a net benefit in present value terms.
It is also important to keep IDC expensing in perspective by comparing it to the overall operating costs in the oil and gas industry. When evaluated against total operating costs in the oil and gas industry, the subsidy provided by IDC expensing is minimal. We estimated the overall U.S. operating costs in the oil and gas industry using price and production estimates from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the weighted average U.S. operating margin for the 50 largest companies in the oil and gas industry. As shown in Table 1 below, estimated total operating costs in the U.S. oil and gas industry in 2014 are approximately $277 billion, and the subsidy from IDC Expensing is at most 0.6 percent of estimated U.S. operating costs. This means that in 2014 the IDC expensing subsidy is only expected to reduce industry costs by a mere 0.6 percent.
So here are some numbers. Solar receiving a subsidy worth 26% of costs vs O&G receiving a subsidy worth 0.6% of costs.
But wait! There's more! ... right?
It is important to keep in mind that IDC expensing is only a fraction of the total subsidies received by the oil and gas industry. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that IDC expensing will provide a $700 million subsidy to oil and gas producers in 2013 and a $900 million subsidy in 2014.23 The Fiscal Year 2014 budget proposed by President Obama estimates that IDC expensing will provide a $1.6 billion subsidy in 2014.24 Previous IIC, Inc. analysis of oil and gas subsidies indicates that the oil and gas industry receives an additional $4 to $5.5 billion in subsidies each year for a total of $4.7-$7.1 billion in subsidies. Therefore, IDC expensing makes up at most 29 percent of total oil and gas subsidies.
(same source as above)
OK, so according to the 'Joint Committee on Taxation' the IDC only represents 29% of all O&G subsidies. Easy enough, (0.6%/0.29%=2.09%) yet we're still only talking about subsidies worth 2.09% of costs. Solar is at 26.4% and that's with just one subsidy. The CA subsidies are worth another ~14%. On top of that solar gets accelerated depreciation and a myriad of other subsidies to boot.
You can quibble with some of the numbers here, but the gulf is so wide that it doesn't really matter.
Amy Dertz has been a Registered Nurse since 2007 in Oakland, California. She recently penned this piece about how her work experience has changed under Obamacare. She describes it as “a killer burden.” “Hospitals delaying and denying care to patients as the ACA enables more Americans to buy into this deeply flawed system. If the ACA …
Since Obamacare’s March 31, 2014 deadline, the Administration has gone on a victory tour to tout the law and HealthCare.gov’s eight million so-called “new” enrollees. But, are there really eight million new enrollees? Of the 8 million, who has paid their premiums? Were they uninsured prior to obtaining insurance? Or, was their insurance previously cancelled? …
The latest discovery of the President’s failed health care law is that millions of Americans who are without health insurance will have to wait until 2015 to get covered. According to this Fox News report, only about one in four Americans who qualified for subsidies actually signed up for health insurance. Add those who could no longer …
“ObamaCare is not a harmless prank, like the pattern of broken promises and mistrusts could lead one to believe.” Small Business Committee Chairman Sam Graves (MO-6), “ObamaCare Is No Harmless Prank” “Generic drugs saved Americans $1.2 trillion in pharmaceutical costs over the past 10 years, and $217 billion in 2012 alone.” – Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN-07), “A Threat …
Those are the most recent pieces provided by the GOP under the heading 'Health Care Solutions'... 50+ votes later and the GOP's best healthcare solutions are still just 'Repeal Obamacare' By some feat the GOP may take the Senate but they are going to have to come up with solutions besides repealing Obama Care if they ever want a shot at the Presidency.
WASHINGTON -- Of all the states that stand to suffer from climate change, Florida is facing potentially the bleakest consequences. A New York Times report noted last week that global warming was already having an effect on everyday life, like leading to flooding on streets that never used to flood.
Meanwhile, a National Climate Assessment has named Miami as the city most vulnerable to damage from rising sea levels. While a Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact paper warned that water in the area could rise by as much as two feet by the year 2060.
On Sunday, one of the state's U.S. senators, Marco Rubio (R), was pressed about the general subject of climate change, and despite the warnings outlined above, he argued that there was nothing lawmakers could or should do to reverse the climate trends (whose origins he also questioned).
"I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it," Rubio said, according to excerpts released by ABC "This Week," "and I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy."
"The fact is that these events that we're talking about are impacting us, because we built very expensive structures in Florida and other parts of the country near areas that are prone to hurricanes. We've had hurricanes in Florida forever. And the question is, what do we do about the fact that we have built expensive structures, real estate and population centers near those vulnerable areas?" he asked. "I have no problem with taking mitigation activity."
