This is a very reasonable approach however it is not what TheBomb has taken. The whole point of the Carbon tax is push for alternative fuel sources. Oil becomes more expensive so electricity generation will initially move from coal to gas not oil, so his point is irrelevant.
I'd prefer to let the market do this itself. I don't really see the benefit of Cap and Trade schemes, all they seem to do is put companies in supreme positions over others. ( Think GE vs Exxon Mobil, Mining companies, etc). I fear how the market will retort should something like this go through. Lots of raw material corporations would suffer greatly.
Yes scientists will benefit from global warming grants, but so do denialist scientists. Not from government funding but private. You could try and argue this is a sign that the government is pushing an agenda. To that I would say that in Australia around 10% of grant applications receive some level of approval. If you don't get a grant is probably because your research plan is simply not good enough.
I suppose what I was trying to get across was that everyone has an agenda, and that I pretty much take any news with a grain of salt these days, with the absurdly sensationalist American Media.
Edit: Grammar
Edit2: No one will get my joke >.< , so I removed it
The market is not going to do it themselves until it's pretty much really really late. In the free market, technology curves are 'S' shaped.
The market has begun, slowly, moving towards electric cars instead of gas cars. The problem is that there's very little demand for them, because there are no recharge stations where you can pull up, plug in, and recharge your batteries. There's no incentive for companies to start building recharge stations because there aren't enough electric cars out there for building them to be worthwhile. End result is a mexican standoff between companies and consumers that perpetuates gas usage. The infrastructure required won't be built until the cost of gasoline is absurdly high and people refuse to pay it anymore, but it'll start being built then and the people who relied on gas will suffer for a good long time while they wait for everything to be built.
Some things only a government can really do. It's what economics refers to as an externality, a benefit to society that will not be be provided by the free market. The question is when is it worth our time and money to have the government take care of the issue: is gas too expensive already? Should we wait a bit longer for it to become more expensive?
When gas becomes too expensive, power companies will move towards alternative power sources as well, like wind/solar/nuclear. The question is, do we wait for them to do it themselves and suffer absurd electricity costs, or do we let the government step in?
You should also consider that when fossil fuels do hit that threshold of being "Too expensive" demand for other sources will skyrocket, and money will be made hand over fist on these new resources. The energy / transportation companies know this, and they will be in an appropriate position to provide these new goods (electric cars , etc) to a hungry consumer base. It essentially boils down to supply and demand, and the market never fails at conforming to that. I'm not worried at all when it comes to the fossil fuels. (I am however very, very annoyed at everyone's profound fear of nuclear power.) When the transition period comes, everything will be fine. The demand just hasn't reached that level yet for many people, as many people still have found ways to make things work around higher fuel costs.
TL;DR Be patient, It's not going to get as bad as you think it is.
No, you missed the point, which I didn't say plainly. It's not that I'm worried myself, I can afford a brief period of high costs. It's those people who are low income or below the poverty threshold that suffer really badly from things like this.
This is a very reasonable approach however it is not what TheBomb has taken. The whole point of the Carbon tax is push for alternative fuel sources. Oil becomes more expensive so electricity generation will initially move from coal to gas not oil, so his point is irrelevant.
I'd prefer to let the market do this itself. I don't really see the benefit of Cap and Trade schemes, all they seem to do is put companies in supreme positions over others. ( Think GE vs Exxon Mobil, Mining companies, etc). I fear how the market will retort should something like this go through. Lots of raw material corporations would suffer greatly.
Yes scientists will benefit from global warming grants, but so do denialist scientists. Not from government funding but private. You could try and argue this is a sign that the government is pushing an agenda. To that I would say that in Australia around 10% of grant applications receive some level of approval. If you don't get a grant is probably because your research plan is simply not good enough.
I suppose what I was trying to get across was that everyone has an agenda, and that I pretty much take any news with a grain of salt these days, with the absurdly sensationalist American Media.
Edit: Grammar
Edit2: No one will get my joke >.< , so I removed it
The market is not going to do it themselves until it's pretty much really really late. In the free market, technology curves are 'S' shaped.
The market has begun, slowly, moving towards electric cars instead of gas cars. The problem is that there's very little demand for them, because there are no recharge stations where you can pull up, plug in, and recharge your batteries. There's no incentive for companies to start building recharge stations because there aren't enough electric cars out there for building them to be worthwhile. End result is a mexican standoff between companies and consumers that perpetuates gas usage. The infrastructure required won't be built until the cost of gasoline is absurdly high and people refuse to pay it anymore, but it'll start being built then and the people who relied on gas will suffer for a good long time while they wait for everything to be built.
Some things only a government can really do. It's what economics refers to as an externality, a benefit to society that will not be be provided by the free market. The question is when is it worth our time and money to have the government take care of the issue: is gas too expensive already? Should we wait a bit longer for it to become more expensive?
When gas becomes too expensive, power companies will move towards alternative power sources as well, like wind/solar/nuclear. The question is, do we wait for them to do it themselves and suffer absurd electricity costs, or do we let the government step in?
