The environment thread

[kapkomet]

LINK

I don't know how to say this any other way, but SUV's are what people want. If that's what they want, then make them. Simple supply and demand.

 

I guess we should all just drive those GM segways, right?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

LINK

Jeep is their only brand that makes money. Chrysler is in deep doo-doo, and I'd be surprised if they even exist in anything like their current form by 2011.

 

[lostfan]

I don't know how to say this any other way, but SUV's are what people want. If that's what they want, then make them. Simple supply and demand.

 

I guess we should all just drive those GM segways, right?

My only problem with this is that "people" b**** about gas prices when they go back up and I get tired of hearing it.

[southsider2k5]

I don't know how to say this any other way, but SUV's are what people want. If that's what they want, then make them. Simple supply and demand.

 

I guess we should all just drive those GM segways, right?

 

They also make a profit of like $10k per Cherokee. That's why the build them.

[Cknolls]

I don't know how to say this any other way, but SUV's are what people want. If that's what they want, then make them. Simple supply and demand.

 

I guess we should all just drive those GM segways, right?

 

 

Only if they are solar powered with a wind powered after burner.

[kapkomet]

Jeep is their only brand that makes money. Chrysler is in deep doo-doo, and I'd be surprised if they even exist in anything like their current form by 2011.

Chrysler will be gone in two months.

 

[Balta1701]

I don't know how to say this any other way, but SUV's are what people want. If that's what they want, then make them. Simple supply and demand.

 

I guess we should all just drive those GM segways, right?

This is of course a case where the current market is inefficient at predicting the future. The U.S. went SUV Crazy without anticipating a gigantic associated spike in fuel costs. When that hit, suddenly those SUV's became bad purchases. The market is striving to deal with what the current situation is, it is failing to predict the future, once again.

 

Which is of course, where the government can step in.

[BigSqwert]

You learn something new every day...

 

Plastic Labeling System Often Confused for Recyclability of Plastic Products

 

 

Have you ever noticed on the bottom of a plastic product one of these 7 symbols? It's a number inside a recycling logo. In seeing a label like this you might have thought, "Oh isn't it nice this product is recyclable..." I’m sorry to inform you that if you had that reaction, you, like most people who see that symbol and number, would be mistaken in your assumption.

 

These labels have nothing to do with the recyclable nature of the plastic. Instead, the label has been used as an international standard to identify what type of plastic is used - called the "PIC." The PIC was introduced by the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. to provide a uniform system for the identification of different polymer types.

 

This becomes clear when you see #7 - "OTHER”: In “other” words, you put this logo on it to represent all other forms of plastic not represented in the first 6 categories, independent of whether it is recyclable or not.

 

In fact typically only a few plastic types are recyclable. As an example yogurt cups which have a "#5" printed on them are not recyclable. I have met a countless number of people across the world who were shocked that this logo did not mean "please recycle me," and were more shocked to find out that a large percentage of the product they were used to placing in their recycling container was in fact being sorted and sent to landfill at the recycling center, since the center could not handle that form of plastic.

 

So why did the Society of the Plastics Industry use a recycling logo for their identifiers? Why not a circle, a square or even a triangle? If you think something should be done about this, I suggest you join me in writing to the Society of the Plastics Industry and ask them to change

this labeling system to not confuse the consumer.

 

LINK

[kapkomet]

You learn something new every day...

 

 

 

LINK

Wow. I didn't know this either. They need to be a lot more clear on this.

[Balta1701]

Our commencement speaker this year is the new secretary of energy.

[Balta1701]

You may have missed it, but it's very important. Yesterday, the EPA, following a ruling by the Supreme Court requiring it to do so...declared that Carbon Dioxide is an actual environmental pollutant that the EPA is required to regulate under the clean air act. There is additional legal procedure to get out of the way before anything happens, but the first step is likely going to be a decision on whether or not California can impose stricter emissions standards than the rest of the country this summer.

 

The real meat of this move though is political...because it gives the Obama Administration immense leverage over the Congress regarding energy legislation. The Obama Administration can literally tell every senator and Congressperson out there that they had better produce a bill that the President can sign that creates a system regulating CO2 emissions...because if they don't do so, then the EPA is required by the current law to regulate them, and the EPA isn't going to be able to set up a cap and trade system on its own, so if the Congress doesn't pass a bill, the regulations will be vastly more onerous.

[kapkomet]

You may have missed it, but it's very important. Yesterday, the EPA, following a ruling by the Supreme Court requiring it to do so...declared that Carbon Dioxide is an actual environmental pollutant that the EPA is required to regulate under the clean air act. There is additional legal procedure to get out of the way before anything happens, but the first step is likely going to be a decision on whether or not California can impose stricter emissions standards than the rest of the country this summer.

 

The real meat of this move though is political...because it gives the Obama Administration immense leverage over the Congress regarding energy legislation. The Obama Administration can literally tell every senator and Congressperson out there that they had better produce a bill that the President can sign that creates a system regulating CO2 emissions...because if they don't do so, then the EPA is required by the current law to regulate them, and the EPA isn't going to be able to set up a cap and trade system on its own, so if the Congress doesn't pass a bill, the regulations will be vastly more onerous.

No, no, it's not missed. This is the first step in raising our energy costs by at least 50% for every American.

 

To be fair: something needs to be done, and we must be really careful about what actions are taken. The problem is, as you said, this is political, and they will do whatever they can to control energy - ...

[Balta1701]

No, no, it's not missed. This is the first step in raising our energy costs by at least 50% for every American.

Thankfully, given that the price of oil has dropped by 66%, a 50% rise in energy costs would still be less than we were paying last year.

[kapkomet]

Thankfully, given that the price of oil has dropped by 66%, a 50% rise in energy costs would still be less than we were paying last year.

