OldManOnFire

The area in the map, as well as the Atlantic coastline from NC to FL and into the Gulf and Texas, within 20 miles of the coastline, are the fastest growing areas east of the Mississippi River!!

Not a single one of tens of millions of people moving to these areas has a clue to the potential of sea-level rise...or catastrophic tsunamis developed off the coast of Africa. For those who have a hint about the potential, they apparently believe no harm will come to them or their families...that this stuff might happen...but never to them...Americans are spoiled since all the bad stuff usually happens to others...including ignoring those pesky hurricanes.

And if any of this GCC stuff can possibly be realized, why do our local, state and federal governments continue to promote development in these precarious areas?? This is the dumbing of America; let's encourage millions of people to move to areas that are not environmentally equipped to handle them, place them in harms way, then when disasters strike, let's bail out everyone and talk to Gawd...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

Titanium Cat

Then why would you suggest mandating solar panel installations for new houses? That’s a classic example of micro-managing how we use alternate energies.

I agree with this as being a good goal. But you do realize this is primarily about reducing the consumption of coal, NOT with reducing the country’s dependency on oil which you argue we should do first. Do you see why I am confused about your policies? You say do the latter first; that problems caused by the former (climate change) won’t matter if we don’t reduce oil dependency.

You have also previously stated your dissatisfaction with the grid power you receive which gives you another good reason to go local, the same doesn’t necessarily apply to million of other consumers especially urban ones. And do you think that the average person could afford to purchase $40,000 in solar panels? Do you think someone (a person of typical means) in Minnesota is going to blow that kind of money to save a few hundred to maybe a thousand dollars a year on their electricity bill when they have reliable grid power?

But it doesn’t really address oil dependency. You said that is the most important thing to do and that it won’t matter what happens about the climate crisis if we don’t do that first. So why would we mandate expensive solar panels when those resources could be much better spent reducing oil consumption?

Hybrids for $10K? The cheapest American car you can buy today is the Chevy Aveo and it’s about $10K, you want hybrid technologies for the same price? You think that American car companies which are struggling as it is are going to turn a profit selling hybrids at $10K a pop?

What part of the word competitors don’t you understand? Foreign automobile companies (like Toyota) are ahead of the game when it comes to hybrids and more fuel efficient cars in general. If you mandate hybrids American manufacturers will suffer the most as it will be more difficult for them to compete with foreign companies who are already producing better vehicles in that category. You are the one who stated they are already near bankruptcy, is it not plausible that this could do critical damage to their ability to pull out of bankruptcy?

Of course but unfortunately most of the hybrids that US companies have been focusing on are the much larger less fuel efficient ones. People will start buying the smaller more fuel efficient ones that are made by foreign companies first.
I actually agree with you for the most part, the blame for their lack of competitiveness is primarily their own. But you were the one who argued that you couldn’t hurt business and that in a crappy economy it would be impossible to sell such policies politically. But now you are advocating a policy that you say can’t be sold. Why?

Well okay I’ve been guilty of taking it too literally. Yet you had numerous posts to refine your statement down to “undue” hardships and only choose to do that now. Do you not realize that the very argument you made previously “not harming business” is exactly what the auto manufacturers themselves have been making as to why we shouldn’t see even tougher CAFÉ standards? They have pretty much said that just about any hardship is undue hardship. The expression “undue hardships” isn’t exactly a precise term.

Then I guess we shouldn’t have air pollution laws to reduce the toxic chemicals you breath?

Then I guess we shouldn’t have sidewalks and street crossing signals to try to reduce those deaths?

Then I guess we shouldn’t have speed limits and safety features on cars to reduce deaths?

Wow, now there’s an argument against people needing health insurance, people with it die every day! Perhaps the more poignant question is do people die unnecessarily because they don’t have health insurance or adequate health insurance? That perhaps they can’t afford surgical procedures or other treatments that free clinics and emergency rooms don’t provide?

No kidding, but who was asking for a guarantee? How about you answer the relevant question then, does not having health insurance increase you chance of dying by something which could have been prevented, mitigated, or cured with medical treatment that was otherwise unaffordable to the person?