You should also consider that when fossil fuels do hit that threshold of being "Too expensive" demand for other sources will skyrocket, and money will be made hand over fist on these new resources. The energy / transportation companies know this, and they will be in an appropriate position to provide these new goods (electric cars , etc) to a hungry consumer base. It essentially boils down to supply and demand, and the market never fails at conforming to that. I'm not worried at all when it comes to the fossil fuels. (I am however very, very annoyed at everyone's profound fear of nuclear power.) When the transition period comes, everything will be fine. The demand just hasn't reached that level yet for many people, as many people still have found ways to make things work around higher fuel costs.
TL;DR Be patient, It's not going to get as bad as you think it is.
No, you missed the point, which I didn't say plainly. It's not that I'm worried myself, I can afford a brief period of high costs. It's those people who are low income or below the poverty threshold that suffer really badly from things like this.
Yeah it's gonna be tough for the people on the lower rungs of the ladder, but that's a whole new can of worms you just opened there. We will probably see an increase in a reliance on public transportation as a result, so cities should have plans in place to expand these departments appropriately.
Honestly guys, 100 years ago oil was shit that bubbled out of the ground and messed with farmers crops. IT was a nuisance. Now we've transformed it into the lifeblood of the economy. Human ingenuity is so strong, our potential so limitless, that we will find a solution to peak oil & fossil fuel shortage when that becomes a problem.
On November 29 2011 03:57 BestZergOnEast wrote: Honestly guys, 100 years ago oil was shit that bubbled out of the ground and messed with farmers crops. IT was a nuisance. Now we've transformed it into the lifeblood of the economy. Human ingenuity is so strong, our potential so limitless, that we will find a solution to peak oil & fossil fuel shortage when that becomes a problem.
I would question the logic behind the "we're really smart, we'll figure it out eventually!" mentality...
On November 29 2011 03:57 BestZergOnEast wrote: Honestly guys, 100 years ago oil was shit that bubbled out of the ground and messed with farmers crops. IT was a nuisance. Now we've transformed it into the lifeblood of the economy. Human ingenuity is so strong, our potential so limitless, that we will find a solution to peak oil & fossil fuel shortage when that becomes a problem.
I would question the logic behind the "we're really smart, we'll figure it out eventually!" mentality...
This is a very reasonable approach however it is not what TheBomb has taken. The whole point of the Carbon tax is push for alternative fuel sources. Oil becomes more expensive so electricity generation will initially move from coal to gas not oil, so his point is irrelevant.
I'd prefer to let the market do this itself. I don't really see the benefit of Cap and Trade schemes, all they seem to do is put companies in supreme positions over others. ( Think GE vs Exxon Mobil, Mining companies, etc). I fear how the market will retort should something like this go through. Lots of raw material corporations would suffer greatly.
Yes scientists will benefit from global warming grants, but so do denialist scientists. Not from government funding but private. You could try and argue this is a sign that the government is pushing an agenda. To that I would say that in Australia around 10% of grant applications receive some level of approval. If you don't get a grant is probably because your research plan is simply not good enough.
I suppose what I was trying to get across was that everyone has an agenda, and that I pretty much take any news with a grain of salt these days, with the absurdly sensationalist American Media.
Edit: Grammar
Edit2: No one will get my joke >.< , so I removed it
The market is not going to do it themselves until it's pretty much really really late. In the free market, technology curves are 'S' shaped.
The market has begun, slowly, moving towards electric cars instead of gas cars. The problem is that there's very little demand for them, because there are no recharge stations where you can pull up, plug in, and recharge your batteries. There's no incentive for companies to start building recharge stations because there aren't enough electric cars out there for building them to be worthwhile. End result is a mexican standoff between companies and consumers that perpetuates gas usage. The infrastructure required won't be built until the cost of gasoline is absurdly high and people refuse to pay it anymore, but it'll start being built then and the people who relied on gas will suffer for a good long time while they wait for everything to be built.
Some things only a government can really do. It's what economics refers to as an externality, a benefit to society that will not be be provided by the free market. The question is when is it worth our time and money to have the government take care of the issue: is gas too expensive already? Should we wait a bit longer for it to become more expensive?
When gas becomes too expensive, power companies will move towards alternative power sources as well, like wind/solar/nuclear. The question is, do we wait for them to do it themselves and suffer absurd electricity costs, or do we let the government step in?
You should also consider that when fossil fuels do hit that threshold of being "Too expensive" demand for other sources will skyrocket, and money will be made hand over fist on these new resources. The energy / transportation companies know this, and they will be in an appropriate position to provide these new goods (electric cars , etc) to a hungry consumer base. It essentially boils down to supply and demand, and the market never fails at conforming to that. I'm not worried at all when it comes to the fossil fuels. (I am however very, very annoyed at everyone's profound fear of nuclear power.) When the transition period comes, everything will be fine. The demand just hasn't reached that level yet for many people, as many people still have found ways to make things work around higher fuel costs.
