The environment thread

[Balta1701]

Fine HARRY REID call them out. The media excuse is bs, the MSM is definately behind the Dems on almost every issue, especially anything to do with global warming.

 

So blame your democrats for this stuff not passing. They aren't doing jack to get anything done.

If the Dems had made the Republicans filibuster even 10 percent of the cloture votes they've blocked this year, that's the only thing the Senate would have done since it started; cloture votes. Not a single bill would have passed because of how much time that took.

[mr_genius]

If the Dems had made the Republicans filibuster even 10 percent of the cloture votes they've blocked this year, that's the only thing the Senate would have done since it started; cloture votes. Not a single bill would have passed because of how much time that took.

 

the GOP wouldn't dare filibuster that much. If they did public outcry would run them out of the Senate in even larger numbers next election cycle. It would be prefect opportunity for the Dems to bash them.

[NorthSideSox72]

the GOP wouldn't dare filibuster that much. If they did public outcry would run them out of the Senate in even larger numbers next election cycle. It would be prefect opportunity for the Dems to bash them.

I am having a hard time seeing why, IN THIS CASE, you are blaming the Dems. That energy bill was a very good thing, now its been watered down a bit by the GOP, and the GOP STILL won't let it pass. Oh, and the White House is threatening veto.

 

This one is directly on the shoulders of Big Oi... I mean, the Republicans.

 

[mr_genius]

I am having a hard time seeing why, IN THIS CASE, you are blaming the Dems. That energy bill was a very good thing, now its been watered down a bit by the GOP, and the GOP STILL won't let it pass. Oh, and the White House is threatening veto.

 

This one is directly on the shoulders of Big Oi... I mean, the Republicans.

 

pass the bill and make him veto it or make them filibuster.

 

 

 

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

That's been done with SCHIP and Stem Cells. And exactly what got accomplished?

 

[mr_genius]

That's been done with SCHIP and Stem Cells. And exactly what got accomplished?

 

As compared to whats getting done now?

 

At least they have it on the record they passed it and president vetoed. Maybe if SCHIP wasn't being expanded to all illegal aliens 25 and under, while cutting aid to seniors, it would have passed.

 

The new 'get things done' Dem Senate is terrible IMO. Thats fine if you guys think they're the best. I'm not going to argue with you about it.

 

 

[Balta1701]

As compared to whats getting done now?

 

At least they have it on the record they passed it and president vetoed. Maybe if SCHIP wasn't being expanded to all illegal aliens 25 and under, while cutting aid to seniors, it would have passed.

Of course, the compromise bill got rid of both of those clauses, requiring people to at least present a Social Security number.

[mr_genius]

Of course, the compromise bill got rid of both of those clauses, requiring people to at least present a Social Security number.

 

That is true. At least they can tell their constituency they tried. Many Republicans also voted for the bill that Bush vetoed. So I guess they are getting screwed over by him too.

 

Didn't the Dems just vote for more Iraq war funding?

[jasonxctf]

dems will get the additional seats in 08 to make these issues veto proof.

 

+4

 

Virginia

New Hampshire

Colorado

New Mexico

 

55-45 will help.

[Balta1701]

dems will take the White House in 2008, making these issues veto proof.

Fixed that for you.

[NorthSideSox72]

In case you wanted a brief overview of where the top tier candidates in each party stand on a handful of key energy policy questions... here is a little chart for you. Nothing in-depth, but could be useful for some.

 

Three interesting notes I took from it...

 

1. The parties are not as clearly delineated on these as you might think - there is some cross-party agreement there.

2. For reasons I cannot comprehend, they left Romney off, even though he is far more likely to win at this point than McCain, and probably Giuliani as well

3. Note that Giuliani doesn't seem to have actually taken a stand on... anything.

 

[mr_genius]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/702073,coal121807.article

 

sounds like a good idea

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/702073,coal121807.article

 

sounds like a good idea

I was pretty psyched when I read that. Still a fossil fuel, so not the best option... but if it can do what they say it can, its certainly something worth doing during this century.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

1.8 billion....dammmmmmmmmnnnnnn thats a lot.

[StrangeSox]

An interesting part of the new energy bill...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/e...ght-bulbs_N.htm

 

I'm all for CFL's, but I don't see why the government should be mandating it.

[NorthSideSox72]

An interesting part of the new energy bill...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/e...ght-bulbs_N.htm

 

I'm all for CFL's, but I don't see why the government should be mandating it.

