@F_alk:
I like the “once we develop” and “almost unlimited”.
Renewable energy is clean, and unlimited in the sense that it only stops once (a) the earth stops turning or (b) the sun stops burning :)Therefore, i prefer renewable energy (plus fusion once we have that).
However, it will take more money to develope efficient means of renewable energy. The Sun will not always burn, its called night. Wind energy can only be developed in places where, you guessed it, wind exists. Hydroelectric energy requires a huge dam, and impacts the enviroment like no other form.
Nuclear energy is developed, clean, practically unlimited, and produces a vast amount of cheap energy.
Though it seesm i have to read it, as i do not believe these numbers at all. Does it take into account the investments that have to be made to get the country complying, the jobs these investments create, the technological advancements that have to be made (which need investment, but lead to new industries etc)?
No doubt it will create new jobs, but at the rate of those found unemployed? Probably not. Always, what type of entry levels are available for entry level jobs in alternative energies? What degrees are required? What training? As for the numbers, those were taken from National Geographic (feel free to stop in some time). Though Energy Information Administration, predicts that if the United States is required to achieve stabilization at the 1990-7% levels without Annex I trading and no credit for sinks and offsets, the estimates of carbon prices required in 2010 range from a low of $221 per metric ton to $348 per metric ton, with the vast majority in the $265 to $295 per metric ton range. Actual GDP losses are projected to range from $102 to $437 billion dollars in 2010 (1996 dollars - inflation). With Annex I trading and credits for sinks and offsets from other gases, the carbon price ranges between $100 per metric ton to $175 per metric ton and the loss of actual GDP ranges between $56 and $207 billion dollars in 2010. Estimates of internationally purchased carbon credits by the U.S. range from 147 to 288 million metric tons.
EIA projects the loss in actual GDP in 2010 to range between $61 billion and $183 billion if revenues are recycled via a reduction in social security taxes, and between $96 billion and $397 billion if they are recycled via a reduction in personal income taxes (1992 dollars - inflation). Again, the economy grows even during the period of adjustment but does not reach the levels of growth in potential GDP.
The total cost to the economy can be estimated as the loss in actual GDP (the loss in potential GDP plus the macroeconomic adjustment cost) plus the purchase of international permits. It is assumed that the U.S. will purchase international permits at the marginal abatement cost in the U.S., i.e., the domestic carbon price. Total costs range from an average annual level for the period 2008 to 2012 of $77 billion to $338 billion 1992 dollars depending on the carbon reduction case and how funds are recycled back to the economy. Again, assuming if the economy continues to grow, but does not reach potential peak. For additional information, try refering to this graph http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/refcases.html
Well, if one of those was done…… but before nothing is done, i prefer money spent on Kyoto …
Not my cup of tea. I rather give people access to clean water and sanitation than simply cleaning up the air environment. At least there’s a better chance the “have nots” will live - even at the price of the “haves.”
Unfortunately, what you state is only a possibility. It would be nicer if one would necessarily lead to the otehr, e.g. once you have enough to eat, you necessarily start to worry about the environment. Sadly, that’s not the case.
Tell me, do you have enough to eat? Do you worry about the environment? If it is not the case then, not enough to eat = more care for the environment? This isn’t just about having enough to eat. It’s about providing people with better opportunities when they wouldn’t have it themselves. Certainly I would be more to inclined to help someone else if I didn’t have to worry about myself. If I die early - why should I care what happens to the environment or not? Of course, I’m a pagan Ecological Axis of Evil so I can’t have feelings about nature and the environment.
just downloaded the budget of the Federal Republic of Germany…… …damn… and i will work through it when you do the same for the US … way too much work to get through those statistics
But – but, we’re the Ecological Axis of Evil! You owe it to us to show us “The Way” and make everything perfect.
2.3 % of the electrical power was wind produced in 2001.
So germany produces more than 5 times more wind energy than the US.
Only 2.3%? What about the remaining 97.7%? Only 5 times more wind energy than the US? Come on, you can do better than this. Afterall, we’re the Ecological Axis of Evil!
Wind power really isnt the solution. Its not as large scale as other power sources. However, maybe Europe can ease it’s current flooding problem and make electricity )
@TG:
No doubt it will create new jobs, but at the rate of those found unemployed? Probably not. Always, what type of entry levels are available for entry level jobs in alternative energies? What degrees are required? What training?
Usually, inventing any new technology first leads to a decline in the number of jobs, with a later rise. Wether the rise can make up the previous loss is something you can’t fortell. So, your argument is valid for any new technology: the steam engine, the car, the computer, anything….