What is frustrating is you arguing that we must do something to combat climate change because of the disasters that it will cause in the future but then switching gears and saying we should only concentrate on reducing oil dependency instead. You will spend post after post talking about the potential environmental disasters that will unfold if nothing is done to curb climate change and then basically say never mind that until we deal with the oil dependency issue. Yet you yourself say we must act now to prevent those disasters and you know it will take decades to wean the US off of oil. By that time most of the initiatives that you have suggested will fall into the category of too little too late.

It has nothing to do with your ignorance or you being illiterate, I think neither is true. The problem is you take turns arguing different policy priorities. You say things must be done immediately to prevent the climate change crisis and then in the next post you say it won’t matter because the most pressing need is to reduce oil dependency instead. I gave three real world examples of how oil dependency can be reduced that will not reduce CO2 emissions and probably even increase them, one of which is already being mandated by federal law. Yet you do not seem to see the contradiction and you can’t see why someone would be confused.

__________________

Where have you gone, Environment Man?
Our message board turns its lonely eyes to you.
What's that you say, EvilMonkey?
Crazy E-man has left and gone away.

OldManOnFire

Micro-managing would be deciding to put solar in CA but not WA and only part of WI and none in UT and only do it on homes between $200K and $500K. There are only a handful of alternative energies today...to mandate solar on all new homes built in the US for example would be good policy...not micro-managing.

You're confused because you micro-manage your thoughts--too literal. GCC and oil issues overlap and both are critical issues however oil issues are more critical today so obviously people must focus on oil first with GCC changes in a lower priority parallel.

This is why I keep saying a solar installation must cost only $10K so that it is affordable to most people. Everything today is too expensive!

I say no more oil and nuclear power companies and that all new energy must come from alternative sources! This is a separate issue from oil dependence. The oil issue requires a paradigm shift on the magnitude of Anna Nicole Smith's breasts!! Our government and it's citizens have not given an ounce of thought to meaningful resolutions!

Well if this isn't the good old American response...it can't be done, it cost too much, I broke my finger-nail... Fine if American companies can't do this...just wait for others to provide very low cost and high mpg cars.

Hey Mr. American It Can't Be Done...if these companies cannot provide what the public wants and needs, then close the fricken doors. Your alternative is to do nothing?! I said policies cannot hurt companies to the point of putting them out of business...I never said they don't need to compete.

There's this tiny forgotten thing called 'common sense' and anyone with a brain can figure out where we are today and where we need to be in 10, 20, 50 years and create the necessary policies. If everyone waits until it's too late, and we are 100% reactive, then the hurt can be huge. But if we plan and we're proactive the hurt can be minimized.

Great...then let's do nothing!

All people can walk into a hospital emergency room and be treated. They can't go in and ask for a face-lift!

To answer your question; No they shouldn't die since all people can receive emergency medical treatment. If they want preventative information...read a book. There are free clinics everywhere! Would things be better if everyone had free health care--of course. But it won't greatly improve the death rate or the illness rate or the obesity rate, etc.

We must do both, some of what we do might cause other negative short term affects, we must start today, and it will take years to implement the necessary changes.

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

Titanium Cat

It wouldn’t necessarily be an efficient use of resources to mandate that. Financial incentives should be given to reduce grid electricity consumption and people should be left to choose those that are most cost effective for them. People in places like CA, Arizona, and Texas etc. might indeed turn to solar, but it could be much more effective for people in Northern states to spend that money on ultra insulated housing and higher efficiency appliances. They could save more electricity on a cost basis than they’d generate with solar panels.

The overall goal is to reduce grid electricity demand and mandating that it be done in a specific way is micro-managing.

Yes they overlap but once again I pointed out three real world ways of reducing oil dependency that does not reduce GHG emissions, probably even increases them. So by specifically focusing on oil first you not only don’t prioritize climate change initiatives you endanger them. They must be done in a cohesive fashion that effectively reduces both. In fact focusing on climate change initiatives as the priority would almost certainly require a reduction in oil consumption.

You can’t just say solar installation must only cost $10K and bingo it goes from $40K to $10K! Solar panels will continue to come down in price as the technology improves and the market expands. However there is a significant cost and manufacturing time required to produce those panels and if you mandate widespread installation of them production will struggle to keep up with demand and prices will if anything go up not down. Many people will simply not be able to afford to build new houses.

