The environment thread

[StrangeSox]

For the 97th time, those costs would be there anyway. Your uptopia does not exist in reality.

 

Also still waiting on anything to back up your administrative costs estimates. I'm not looking for hard, quantitative numbers here, but maybe a comparison to existing programs' costs.

[southsider2k5]

Your argument is that the shareholders of oil companies see no financial benefit from these subsidies, then?

 

Why do the economists at the IMF completely disagree with your argument?

 

You are talking about one product versus hundreds.

 

Also the IMF's existance is build around them providing subsidies to the poor of the world and then controling their economies for them. What possible reason would the IMF argue something that would put them out of business?

[southsider2k5]

Do any of you other financial guys here agree with Mike? Am I just missing something in this "the best way to help the poor is to give money to the rich to give to the poor" argument?

 

Yeah I am done. This is just stupid that this point.

[StrangeSox]

You are talking about one product versus hundreds.

 

Also the IMF's existance is build around them providing subsidies to the poor of the world and then controling their economies for them. What possible reason would the IMF argue something that would put them out of business?

 

Please answer the question. How much of a cut of these subsidies would you estimate goes directly to shareholders'/CEO pockets?

[StrangeSox]

Yeah I am done. This is just stupid that this point.

 

I agree. You've actually argued that corporate tax breaks are the best solution to poverty, at least for food and fuel. That is simply insane.

[southsider2k5]

I agree. You've actually argued that corporate tax breaks are the best solution to poverty, at least for food and fuel. That is simply insane.

 

All I am saying is don't ever be upset when someone argues on emotion over "scientific fact" again.

[StrangeSox]

You've still yet to explain how these subsidies are passed on to consumers without shareholders/exec's taking multiple cuts on the way through such that it remains the most efficient way to subsidize fuel costs for the poor.

 

Or how they'll just be able to raise prices without effecting demand (or destroying the economy) to keep profits up if subsidies are removed.

 

Or how it will cost billions in administration to simply give this money directly to those who you are ostensibly trying to help.

 

Or why continuing tens of billions of subsidies in fossil fuels controlled by monopolistic forces is good, but why subsidies for alternatives to this completely inelastic, limited-supply fuel are bad.

[Y2HH]

You've still yet to explain how these subsidies are passed on to consumers without shareholders/exec's taking multiple cuts on the way through such that it remains the most efficient way to subsidize fuel costs for the poor.

 

Or how they'll just be able to raise prices without effecting demand (or destroying the economy) to keep profits up if subsidies are removed.

 

Or how it will cost billions in administration to simply give this money directly to those who you are ostensibly trying to help.

 

Or why continuing tens of billions of subsidies in fossil fuels controlled by monopolistic forces is good, but why subsidies for alternatives to this completely inelastic, limited-supply fuel are bad.

 

Yes he has, you just aren't accepting it.

[StrangeSox]

Yes he has, you just aren't accepting it.

 

links? I've seen nothing but question begging.

[Y2HH]

links? I've seen nothing but question begging.

 

Links? We aren't playing golf.

 

You shouldn't need links to prove to yourself that companies will lay the burden on the consumer whenever they can. That's kind of like...common knowledge.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Links? We aren't playing golf.

 

A game for the bourgeois!

[NorthSideSox72]

The argument that oil company subsidies should be kept to keep energy prices down for the poor makes no sense. It is abundantly clear that getting off fossil fuels in the long run is the best possible course for everyone, poor or rich. So the question is more simply, what do we do in the meantime to protect poor users of the energy? And the idea that passing the money through a corporation who may or may not trickle down some of the savings to some consumers indirectly is an efficient use of capital is laughable. States already all have energy assistance programs in place. If you put the money into those agencies in the same amount as the oil subsidies, you will lose some of it to overhead - just as you would with a corporation - but you have CONTROL over how much, and can force change. Give it to BP, and I guarantee little or none of it is causing any real savings to anyone, AND you have no control. Furthermore, it just feeds toe fossil fuel beast, slowing progress, and therefore slowing the process of getting poor people cheap, renewable energy.

 

So basically, in looking at sending the money to BP/Shell/etc. vs a set of state energy assistance agencies, both are inefficient pass-throughs, but the latter is actually focused on helping people and would accelerate us towards the long term goal. Seems pretty clearly a better use of funds to me.

 

And remember, most of the time, as you've seen me post, I tend to favor private business for efficienct use of money. Its just that there are some situations where the goal alignment doesn't work well for that, and this is one of them.