For the training and the degrees: well, you will need engineers and technicians just as you need engineers and technicians for any power plant, they will need different areas of expertise maybe. You will need office staff like you need office staff for any other company.
But to produce all the wind mills etc. you need to build/assemble them, and then install them. These jobs that come with going for the new
technology are jobs that you won’t get when you stick to the old one.
How much spin-off happens, i can’t tell.
Unfortunately, what you state is only a possibility. It would be nicer if one would necessarily lead to the otehr, e.g. once you have enough to eat, you necessarily start to worry about the environment. Sadly, that’s not the case.
Tell me, do you have enough to eat? Do you worry about the environment? If it is not the case then, not enough to eat = more care for the environment? … Certainly I would be more to inclined to help someone else if I didn’t have to worry about myself. …
What i was saying:
We have
Enough to eat =may=> more care for environment.
I would love to see
Enough to eat =does=> more care for environment
Just as you said: you would be “more inclined”, which doesn’t say you necessarily would.
But – but, we’re the Ecological Axis of Evil! You owe it to us to show us “The Way” and make everything perfect.
You are the allmighty, allknowing, wise, superior to everyone, god’s own country, land of the free superpower….
you lead, we follow…
2.3 % of the electrical power was wind produced in 2001.
So germany produces more than 5 times more wind energy than the US.Only 2.3%? What about the remaining 97.7%? Only 5 times more wind energy than the US? Come on, you can do better than this. Afterall, we’re the Ecological Axis of Evil!
The rest are coal, oil, nuclear, gas, water, sun…… mostly the first 4 though.
How much area does the US have, how many ppl?
If you calculate the “per capita” or “per square km”, then it would start to look impressive :)…
And i never said that we don’t have to go forward. 8% renewable energy is nice, but by far not enough. And it doesn’t hurt.
Usually, inventing any new technology first leads to a decline in the number of jobs, with a later rise. Wether the rise can make up the previous loss is something you can’t fortell. So, your argument is valid for any new technology: the steam engine, the car, the computer, anything….
And in the mean time before long-term sustainable development occurrs? What employment will factory workers seeks? I see your reasoning, but remember – the steam engine, the car, and the computer all took time before their respective “revolutions” occurred. Nothing was ever “overnight.” Look at the development of cars before Henry Ford or computers before Jobs and Gates. I see alternative energy as a tremendous boon but one step at a time – wait I’m Ecological Axis of Evil… can’t say that.
For the training and the degrees: well, you will need engineers and technicians just as you need engineers and technicians for any power plant, they will need different areas of expertise maybe. You will need office staff like you need office staff for any other company.
Switching over is not as easy as it sounds. Also many engineers and technicians are well off, though those without advanced degrees aren’t so lucky.
Just as you said: you would be “more inclined”, which doesn’t say you necessarily would.
True. But the possibility of helping, of caring for the environment increases exponentially. Usually people don’t give to charity unless they have something suitable to replace it with.
You are the allmighty, allknowing, wise, superior to everyone, god’s own country, land of the free superpower….
you lead, we follow…
Ha, you wish! ;) What good has US Imperialism done to the rest of the world? Besides, who would want to follow some “Ecological Axis of Evil” hell bent on destroying the world?
The rest are coal, oil, nuclear, gas, water, sun…… mostly the first 4 though.
How much area does the US have, how many ppl?
If you calculate the “per capita” or “per square km”, then it would start to look impressive …And i never said that we don’t have to go forward. 8% renewable energy is nice, but by far not enough. And it doesn’t hurt.
Only 8% in Germany from renewable energy!? Last time I checked, in America, that number was almost the same for renewable energy (7.5-8%)? You dare stoop down to our level of Ecological Evil? How dare you! :P
The last two things I remember about wind power in the US are . . .
The environmentalists in California, pushed through legislation to encourage building windmills. At least one energy company built them. A lot of geese were killed flying into the active windmills. Then the environmentalists asked that the windmills be turned off. The resultis . . . NO ACTIVE WINDMILS. :)
Massachusetts environmentalist were planning to build windmills on or around Martha’s Vineyard(Island). Massachusetts Senior Senator, Ted Kennedy, who owns property on the island encouraged state/local legislation to ban windmills around Martha’s Vineyard. The result is . . . NO WINDMILLS. :D
–-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plans were discussed at Johannnesburg about bringing modern sanitation to Africa and other underdeveloped areas. However, the US environmentalists at the conference advised against it. They believe modern technology, electricity and the like will spoil the natural beauty. :lol:
===============================================
“Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds.” - Albert Einstein
Yeah, I know about those people in Claifornia. Those were the same people that didn’t want dams to be built near potentially rewarding hydroelectric sites because of the “effect” on the environment.