Again such a mandate would be extremely difficult if not impossible to sell politically. Nor is it necessarily the most efficient way resources could be spent. For many regions yes, renewable sources might be excellent choices for new power generation. For others it might not be. The goal is to reduce emissions overall. Some things like new coal plants would certainly be difficult to justify, but nuclear and natural gas might be part of the solution.

Once again, what kind of an argument is this? Car companies are supposed to suddenly be able to build higher tech cars for dramatically less money just because you say it has to be done? Several million people work in the industry and most of them get pretty decent wages, well above minimum wage. Where is the money going to come from to pay these people? To pay the people who mine and manufacture the materials that those cars are made from? Are they all going to take huge wage cuts? The automobile companies are losing money to begin with, how will people magically get paid?

Why not apply this to every need and industry? Healthcare, food, shelter, clothing? Everyone needs affordable healthcare so let’s just say it has to be cheaper, why didn’t someone think of that before?

But once again you said this kind of policy would be an impossible sell to the American public. I am not the one contradicting myself, you are.

Absolutely not, I am all for mandating tougher CAFE standards. See the paragraph below on CAFE standards.

You said that it couldn’t hurt business. Above you say if they can’t compete then close the fricken doors but then you say policies cannot hurt companies to the point of putting them out of business. Those statements are contradictory. Forcing companies that are already struggling to compete in a market they are less proficient in might put them out of business.

Agreed but nevertheless you did previously state that in a struggling economy such polices are almost an impossible sell to the public. People often don’t apply “common sense” and view such issues in the long term but base their decisions on their short term financial condition.

Which is of course not what I am saying. I am all for increasing CAFE standards but I wouldn’t do it by specifically mandating the production of hybrids, again that is micro-managing. I’d give the auto manufacturers the flexibility to improve mileage in the ways that benefited them the most in the market place. Hybrids are great if you do a lot of city driving, plug in hybrids especially if you primarily use your car for commuting. However for a lot of customers who need larger vehicles and/or do a lot of highway driving, ultra low sulfur or bio diesels might be a better way to go. And if you don’t drive very much then a smaller compact car that isn’t a hybrid might be a far more economically effective choice. Forcing someone to buy a hybrid that is substantially more expensive but will only save a relatively small amount of gas over the lifetime of the car doesn’t make sense. The goal is to reduce gasoline consumption, let’s do it in the most flexible way possible.

And what if you need surgery to remove a cancerous tumor? Do emergency rooms and free clinics do that? If your child has an irregular and erratic heart rate that requires a cardiac specialist, do free clinics and emergency rooms provide that? Not very likely.

LOL, because all health conditions are emergencies?????

Which only help so much. Free clinics and emergency room care is not a longer term solution for people without health insurance or with inadequate insurance.

So now it’s not “greatly improve”. You can try to twist it all you want but health care is a growing problem in the US and will only get worse as the baby boomers continue to retire doubling the seniors’ population. People will die unnecessarily because they don’t have access to proper care. It will be difficult to fix because it’s expensive and there is a lot of politics being played. Just like there is with climate change. The Republicans just recently blocked two climate change related bills in the senate. There is no such thing as a major issue free of politics.

Yes it will but let’s not blunder into using solutions that aren’t going to work in the long term and end up negating the effects of other initiatives. Both can be done together, there is no reason not to do it in a synchronized fashion.

__________________

Where have you gone, Environment Man?
Our message board turns its lonely eyes to you.
What's that you say, EvilMonkey?
Crazy E-man has left and gone away.

OldManOnFire

[quote]My position is that either this is a critical issue or it is not. If it is critical, then something must be mandated for to wait for Americans to do anything proactive nothing will ever happen.

Solar electric systems, low-energy appliances, super-insulation techniques, and new home designs, as well as any other beneficial ideas, can be mandated. Maybe not starting tomorrow but why not make mandates effective two years from now on 'all' new home construction?? And the government must provide incentives, subsidies, or whatever in order to assure a reasonable transition into these mandates. Of course everything comes down to money, but this is reality for all issues. To reiterate...IF this is a critical issue, then mandates must be put in place.

GCC will eventually have an impact on most people, but today 'most' people do not feel this impact. They are feeling the impact of the high cost of oil products and this is what sets the priority. If we can't resolve oil dependence and it's horrific impact on our economy and way of life, GCC will be a moot point. They are not mutually exclusive, they overlap, neither can be ignored, but oil dependence, at the moment, is more critical to the masses.