 

[Y2HH]

The argument that oil company subsidies should be kept to keep energy prices down for the poor makes no sense. It is abundantly clear that getting off fossil fuels in the long run is the best possible course for everyone, poor or rich. So the question is more simply, what do we do in the meantime to protect poor users of the energy? And the idea that passing the money through a corporation who may or may not trickle down some of the savings to some consumers indirectly is an efficient use of capital is laughable. States already all have energy assistance programs in place. If you put the money into those agencies in the same amount as the oil subsidies, you will lose some of it to overhead - just as you would with a corporation - but you have CONTROL over how much, and can force change. Give it to BP, and I guarantee little or none of it is causing any real savings to anyone, AND you have no control. Furthermore, it just feeds toe fossil fuel beast, slowing progress, and therefore slowing the process of getting poor people cheap, renewable energy.

 

So basically, in looking at sending the money to BP/Shell/etc. vs a set of state energy assistance agencies, both are inefficient pass-throughs, but the latter is actually focused on helping people and would accelerate us towards the long term goal. Seems pretty clearly a better use of funds to me.

 

And remember, most of the time, as you've seen me post, I tend to favor private business for efficienct use of money. Its just that there are some situations where the goal alignment doesn't work well for that, and this is one of them.

 

The problem here is they are merely talking about ending oil subsides...not taking said subsides and giving them to the poor for assistance. One is a hypothetical situation which someone made up and started discussing here, the other is what they're talking about doing.

 

So let's concentrate on what they're actually talking about doing -- ending oil subsidies...that's it. That WILL increase the cost to the consumers, because they aren't going to just pass the losses off to their shareholders or bottom lines.

 

I agree, in the end, the only realistic and long term solution to this is to not end oil subsides, but end the use of oil...period.

 

Oh, and I don't foresee renewable energy being cheap, at least not at first, and for that matter, not for as long as the people who invent it and bring it to the masses can help it.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

How much impact can subsidization of domestic oil production have on world oil prices, anyway? That'll at least give some hint to the level of impact it could have on gas prices I would think.

[Y2HH]

How much impact can subsidization of domestic oil production have on world oil prices, anyway? That'll at least give some hint to the level of impact it could have on gas prices I would think.

 

Well, in a real world of sanity, not much. But this isn't a sane world when it comes to oil prices. When any little thing happens, oil prices rocket...hell, a tiny newspaper in the middle of nowhere can print a false story about oil inventories being down, and if it leaks to the Internet, oil prices would spike on 'inventory shortages'. After the story is refuted, it would take DAYS for oil prices to return to where they were before the story broke.

[StrangeSox]

Well, in a real world of sanity, not much. But this isn't a sane world when it comes to oil prices. When any little thing happens, oil prices rocket...hell, a tiny newspaper in the middle of nowhere can print a false story about oil inventories being down, and if it leaks to the Internet, oil prices would spike on 'inventory shortages'. After the story is refuted, it would take DAYS for oil prices to return to where they were before the story broke.

 

I'm talking longer-term, not day-to-day typical market schizophrenic behavior.

 

Really, if we took away $70B in domestic exploration subsidies today, what impact would that have on the spot price of oil on July 1st? We're hardly the largest producer in the world, and those subsidies aren't for short-term operations.

[Y2HH]

I'm talking longer-term, not day-to-day typical market schizophrenic behavior.

 

Really, if we took away $70B in domestic exploration subsidies today, what impact would that have on the spot price of oil on July 1st? We're hardly the largest producer in the world, and those subsidies aren't for short-term operations.

 

I believe we are like #3 in the world as oil production goes. I think it's Russia #1, Saudi Arabia #2, USA #3.

 

That said you are probably right...the short term reaction would be bad, but over the long haul, you are probably right, it wouldn't do much. But they'd still tack on a new 'hidden' refining fee for gasoline, I'm sure of it.

[StrangeSox]

I believe we are like #3 in the world as oil production goes. I think it's Russia #1, Saudi Arabia #2, USA #3.

 

That said you are probably right...the short term reaction would be bad, but over the long haul, you are probably right, it wouldn't do much. But they'd still tack on a new 'hidden' refining fee for gasoline, I'm sure of it.

 

This keeps playing right into my "let's not continue to have stockholm syndrome with the plutocracy" thing, here.