The transcript does not indicate what Rubio's "mitigation activity" would consist of, but his assessment that the laws currently being proposed to address climate change won't help, and will only hurt the economy, is at odds with his own history as a politician.
WASHINGTON -- Of all the states that stand to suffer from climate change, Florida is facing potentially the bleakest consequences. A New York Times report noted last week that global warming was already having an effect on everyday life, like leading to flooding on streets that never used to flood.
Meanwhile, a National Climate Assessment has named Miami as the city most vulnerable to damage from rising sea levels. While a Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact paper warned that water in the area could rise by as much as two feet by the year 2060.
On Sunday, one of the state's U.S. senators, Marco Rubio (R), was pressed about the general subject of climate change, and despite the warnings outlined above, he argued that there was nothing lawmakers could or should do to reverse the climate trends (whose origins he also questioned).
"I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it," Rubio said, according to excerpts released by ABC "This Week," "and I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy."
"The fact is that these events that we're talking about are impacting us, because we built very expensive structures in Florida and other parts of the country near areas that are prone to hurricanes. We've had hurricanes in Florida forever. And the question is, what do we do about the fact that we have built expensive structures, real estate and population centers near those vulnerable areas?" he asked. "I have no problem with taking mitigation activity."
The transcript does not indicate what Rubio's "mitigation activity" would consist of, but his assessment that the laws currently being proposed to address climate change won't help, and will only hurt the economy, is at odds with his own history as a politician.
I find it interesting how conservatives make fun of others for "preaching doom and gloom" about issues such as climate change while those same conservatives are the ones saying everyone needs a gun because the world is full of murderers.
On May 12 2014 11:58 SnipedSoul wrote: I find it interesting how conservatives make fun of others for "preaching doom and gloom" about issues such as climate change while those same conservatives are the ones saying everyone needs a gun because the world is full of murderers.
There are plenty of things that conservatives are alarmist about, but that doesn't qualify.
On May 12 2014 11:58 SnipedSoul wrote: I find it interesting how conservatives make fun of others for "preaching doom and gloom" about issues such as climate change while those same conservatives are the ones saying everyone needs a gun because the world is full of murderers.
The causes of man-made gun violence are too well known to deny anymore. There's a consensus amongst everyone and the science is settled. By 2050, the effects of gun warming will cause murder rates everywhere to skyrocket. The only alternative is to ban the manufacture of guns, because only then will murder plummet. If we don't act quickly, the sheer cascading effect of these guns will make this transformation irreversible and catastrophic!
Now the lawful use of a firearm in self defense, there's a topic in a thread! 539 pages last I saw. Next time you see a gun rights type predicting the planet's demise, you point him out to me!
WASHINGTON -- Of all the states that stand to suffer from climate change, Florida is facing potentially the bleakest consequences. A New York Times report noted last week that global warming was already having an effect on everyday life, like leading to flooding on streets that never used to flood.
Meanwhile, a National Climate Assessment has named Miami as the city most vulnerable to damage from rising sea levels. While a Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact paper warned that water in the area could rise by as much as two feet by the year 2060.
On Sunday, one of the state's U.S. senators, Marco Rubio (R), was pressed about the general subject of climate change, and despite the warnings outlined above, he argued that there was nothing lawmakers could or should do to reverse the climate trends (whose origins he also questioned).
"I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it," Rubio said, according to excerpts released by ABC "This Week," "and I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy."
"The fact is that these events that we're talking about are impacting us, because we built very expensive structures in Florida and other parts of the country near areas that are prone to hurricanes. We've had hurricanes in Florida forever. And the question is, what do we do about the fact that we have built expensive structures, real estate and population centers near those vulnerable areas?" he asked. "I have no problem with taking mitigation activity."
The transcript does not indicate what Rubio's "mitigation activity" would consist of, but his assessment that the laws currently being proposed to address climate change won't help, and will only hurt the economy, is at odds with his own history as a politician.
P.S. You don't have to be cunt just because you don't believe in global warming. Some of us lost friends to something as 'trivial' as living somewhere close to sea level.
On May 12 2014 11:58 SnipedSoul wrote: I find it interesting how conservatives make fun of others for "preaching doom and gloom" about issues such as climate change while those same conservatives are the ones saying everyone needs a gun because the world is full of murderers.
The causes of man-made gun violence are too well known to deny anymore. There's a consensus amongst everyone and the science is settled. By 2050, the effects of gun warming will cause murder rates everywhere to skyrocket. The only alternative is to ban the manufacture of guns, because only then will murder plummet. If we don't act quickly, the sheer cascading effect of these guns will make this transformation irreversible and catastrophic!