TL;DR Be patient, It's not going to get as bad as you think it is.
No, you missed the point, which I didn't say plainly. It's not that I'm worried myself, I can afford a brief period of high costs. It's those people who are low income or below the poverty threshold that suffer really badly from things like this.
Yeah it's gonna be tough for the people on the lower rungs of the ladder, but that's a whole new can of worms you just opened there. We will probably see an increase in a reliance on public transportation as a result, so cities should have plans in place to expand these departments appropriately.
Yeah, but it's really hard in the United States because of how big the country is and how spread out everything is. People who don't live in the city or live in cities without good public transportation options would just be boned.
On November 29 2011 03:57 BestZergOnEast wrote: Honestly guys, 100 years ago oil was shit that bubbled out of the ground and messed with farmers crops. IT was a nuisance. Now we've transformed it into the lifeblood of the economy. Human ingenuity is so strong, our potential so limitless, that we will find a solution to peak oil & fossil fuel shortage when that becomes a problem.
On November 29 2011 03:57 BestZergOnEast wrote: Honestly guys, 100 years ago oil was shit that bubbled out of the ground and messed with farmers crops. IT was a nuisance. Now we've transformed it into the lifeblood of the economy. Human ingenuity is so strong, our potential so limitless, that we will find a solution to peak oil & fossil fuel shortage when that becomes a problem.
We're well past Peak Oil.
If you count only the sources we're allowed to go after I'd say we're just about at the maximum. Peak oil is such a fickle thing to measure anyways as the industry gets better and better at getting it out of hard to reach places, and It only includes known sources. There's plenty off the coasts of the states too, but the environmentalist grip on those state's policies really won't be broken until the demand grows greater (I'm looking at you, California).
I've been sort of in and out with then news recently. Apparently Bachmann's got this whole thing that the media is biased against her? What's that all about?
On November 29 2011 08:37 heroofcanton wrote: I've been sort of in and out with then news recently. Apparently Bachmann's got this whole thing that the media is biased against her? What's that all about?
She's probably correct. If I was a newscaster I'd be all over her retarded sound bytes.
Guys instead of fighting over climate change on who's right and who's wrong. Maybe you should start a new thread somewhere else because this is a different section that has nothing to do with the weather.
On November 29 2011 03:57 BestZergOnEast wrote: Honestly guys, 100 years ago oil was shit that bubbled out of the ground and messed with farmers crops. IT was a nuisance. Now we've transformed it into the lifeblood of the economy. Human ingenuity is so strong, our potential so limitless, that we will find a solution to peak oil & fossil fuel shortage when that becomes a problem.
We're well past Peak Oil.
If you count only the sources we're allowed to go after I'd say we're just about at the maximum. Peak oil is such a fickle thing to measure anyways as the industry gets better and better at getting it out of hard to reach places, and It only includes known sources. There's plenty off the coasts of the states too, but the environmentalist grip on those state's policies really won't be broken until the demand grows greater (I'm looking at you, California).
For the record, some of the environmentalists have a good point. Mind you, most of them are nuts and have no freaking clue what they are talking about, but not all support for the environment should be ignored.
On November 29 2011 08:37 heroofcanton wrote: I've been sort of in and out with then news recently. Apparently Bachmann's got this whole thing that the media is biased against her? What's that all about?
She's probably correct. If I was a newscaster I'd be all over her retarded sound bytes.
Of course she's right, almost everyone is biased against obvious idiots.
On November 29 2011 08:37 heroofcanton wrote: I've been sort of in and out with then news recently. Apparently Bachmann's got this whole thing that the media is biased against her? What's that all about?
She's probably correct. If I was a newscaster I'd be all over her retarded sound bytes.
Of course she's right, almost everyone is biased against obvious idiots.
I'm biased against her for the sole reason that she has the most superficial and annoying smile and laugh. It's just too fake to take.
Has the Herman Cain thing been substantiated? I don't necessarily believe it nor do I care, I just find the situation ironic given the double standard with how they treated Clinton (or Kennedy since he was known as a womanizer in those days).
On November 29 2011 09:49 Playguuu wrote: Has the Herman Cain thing been substantiated? I don't necessarily believe it nor do I care, I just find the situation ironic given the double standard with how they treated Clinton (or Kennedy since he was known as a womanizer in those days).
It's kind of died away since nothing has been proven yet, but he's dropped really hard in the polls, although that may be due to other things.
On November 29 2011 09:49 Playguuu wrote: Has the Herman Cain thing been substantiated? I don't necessarily believe it nor do I care, I just find the situation ironic given the double standard with how they treated Clinton (or Kennedy since he was known as a womanizer in those days).
It's kind of died away since nothing has been proven yet, but he's dropped really hard in the polls, although that may be due to other things.
Well when all you have is "9-9-9" and "I'll consult with my advisers", people are bound to wonder whether you are qualified to actually be President or are just running for your book tour.
EPT