Believe it or not, I agree with you. There is a difference between the government incentivizing people (via tax breaks or credits, etc.) to move in a desired direction, and outright killing off something. I don't think I like that provision - even though it will probably benefit all of us down the line.

 

[Balta1701]

Believe it or not, I agree with you. There is a difference between the government incentivizing people (via tax breaks or credits, etc.) to move in a desired direction, and outright killing off something. I don't think I like that provision - even though it will probably benefit all of us down the line.

I for one don't mind it one bit. This is a simple case where the market isn't necessarily going to produce the result that is most beneficial to the country. There is a gigantic benefit in economic and national security to the energy drop that would be created by this shift, and there appears to be almost no downside other than the initial startup cost of purchasing the newer bulb, which would still drive some nubmer of people onto the older ones. It makes perfect sense for the government to mandate these things.

[NorthSideSox72]

I for one don't mind it one bit. This is a simple case where the market isn't necessarily going to produce the result that is most beneficial to the country. There is a gigantic benefit in economic and national security to the energy drop that would be created by this shift, and there appears to be almost no downside other than the initial startup cost of purchasing the newer bulb, which would still drive some nubmer of people onto the older ones. It makes perfect sense for the government to mandate these things.

I can't believe I am taking this side of this argument, but, I am. I don't think the market should be manipulated to the point where it always gives the result most beneficial to the country. I think regulation of business is there to keep elements of the economy from derailing horribly, but that is a different hurdle.

 

And believe me, I do agree that ultimately this is something that will benefit the country as a whole. But then, so would banning alcohol. Or putting regulators on cars so they can't go more than 75 mph. Or mandating that all people get annual checkups at the Doctor. Do you want to do any of that? There is a line there. I think this crosses it, though just by a bit. We live in a country where we get more freedom than most, and we live with some negative consequences for that.

 

[StrangeSox]

A lot of people don't like the "quality" of light coming from CFL's in certain areas (I don't have a problem but I like softer lighting). They also contain mercury and are a major PITA to dispose of properly. Plus, they don't work with dimmer switches as of yet. Also, CFL's don't work very well in really cold temps, so it'll put you in a tough spot in an unheated garage or shed.

 

People are already buying more and more CFL's, and more are being designed to look nicer and work in just about any application. Seems to me that the market was going that way anyway.

 

We live in a country where we get more freedom than most, and we live with some negative consequences for that.

 

I think that's what this hinges on. I don't want the government regulating every little thing down to what lightbulbs I can use in my lamp. I want to save money, so I use CFL's. Incentivise them or discount them as ComEd is doing. Ta-da, the market works!

Edited December 19, 2007 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

I can't believe I am taking this side of this argument, but, I am. I don't think the market should be manipulated to the point where it always gives the result most beneficial to the country. I think regulation of business is there to keep elements of the economy from derailing horribly, but that is a different hurdle.

 

And believe me, I do agree that ultimately this is something that will benefit the country as a whole. But then, so would banning alcohol. Or putting regulators on cars so they can't go more than 75 mph. Or mandating that all people get annual checkups at the Doctor. Do you want to do any of that? There is a line there. I think this crosses it, though just by a bit. We live in a country where we get more freedom than most, and we live with some negative consequences for that.

Of course there's a line there. But I for one consider the slippery slope argument to be one that doesn't work, simply because you elect people for the express purpose of being able to draw that line.

 

I'll turn around one of your examples with this. Right now, it clearly makes no sense to have a mandatory doctor's visit during a year. But it's easy for me to imagine a scenario where that would make sense. Imagine some sort of extreme viral outbreak hitting the country, where if people catch a disease and go untreated, they die and they take out everyone they run into after a certain point in the virus's progression. In that case, where the lives of potentially millions of people could be saved by ordering people to visit a doctor, I think that'd be a very appropriate response.

 

The current energy and climate change crises aren't yet at that level of intensity, but then again, it's a much smaller step to mandate people purchase a specific variety of light bulb than it is to order them to visit a doctor.

[NorthSideSox72]

Of course there's a line there. But I for one consider the slippery slope argument to be one that doesn't work, simply because you elect people for the express purpose of being able to draw that line.

 

I'll turn around one of your examples with this. Right now, it clearly makes no sense to have a mandatory doctor's visit during a year. But it's easy for me to imagine a scenario where that would make sense. Imagine some sort of extreme viral outbreak hitting the country, where if people catch a disease and go untreated, they die and they take out everyone they run into after a certain point in the virus's progression. In that case, where the lives of potentially millions of people could be saved by ordering people to visit a doctor, I think that'd be a very appropriate response.

