Global Warming?

[RobertBrown]

Most likely the ones being "cooked" that you rely on so much...or possibly your hand book

OOPS! wrong again!

 

[Cat_Driver]

Why didn't the Government just tale the money they gave to Greenie Gov. donors who in turn gave it back in donation just buy everyone a Chev ,VOLT?

OH wait because they no longer are making the VOLT. Sorry, that's another green failure by the greenies.

They could give everyone batteries... OH WAIT that's another Government failure

A123's Failure and the History of Government in the Auto Industry - Driver's Seat - WSJ

FOLLOW THE MONEY

$849 million – has gone to foreign wind companies. Spanish utility company
Overseas firms collecting most green energy money - Blown Away: Tracking stimulus grants for renewable energy | Investigative Reporting Workshop

 

[IslandTractor]

What no Libbies crying about how much money was wasted on "green scams" WHAT no protesting, WHAT no "occupy " cry babies holding up signs NAHHHHHHH, NOW when Corporations WASTE MONEY ya that different isn't it.

See this is why LIBERALS HAVE NO CREDIBILITY

The Complete List of *****'s Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures

complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($69 million)*
AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.5 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)
Fisker Automotive ($528 million)
Abound Solar ($374 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*
UniSolar ($100 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($10 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*

Cat my ditto headed friend, you could at least quote the entire article if you are going to post pieces. You left out the following sentence: " Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain". Now this is a biased piece to begin with so probably a fair number of those companies will in fact survive but certainly some are well publicized failures.

OK, 10% of the money invested is to companies in trouble and a few have crashed. Is that unexpected in development of new technology? what about with a private venture capital scenario? I'd imagine 10% failure rate would be remarkably low. Mitt Romney had a much higher failure rate with Bain investments and those investments were much easier than developing new technology. NASA had much higher failure rate when developing rockets. The military has WAY bigger failure rates with development of new weapons systems.

It is easy to throw numbers around but any thoughtful person will try to put such figures into perspective. There will obviously be some failures with any new technology so, put in perspective , what's the big deal?

 

[Gator6x4]

Remember the Middle East quagmire an individual got the US mired in before fleeing to Texas and taking up water coloring? Well every time you stop at a gas pump you pay dearly. Green Energy is cheap besides what we are paying for fossil fuel.

The Math

If you take half the U.S. defense budget ($354 billion) and add it to our annual spending on oil per se (again, that was $632 billion), Americans' true "cost of oil" rises to $986 billion. Apply this 56% markup to today's gas prices, and between the price you pay at the pump and the money you pay the IRS to help ensure the gas gets to your pump in the first place, you're really paying a combined $5.93 a gallon.

But again, this is on oil as a whole. Since defense spending really only goes to protect imported oil, the cost of each incremental gallon on "imported" gasoline is costing you north of $8 a gallon.

This isn't the price you see up on the ExxonMobil signboard, true. But it's in every gallon you pour in your tank.

 

[TCJatko]

Let's face it: the AGW scam is the new religion of the left, adhered to despite overwhelming evidence it's all a fabrication. No amount of logic will sway them. Best to simply defeat them politically and listen to the howling. Liberals are quite amusing when they are not in power.

 

[IslandTractor]

Let's face it: the AGW scam is the new religion of the left, adhered to despite overwhelming evidence it's all a fabrication. No amount of logic will sway them. Best to simply defeat them politically and listen to the howling. Liberals are quite amusing when they are not in power.

Now that is a well documented and logically argued post. Who needs data and why bother to respond to references in other posts when your mind is calcified. It is also interesting that TC considers Mitt to be a liberal. Must show that the Etch a Sketch strategy is working.

 

[Gator6x4]

What I find very amusing is the FACT that conservatives used to champion environmental protection and have now because of a political belief turned to one of destroy the environment.

 

[EE_Bota]

While I agree that any efforts to mitigate AGW need to consider economic impact and I appreciate the geopolitical benefits of domestic sourcing of fuel needs, I don't see the connection. What does it matter for the deficit if we pay money to multinational energy corporations in either case? Perhaps the Feds get a piece of the domestic action but I would think the impact of using less fuel more efficiently would ***** any impact of where that fuel comes from. Doubling MPG standards for all vehicles would have more beneficial effect on national debt (or at least personal finance) than doubling domestic oil production. Wouldn't it? Spend half as much on fuel equals more money for other investments. Leaving more oil in the ground for another generation protects an asset that can only be more valuable to future Americans. Decreasing barrels of oil combusted would pretty clearly help mitigate AGW based on current best science too while increasing production would do the opposite. There is a balance to be struck between current and future needs but I don't see how simply increasing production helps.

My comments were a divergence from the exact discussion, but also a combination of many aspects. You had written previously that Romney is not an ideologue, and will work in a manner that will disappoint AGW skeptics. I alluded to his plans to greatly escalate recovery of our own resources, and that will not disappoint skeptics, but instead will cheer them. And it presents a slight challenge to your predictions of Romney's AGW actions were he to be elected.

If he does both increased exploration and utilization of our energy resources while placating the AGW groups, and it pans out well for energy security and the economy that would be a brilliant political move. But that is pie in the sky, and I doubt he can achieve anything close to that outcome, with placation of the environmentalists being the least likely. Many environmentalists seem implacable and unreasonable to me. There are some quite reasonable and very well informed, but they don't get as much exposure.

My additional comments weave in the national debt because it is a matter of fact, and unlike AGW where a person my be hotter one day and colder the next, the national debt is ticking upward inexorably for all observers at all times. It will take a strong and wealthy nation whose currency is not threatened with collapse to adjust to AGW gracefully, so I would expect AGW advocates to be extremely sensitive to loss of the means to even attempt a fight of AGW. But to the contrary, on the national stage, it seems many attempt to use the fight of AGW to weaken the nation even more, though I continue to try to convince myself that is not their goal by telling myself they are "dumb" (a sort of forbearance I offer them against the prospect of far harsher judgements.) Maybe they think their job is to fight AGW, and handling all other issues is the problem of someone else. Well they are against me in that regard because I consider the national debt my primary concern, and I will have to oppose a great many of their actions.

 

[houstonscott]

There is no green energy production it's a foot note. Besides what does green mean. Oil is green too, natural and unlimited supply, not like wind and solar where you have to wait for your power. Oh, I like my hawks and eagles too much for those technologies that don't work to be pushed. It's gas and oil for north America for me, and will be for the next 2000 years.

HS

 

[EE_Bota]

Here is one conservative talk show host denier who has changed his tune: http://www.frumforum.com/confessions-of-a-climate-change-convert/

Yet you still call him a denier. So I take it he thinks the Holocaust didn't happen then?