As for those US environmentalists at Johannnesburg - tell me, would the imagery of young women, men, and children dying (their bodies carted off and simply buried) add to the environmental atmosphere?
Oh, yeah!
I read :D on the editorial page recently that the Saviour( :) of the Third world countries, Nelson Mandella, allowed his country to develop have(inside gated communities)and have not(same old same old) black communities. Just no more whites! :P
If you don’t know it must be bad news. - Xi
Liberals and moderates cannot handle the truth. :) -Xi
Why offer grain in the first place? Aren’t we suppose to be the Ecological Axis of Evil? :o
“Politics gives guys so much power that they tend to behave badly around
women. And I hope I never get into that.” - William Jefferson Clinton
That was me! - Xi(400 posts. WHOOPIE!)
–----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“You know the one thing that’s wrong with this country?
Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.”
What we really need to offer to Africa are industrialists. Teach them how to make their crops last better, grow bigger, and more often. Then teach them how to make their crops into something more useful and sell it to the world.
Industrialization often brings more hunger, more poverty, more sickness, more crime. Johannnesburg is one such example of this. I would rather take my chances in a village then live there. This also takes time and money - lots of it. For now, they should care more about feeding themselves, not others.
They cannot fully live off the land they live in forever. Rivers will dry up in the 4 year droughts. Farms will eventually stop yielding crops because of overharvesting. Industrialization + Democracy will definately make a huge difference.
However, instead we’re going into Iraq where the people are MUCH better off than they are in East Africa.
What are you trying to do? Change the course of history? - Xi
They cannot fully live off the land they live in forever. Rivers will dry up in the 4 year droughts. Farms will eventually stop yielding crops because of overharvesting. Industrialization + Democracy will definately make a huge difference.
Droughts have been a big problem in Africa, leading to immense famine. What is needed is a proper irrigation and clean water supply system (future conflicts will be faught for drinking water). Overharvesting isn’t that much of a problem, that is if the Africans are the taught the proper techniques of agriculture (ex crop rotation, fertilizers, avoidence of cash crops) and modernized farming (farm equipment, genetic engineering). This will require a lot of foreign capital, though not nearly enough as industrialization. Africans should worry more about agriculture and textiles than industrialization for now - esp. when it comes to competing with the already industrialized countries of the world. Democracy would help a lot, though more often than not, the Republics of Africa turn out to be more small party dictatorships, and it often requires US-UN soldiers to keep them in check.
Exactly my thoughts TG. I think our Soldiers would be better off protecting truely democratic countries than going after Saddam Hussein.
Well with the media – it seems that protecting African stablility and keeping the governments in check doesn’t exactly “Make the Headlines.” Millions there have been killed through Civil War, hunger, and strife – and yet this hardly makes the news. And you see why we don’t seem to care… pathetic. Of course, will even fellow Africans even care? Will they even listen?
Interesting topic, very expansive, so I’ll limit my comments to one.
Regarding Africa, the single best thing we could do to help them is eliminate our own subsidies and allow them the opportunity to trade. A good place to start would be in Agriculture where we (US, Can, Europe) waste billions upon billions of $ propping up our farmers and depressing the price of primary food stuffs. The result is massive overproduction in the developed countries and underproduction in the less developed countries. We actually produce more than enough food to feed the planet; we just produce it in the wrong areas and have no viable means of distributing it to where it is needed. If they were actually able to develop their own agriculture systems to the point where they could feed their own populations and export excess they would earn cash needed to buy infrastructure and finished goods. Easy in theory, but we all are quite guilty at the subsidy game, particularly in Agriculture and textiles etc.
SUD
Loathe as i am to argue with you, i think that you’re playing at not only an unpopular angle, but one that would hurt a lot of people. I agree that a WORLDWIDE loosening of subsidies would likely be “profitible” for all involved (i think we might even begin an WPC - wheat producing consortium). At the same time, an abrupt dropping of subsidies would have the potential to bankrupt many small farmers, leaving things wide open for larger “mega-farms” to purchase land far more cheaply than it’s worth, use an economy of scale to produce cheaply, and have a bit too much power. This is, of course, doing nothing for the developing world, except that many Canadian farmers have donated thousands of tonnes of grain to famine-stricken nations in the past. Would these mega-farms have the same charitible heart as the small farmers? Or would the almighty buck take too much room in front?
Hard to say how the 3rd world (Alabama, Zimbabwe, etc.) would benefit . . . .