 

The current energy and climate change crises aren't yet at that level of intensity, but then again, it's a much smaller step to mandate people purchase a specific variety of light bulb than it is to order them to visit a doctor.

Don't get me wrong - I was actually not trying to make a true slippery slope argument. I was in fact saying there is a line, that is a good thing - I just think the line is a little off the mark in this specific case. I would not want to make an all-or-none argument out of this at all.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

A lot of people don't like the "quality" of light coming from CFL's in certain areas (I don't have a problem but I like softer lighting). They also contain mercury and are a major PITA to dispose of properly. Plus, they don't work with dimmer switches as of yet. Also, CFL's don't work very well in really cold temps, so it'll put you in a tough spot in an unheated garage or shed.

 

People are already buying more and more CFL's, and more are being designed to look nicer and work in just about any application. Seems to me that the market was going that way anyway.

I think that's what this hinges on. I don't want the government regulating every little thing down to what lightbulbs I can use in my lamp. I want to save money, so I use CFL's. Incentivise them or discount them as ComEd is doing. Ta-da, the market works!

You highlight two big reasons not to mandate this, that I agree with:

 

1. There is subjectivity involved in what is "good" here. CFL's are not an identical product - they put out different light. Some feel its a better product. I don't agree, and I think the benefit of CFL's far outweighs the negatives - but that is not a reason to ban a product.

 

2. The market is already working, and incentives are helping. Making a big move like this should only be considered if the market ISN'T working.

 

[Balta1701]

Don't get me wrong - I was actually not trying to make a true slippery slope argument. I was in fact saying there is a line, that is a good thing - I just think the line is a little off the mark in this specific case. I would not want to make an all-or-none argument out of this at all.

Given what I believe about the energy and climate situations in this country, I think this is a totally appropriate place to put the line. It inconveniences very few people and the potential benefits are large, even if the majority of people were switching anyway. There would always be a decent chunk of people who did not make the change if the government didn't mandate it, and the benefits of every single bulb are big enough for me to not complain.

[NorthSideSox72]

Given what I believe about the energy and climate situations in this country, I think this is a totally appropriate place to put the line. It inconveniences very few people and the potential benefits are large, even if the majority of people were switching anyway. There would always be a decent chunk of people who did not make the change if the government didn't mandate it, and the benefits of every single bulb are big enough for me to not complain.

I think that continued, or bolstered, incentives and other programs would have gotten almost the same gains, without the destruction of a usable, safe product. Therefore, I would have favored the former route.

 

But then again, if I were, say, in Congress, I wouldn't go using any political capital to stand in the way of this one either. I feel strongly both ways.

 

[Balta1701]

Well, on a different though related subject, this is also interesting.

Nanosolar, a heavily financed Silicon Valley start-up whose backers include Google’s co-founders, plans to announce Tuesday that it has begun selling its innovative solar panels, which are made using a technique that is being held out as the future of solar power manufacturing.

 

The company, which has raised $150 million and built a 200,000-square-foot factory here, is developing a new manufacturing process that “prints” photovoltaic material on aluminum backing, a process the company says will reduce the manufacturing cost of the basic photovoltaic module by more than 80 percent.

 

Nanosolar, which recently hired a top manufacturing executive from I.B.M., said that it had orders for its first 18 months of manufacturing capacity. The photovoltaic panels will be made in Silicon Valley and in a second plant in Germany.

 

While many photovoltaic start-up companies are concentrating on increasing the efficiency with which their systems convert sunlight, Nanosolar has focused on lowering the manufacturing cost. Its process is akin to a large printing press, rather than the usual semiconductor manufacturing techniques that deposit thin films on silicon wafers.

 

Nanosolar’s founder and chief executive, Martin Roscheisen, claims to be the first solar panel manufacturer to be able to profitably sell solar panels for less than $1 a watt. That is the price at which solar energy becomes less expensive than coal.

 

“With a $1-per-watt panel,” he said, “it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems.”

 

According to the Energy Department, building a new coal plant costs about $2.1 a watt, plus the cost of fuel and emissions, he said.

Clearly, the only solution to this is about $20 billion a year in subsidies for the fossil fuel companies. How else will they stay competitive with this sort of innovation? And thankfully, we're not turning those fossil fuel subsidies into research credits or anything, because all that would do is spur more innovation of this sort and cut the cost of renewables even further. And thank Goodness the Republicans filibustered the bill that required electric companies to generate some fraction of their electricity through renewables, because otherwise there'd be even more incentive to manufacture these things faster.