Now the lawful use of a firearm in self defense, there's a topic in a thread! 539 pages last I saw. Next time you see a gun rights type predicting the planet's demise, you point him out to me!
Man, everything you post is so straw-man or absurd.
Few biologists are predicting that climate change is going to cause our planet's "demise". Although there are a few "possible" (in the sense that they are not logically impossible, but merely highly improbable) scenarios where it may cause serious, catastrophic destruction (i.e. slowing/stopping of "conveyor belt" oceanic water circulation systems, which I assure you would fuck life in the oceans and subsequently land pretty hard), most people consider these low probability events.
However, if climate change occurs it WILL have serious economic consequences for many areas. It WILL seriously harm biodiversity in many areas. It WILL cause species extinctions. Not all of these effects will be negative, however (e.g. many parts of Canada are predicted to exhibit increased biodiversity as a result of climate change). Ecosystems WILL be affected, and many are already demonstrably changing (average artic temperatures have changed by almost 6 degrees, I think, and that seriously fuck's up seasonal timings that species have adapted to). The ocean is also going to get more acidic the more CO2 we put in the atmosphere, which will happen regardless if the climate changes (not debatable, this is a function of chemistry). This could also have dramatic impacts on many species that use calcium to construct their shells. How will this change oceanic ecosystems? Who the fuck knows, but probably not in a good way.
Climate change probably will help agricultural production in some areas, but hurt others due to changing rainfall patterns (e.g. central Canada vs. the prairies). Coastal areas will probably be the most hard hit by all of its effects. Countries with the income or resources to adjust will have to pay the associated economic costs, but will probably be fine in the long run. It may seriously impact those that do not (e.g. cause human population migrations, and in extreme circumstances heighten risks of famine, with all of the human misery that typically accompanies those things), but will largely depend on the magnitude of the effects (i.e. Bangladesh is looking like it might be in some serious trouble).
To summarize realistic views on climate change: Will climate change extinguish life on this planet? No. Will it seriously affect some ecosystems if it happens? Yes. Has it already? There is very good evidence that this is the case. Will many of the effects be seriously negative? Yes, for some people/ecosystems. Will all the effects be negative? No, some people/places/species stand to benefit quite a bit from climate change. Will some areas not see a significant change at all? Probably.
Assuming that ecosystem stability, biodiversity, reducing market externalities (i.e. the costs paid by people who do not participate in the benefits causing those costs), and increasing predictability (the last two are something you market-oriented people should sympathize with) are desirable things, climate change/CO2 production is worth investigating, and trying to slow. It's just the precautionary principle, which seems like a pretty good-sense principle to follow to me. However, if you don't give a shit about those things, then fuck it. Hell, it's probably only poor brown people that will suffer the most as a result, but who cares about them right?
WASHINGTON -- Of all the states that stand to suffer from climate change, Florida is facing potentially the bleakest consequences. A New York Times report noted last week that global warming was already having an effect on everyday life, like leading to flooding on streets that never used to flood.
Meanwhile, a National Climate Assessment has named Miami as the city most vulnerable to damage from rising sea levels. While a Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact paper warned that water in the area could rise by as much as two feet by the year 2060.
On Sunday, one of the state's U.S. senators, Marco Rubio (R), was pressed about the general subject of climate change, and despite the warnings outlined above, he argued that there was nothing lawmakers could or should do to reverse the climate trends (whose origins he also questioned).
"I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it," Rubio said, according to excerpts released by ABC "This Week," "and I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy."
"The fact is that these events that we're talking about are impacting us, because we built very expensive structures in Florida and other parts of the country near areas that are prone to hurricanes. We've had hurricanes in Florida forever. And the question is, what do we do about the fact that we have built expensive structures, real estate and population centers near those vulnerable areas?" he asked. "I have no problem with taking mitigation activity."
The transcript does not indicate what Rubio's "mitigation activity" would consist of, but his assessment that the laws currently being proposed to address climate change won't help, and will only hurt the economy, is at odds with his own history as a politician.
P.S. You don't have to be cunt just because you don't believe in global warming. Some of us lost friends to something as 'trivial' as living somewhere close to sea level.
If you believe the NYT piece originally referenced, you'll see the argument is based on a stated 8 inch sea level rise in 144 years. Eight inches in one hundred and forty four years and "global warming [is] already having an effect on everyday life" is still a leap no matter which way you slice it. I welcome you to show me the academics on those inches and their relative effect in a storm surge and these new streets now affected by flooding. Those pictures you show are more an example of the devastation of a storm surge and less so proof that they're worse now due entirely to global warming over a century and a half. I mirror your sadness if you've lost friends in floods or hurricanes. The question is where you lay the blame.