No, TOTAL energy costs. Electricity, gasoline, heating (fuel oil and natural gas), and on and on. It has nothing to do with the price of oil. And, according to you, oil's so finite that there's no way it stays cheap - which frankly I see Obama trying to raise prices (see: tax) so that we are pushed into all this alternative energy, which just happens to cost more, which will in turn generate more carbon taxes. Nice vicious circle we're getting ready to create. Fossil fuels are now becoming our offical sin tax.

[Balta1701]

No, TOTAL energy costs. Electricity, gasoline, heating (fuel oil and natural gas), and on and on. It has nothing to do with the price of oil. And, according to you, oil's so finite that there's no way it stays cheap - which frankly I see Obama trying to raise prices (see: tax) so that we are pushed into all this alternative energy, which just happens to cost more, which will in turn generate more carbon taxes. Nice vicious circle we're getting ready to create. Fossil fuels are now becoming our offical sin tax.

Considering all the negatives, they damn well better be treated like that.

[kapkomet]

Considering all the negatives, they damn well better be treated like that.

Let's always look at the negatives before you do the positives... that way, we can be sure to get our collective ways...

 

[southsider2k5]

No, TOTAL energy costs. Electricity, gasoline, heating (fuel oil and natural gas), and on and on. It has nothing to do with the price of oil. And, according to you, oil's so finite that there's no way it stays cheap - which frankly I see Obama trying to raise prices (see: tax) so that we are pushed into all this alternative energy, which just happens to cost more, which will in turn generate more carbon taxes. Nice vicious circle we're getting ready to create. Fossil fuels are now becoming our offical sin tax.

 

And what they don't talk about is that this will be the tax that kills the poor, because they can't afford the switch.

[Cknolls]

Thankfully, given that the price of oil has dropped by 66%, a 50% rise in energy costs would still be less than we were paying last year.

 

 

Well there you go then. It's less than last year so be thankful. Kind of like my old boss when he used to tell people be "glad you have a job." What's next gov't limitations on how many breaths you can take per hour. Bretahew too much and your polluting the fragile earth. Gimme a break. Biggest scam in world history.

[Balta1701]

The Center for American Progress here tries to make the case that we're getting our arses totally handed to us on development of renewable energy resources, and that even the devil of modern CO2 emissions, China, is doing a better job of developing renewables than we currently are.

Indeed, renewable energy deployment in the United States lags far behind many European and Asian nations. While the United States has made great strides in recent years, in 2006 (the most recent internationally comparable data), the United States had less solar power capacity per capita than Germany, Spain, Japan, Switzerland, Australia, Austria, and the Netherlands, and less wind power capacity per capita than Denmark, Spain, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, and Greece.

 

In capacity per capita terms, this lag is particularly pronounced. But even in absolute terms, the public and private sectors in the United States have been strikingly slow to embrace renewable energy. As of 2006, the United States has less absolute renewable power capacity than either China or the 25 member nations of the European Union. And while America’s solar and wind capacity increased by an impressive 40 percent in 2007 (international comparison unavailable), China, Japan, and Europe are rapidly expanding their capacity as well.

 

In 2006, according to the most recent data from the Renewable Energy Policy Network, the United States, the world’s largest economy, invested less in new capacity for renewable energy than either the EU-25 or China. In fact, according to the most recent data, the entire United States invests less in renewable energy per year than the country of Germany, which boasts less than one-third the population of the United States and an economy less than one-fourth our size.

 

 

 

An interesting note is that the European countries are much worse places for alternative energy development than the U.S. The U.S. has much larger wind resources, and in particular has enormous amounts of open, sunny space perfect for solar development. And even with the stimulus package, we're struggling to keep up with the rest of the world.

[Balta1701]

This would be excellent news out of the CARB.

California regulators, trying to assess the true environmental cost of corn ethanol, are poised to declare that the biofuel cannot help the state reduce global warming.

 

As they see it, corn is no better – and might be worse – than petroleum when total greenhouse gas emissions are considered.

Such a declaration, to be considered later this week by the California Air Resources Board, would be a considerable blow to the corn-ethanol industry in the United States.

 

If passed, the measure could serve as a model as other states and the federal government tackle carbon emissions.

 

That has the ethanol industry in a full-court press against the proposal, saying it risks killing investments needed to create the next generation of cleaner, more efficient biofuels.

 

But California’s regulators say they have no choice.

 

biofuel-500The state must asses the full climate change impact of corn ethanol under a California law requiring a sharp cut in carbon emissions from transportation fuels. The board must encourage the use of cleaner alternatives like electricity, hydrogen and cellulosic ethanol, said board spokesman Dimitri Stanich.

 

The proposal would work like this: If increased production of corn-based ethanol in the U.S. raises corn prices and accelerates the conversion of rainforests and conservations lands to farmland worldwide, greenhouse emissions and loss of the carbon sink associated with such deforestation and disruption must be counted towards the biofuel’s total emissions.

 

“Losing a carbon sink would defeat the purpose of this regulation to reduce greenhouse emissions,” Stanich said.

[mr_genius]

Fat people cause global warming

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2387203.ece

[NorthSideSox72]

This would be excellent news out of the CARB.

Good. Corn ethanol was at best a bridge technology anyway, we need to move on.

 

[Balta1701]

Secretary Chu tries to explain basic Plate Tectonics to Rep Barton, R-TX.

 

[StrangeSox]

It was so painfully obvious what Barton was trying to imply there, but he still failed so massively.

 

What are Chu's and Obama's positions on nuclear power? I haven't heard much aside from stopping Yucca Mountain.

[BigSqwert]

Secretary Chu tries to explain basic Plate Tectonics to Rep Barton, R-TX.

Barton came off like a complete ignorant jackass.

Edited April 23, 2009 by BigSqwert