I've said it before, provide $1 billion to the company that creates a fully operational home solar electric system for under $10K. It won't happen overnight but it will in a few years. Provide $1 billion to the company that creates an electric car that can achieve 60mph, go 400 miles on one charge, and costs $10K. Now if you believe we are incapable of rising to these types of incentives, then anything regarding the need for new technology is doomed.

I'll never buy into this thinking. I believe the goal must be to produce 75% to 100% of the electric usage within a few miles of the home/business. Some portion of this at the home/business site and some within the county using photovoltaic/solar, wind, geothermal, whatever.

You say this can't be done...I say it can be done.

The automobile industry is in a state of bankruptcy. If these companies don't make paradigm shifts in the way they do business, they are all out of work! With new technology and lower pricing they can create millions of jobs for decades to come.

You surely agree that money is the root of most all evil--right?? Affordable health care has become impossible for many people so a change is needed--perhaps a universal system?? Whatever is needed, due to the high cost, must be done and probably means going from private to socialized but it will be done that will bring relief for another 20-30 years until the next crisis arises. If we need $10k solar electric systems, then we must find a way to achieve it.

The American public is not willing to buy into anything which is why all issues have become critical. Just prior to implosion, Americans will reluctantly make changes. People will always be a tough-sell or no-sell but some things must be sold no matter our self-serving preferences.

If businesses in certain industries are given incentives, subsidies, hard goals, and a reasonable transition to change, failure beyond this will be due to their inability to effectively manage a business. Those who cannot, or refuse to get with the program, will fail and the doors will close.

This is why someone with an IQ beyond 57 needs to understand how to motivate industry and people, including mandates, in a sense of unity, to achieve necessary change.

Not all hospitals provide this care, but I'm guessing most do. I'm not saying life is peachy-pie for people without health insurance, I'm just saying it's not 'all' doom and gloom.

I know this but the world is not created equal for all people. If people want this equity in society, then most everything needs to be socialized. It can never happen in a free-enterprise system.

I know what happens in reality but this does not change my position that if and when an issue becomes critical, and 'something significant must be done', it can no longer be politicized. As long as issues remain highly politicized and polarized it will be nearly impossible to create change.

We only know what we know today, and this is significant regarding this issue. We know potential affects and we know current technology. There is so much we can do today but there remains little consensus or unity to create wholesale change. And money or the economy is the root of all inaction!! Today some people are paying attention to high gas prices, but if prices lower for whatever reason, these same people will stop paying attention to the inevitable oil crisis and time will pass until the next crisis. Look around the USA and all the issues that are horrific in scope and you surely know we do nothing proactive. It's all about crisis management and now we're starting to fail in this area as well...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

Titanium Cat

But such issues aren’t binary, there is always a sliding scale of importance. Things generally don’t go from non-critical to critical suddenly; they take noticeable time to proceed to that classification. This is true for both oil dependency and climate change. For instance we can pretend that the oil dependency issue has just suddenly become critical but that ignores the decades of warnings and ill thought policies which has allowed it to develop to the point where the price of oil (and gasoline) increases rapidly.

Yes but one does not have to mandate specific applications for everyone to mandate a reduction in overall grid electricity usage especially when things such as regional climate differences can make a big difference in the cost of solutions.

Which was my point in reducing overall grid electricity demand but not mandating that people living in all regions do it using the same methods as you were. The system can be done allowing for the implementation of the most cost effective solutions which will achieve the goal and cause fewer economic problems.

But in the paragraphs above (and numerous posts) you are mandating the reduction of grid electricity. Since over 50% of grid electricity is from coal and very little is from oil you are indirectly mandating climate change initiatives and some of your mandates (like solar installations) will be expensive. If you are primarily concerned about oil dependency then this could be a poor use of economic resources. Also if that was your primary concern then using more coal would be a logical solution.

I also believe your statement that the effects of global climate change will be moot is a false one. People and communities suffering from severe economic problems due to the oil crisis will be less able to mitigate the damage from climate change and it will cause even greater hardship. Also don’t forget the word global, in a global economy the disasters of severe climate change will have a large negative effect on just about every country in the world including the US even if it has solved its oil dependency problem.