 

also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count..._oil_production

 

russia

SA

USA!USA!USA!

Iran

China

 

are the top 5. We're about 9%. I'm assuming that's trending downward over the past several decades, though.

Edited March 11, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

This keeps playing right into my "let's not continue to have stockholm syndrome with the plutocracy" thing, here.

 

This goes back to my statement about this amendment coming up now...which annoys me.

 

When they had the super-majority and could have brought this up and quickly ended the subsidies, they didn't. They waited until they lost power, then brought it up...because I'm convinced they [Democrats] don't actually want to end these subsidies, but bring it up now as to blame the Republicans for loving big oil all the while knowing they'd be the ones to shoot down what they didn't want to actually pass in the first place.

 

I hope I didn't create a paradox in there.

[NorthSideSox72]

So one of Japan's Nuke reactors is not cooling as it should, and they fear it could melt down. That would be... really bad.

 

Just want to point out, without snark or over the top words, that this should be a consideration when looking at future energy generation. Oil and gas driven power can have spills, which can be pretty bad. Nuclear plants are a lot less likely to have problems, BUT, if they do, the effect can be catastrophic. Meanwhile, what damage is done when solar panels, wind turbines, hydro engines and the like get broken? Nothing notable.

 

This should not by any means be the deciding factor, but it should be considered on the list of reasons to use or not use certain technologies. Not just what is the pollution, but what happens when something goes wrong? Especially in places with significant risk of geological or oceanic risk.

 

[StrangeSox]

If Fukushima melts down, it'll be like Three Mile Island. Not good, but after decades there's been *maybe* one death attributable to that. Newer designs are significantly safer and less dangerous than the 40+ year olds designs we're running now, something to keep in mind.

 

Here's what's happening at Fukushima: all nuclear plants have several sources of power. Critical systems (those essential to safe shutdown and security) are run off of the electric grid (not the reactor itself), backed up by diesel generators that have very short start-up times and then again backed up by Uninterpretable Power Supplies (batteries, more or less).

 

The grid was severely damaged in the area and there's no power being supplied to Unit 1. The diesel back-ups were also damaged and are inoperable. This means that the cooling pumps are running on their UPS systems, but these only have several hours of run-time on them. Japanese and US officials are rushing to get more generators and batteries on-site ASAP. If cooling pumps shut down, the coolant will boil off fairly quickly and the reactor will melt down, though it would be like TMI and not Chernobyle.

 

If this thing melts down, it'll be the end of the US nuclear industry imo. There will be immediate calls for SONGS and Diablo Canyon (west coast plants) to shut down. Probably the Florida and other Gulf Coast plants as well due to hurricane threats. At the very least, the NRC is going to be taking a second look at safe shutdown procedures.

[bigruss]

From what I have been told the radiation wouldnt pretty much not leave the premises of the nuclear plant if it does meltdown, but that is from what I remember m brother telling me about a year ago.

 

I really hope they are able to fix the pumps, there's a big future depending on that fix including my brother's career.

[Y2HH]

From what I have been told the radiation wouldnt pretty much not leave the premises of the nuclear plant if it does meltdown, but that is from what I remember m brother telling me about a year ago.

 

I really hope they are able to fix the pumps, there's a big future depending on that fix including my brother's career.

 

??? PARADOX ???

[StrangeSox]

From what I have been told the radiation wouldnt pretty much not leave the premises of the nuclear plant if it does meltdown, but that is from what I remember m brother telling me about a year ago.

 

I really hope they are able to fix the pumps, there's a big future depending on that fix including my brother's career.

 

As long as containment isn't breached or damaged, it should be contained. Just like at Three Mile Island.

[Balta1701]

So one of Japan's Nuke reactors is not cooling as it should, and they fear it could melt down. That would be... really bad.

 

Just want to point out, without snark or over the top words, that this should be a consideration when looking at future energy generation. Oil and gas driven power can have spills, which can be pretty bad. Nuclear plants are a lot less likely to have problems, BUT, if they do, the effect can be catastrophic. Meanwhile, what damage is done when solar panels, wind turbines, hydro engines and the like get broken? Nothing notable.

 

This should not by any means be the deciding factor, but it should be considered on the list of reasons to use or not use certain technologies. Not just what is the pollution, but what happens when something goes wrong? Especially in places with significant risk of geological or oceanic risk.

The statistics that are quoted when people are proposing nuclear plants suggest that we're actually overdue for an event worse than this.