On May 12 2014 11:58 SnipedSoul wrote: I find it interesting how conservatives make fun of others for "preaching doom and gloom" about issues such as climate change while those same conservatives are the ones saying everyone needs a gun because the world is full of murderers.
The causes of man-made gun violence are too well known to deny anymore. There's a consensus amongst everyone and the science is settled. By 2050, the effects of gun warming will cause murder rates everywhere to skyrocket. The only alternative is to ban the manufacture of guns, because only then will murder plummet. If we don't act quickly, the sheer cascading effect of these guns will make this transformation irreversible and catastrophic!
Now the lawful use of a firearm in self defense, there's a topic in a thread! 539 pages last I saw. Next time you see a gun rights type predicting the planet's demise, you point him out to me!
Man, everything you post is so straw-man or absurd.
Few biologists are predicting that climate change is going to cause our planet's "demise". Although there are a few "possible" (in the sense that they are not logically impossible, but merely highly improbable) scenarios where it may cause serious, catastrophic destruction (i.e. slowing/stopping of "conveyor belt" oceanic water circulation systems, which I assure you would fuck life in the oceans and subsequently land pretty hard), most people consider these low probability events.
However, if climate change occurs it WILL have serious economic consequences for many areas. It WILL seriously harm biodiversity in many areas. It WILL cause species extinctions. Not all of these effects will be negative, however (e.g. many parts of Canada are predicted to exhibit increased biodiversity as a result of climate change). Ecosystems WILL be affected, and many are already demonstrably changing (average artic temperatures have changed by almost 6 degrees, I think, and that seriously fuck's up seasonal timings that species have adapted to). The ocean is also going to get more acidic the more CO2 we put in the atmosphere, which will happen regardless if the climate changes (not debatable, this is a function of chemistry). This could also have dramatic impacts on many species that use calcium to construct their shells. How will this change oceanic ecosystems? Who the fuck knows, but probably not in a good way.
Climate change probably will help agricultural production in some areas, but hurt others due to changing rainfall patterns (e.g. central Canada vs. the prairies). Coastal areas will probably be the most hard hit by all of its effects. Countries with the income or resources to adjust will have to pay the associated economic costs, but will probably be fine in the long run. It may seriously impact those that do not (e.g. cause human population migrations, and in extreme circumstances heighten risks of famine, with all of the human misery that typically accompanies those things), but will largely depend on the magnitude of the effects (i.e. Bangladesh is looking like it might be in some serious trouble).
To summarize realistic views on climate change: Will climate change extinguish life on this planet? No. Will it seriously affect some ecosystems if it happens? Yes. Has it already? There is very good evidence that this is the case. Will many of the effects be seriously negative? Yes, for some people/ecosystems. Will all the effects be negative? No, some people/places/species stand to benefit quite a bit from climate change. Will some areas not see a significant change at all? Probably.
Assuming that ecosystem stability, biodiversity, reducing market externalities (i.e. the costs paid by people who do not participate in the benefits causing those costs), and increasing predictability (the last two are something you market-oriented people should sympathize with) are desirable things, climate change/CO2 production is worth investigating, and trying to slow. It's just the precautionary principle, which seems like a pretty good-sense principle to follow to me. However, if you don't give a shit about those things, then fuck it. Hell, it's probably only poor brown people that will suffer the most as a result, but who cares about them right?
I would ask your feelings on the nature of IPCC reports, since they tend to have catastrophic predictions with some estimation of the future decade's severity. Last year September there was reporting on CBS in the wake of the 9/27 report that temperatures might rise more than 200 degrees.
I think the debate on the future predictions about global warming (or should I say global climate disruption) goes beyond the scope of this thread. Your question on "Has it already [seriously affected some ecosystems]" I say is not adequately proven as it relates to human societies on planet earth. When you use climate change, I might have to ask you to clarify because prehistoric ice ages, amongst others, might be thought of as climate change.
I have no comment on your flippant accusation of
Hell, it's probably only poor brown people that will suffer the most as a result, but who cares about them right?
since I have too much respect for you to think you wish to conclude by calling your opponents racists.
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/solar.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/H1Yx6FC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GqVBbes.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/z1krfwF.png)
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DBp4ox4qggw/TQw9FmJW2LI/AAAAAAAAAFk/1DZlaBbQB5Y/s1600/Miami+Beach+tidal+flood.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://icons-ak.wunderground.com/data/wximagenew/j/jamesgood72/34.jpg){kind=icon}