But your price requirements are simply unrealistic. Cars do not drop in price that quickly especially if you maintain a living wage structure for employees. Companies already in financial trouble who make little if any profit on their lower priced vehicles (which cost at least $10K and typically more) and make almost all of their profits off of vehicles that cost 3 to 5 times as much will not be able to produce quality hybrids that sell at $10K a pop and make money doing it.

No that’s ridiculous. Of course we can develop new technologies which will continue to make improvements in efficiency. But you cannot mandate an unrealistically low price as part of the procedure; there are market forces and costs you simply cannot override.

For a lot of home use and for some commercial use that could be a reasonable goal. Don’t think that local solar and wind is going to power large cities with millions of people living in multi-family dwellings though. It will also take decades for that to happen. At the same time if you are serious about reducing oil dependency then we must look at more electric/plug-in hybrid vehicles which will increase electricity demand in that sector. There will be a transition period of many decades before the wide scale deployment of overdeveloped wind and solar with power storage for baseline demand can take over from traditional mass power production.

You saying it can be done doesn’t mean it can be especially if you want to maintain and pay the kind of living wages that most of their employees receive.

LOL, you have got to be kidding. What you are saying is that nearly bankrupt companies can use new technology to make cars at a greatly reduced cost while maintaining their workforce and wage structure and somehow this will create millions of new jobs as well? Just because you said so? That’s economic nonsense.

For the love of money is the root of much evil and yes that is true.

LOL, so now you think a big change is needed? If it wasn’t costing lives before why does it need a drastic overhaul like you are now suggesting? Previously you indicated that people without health insurance weren’t really all that badly off, certainly from the viewpoint of it being detrimental to their health.

Again you make pronouncements that basically say it needs to be done at a certain price so it can be done. Affordable wide scale solar will almost certainly happen at some point, but you can’t mandate an artificially low price in the short term without significant economic consequences.

This logic fails in regards to climate change. Once implosion is near it will be too late to prevent many if not most of the major problems that will result.

Yet you previously argued that wasn’t possible!

This is in fact what you said:

Yet in this post and several others you now say things such as the following when referring to businesses who are hurt by mandates: “Those who cannot, or refuse to get with the program, will fail and the doors will close.”

Once again you are all over the place. You freely suggest mandates such as requiring new house construction to include solar arrays which in fact could hurt the bottom line of business and cost jobs at the same time you are saying that it will be nearly impossible to justify these actions to the American public. Your posts are contradictory.

Which is understandable, but don’t pretend that various aspects of it won’t hurt business which is what you previously claimed couldn’t be done.

That’s a great speech but it doesn’t actually solve the economic problems that get in the way of the solutions you present. Things don’t magically become dramatically cheaper just because you say they must.

You’re guessing? I’d say that was a lousy guess.

Of course I never said it was ‘all’ doom and gloom! What I said is it cost lives yet it is politicized which you argued against. You even went as far as making ridiculous examples of other things that cost lives like driving a car as if it didn’t make sense to try to reduce the number of lives at risk from an ineffective system just like it makes sense to try to reduce the number of deaths from driving.

However again you avoid the point. You said an issue that costs lives cannot be politicized and the current condition of healthcare costs lives and is politicized.

Even though your position denies reality. Solutions must work in the real world, not in the world you imagine should exist.

The issue will remain highly politicized for some time. It is already becoming critical because every year we delay action we make it more difficult to contain the problem. We must work in the existing political environment to make changes even though there are always going to be naysayers or at least naysayers until it is too late.

And your point is what? The reason for the oil crisis is that the US for decades has actively funded to the overall tune of trillions of dollars a system which provided it with cheap oil. When push came to shove it was possible to use political and economic force (backed with potential military force or similar consequences) to increase supply and reduce the price. The oil crisis is a problem that has been simmering for many years. It has only come to boil recently because it is no longer possible to use those forces to effectively solve the supply and demand issue and significantly reduce the cost. It is another example of waiting until the crisis is highly visible before deciding to make (or think of making) whole scale changes in how we use energy. Even now people are talking about solutions that will not solve the problem in the long term (like increased offshore drilling), but just modestly delay the consequences. Inaction on a long term scale occurs because of a patch work of short term “solutions” that many people support. However we must remember that climate change has no short term solutions.

__________________

Where have you gone, Environment Man?
Our message board turns its lonely eyes to you.
What's that you say, EvilMonkey?
Crazy E-man has left and gone away.