The Green New Deal

[acbytesla]

LOL. I could have sworn you did say no. I had to reread it a few times, so as not to go off for the wrong reason.

But it's really "no" , huh? Okay then, I'll clarify your position for you:

"There's plenty of land for solar and wind, because when the time comes we'll just take it from whoever currently claims it. The same way we took St Lo when Patton needed it. Meanwhile, we have bigger problems to worry about, so don't even sweat the land thing. "

Is that about right?

My position.

There's plenty of space to put solar panels. And IF it was necessary to take land, then we should take it. But who said I thought that it was necessary? I don't. And I think the land isn't the major hurdle.

Is it clear now?

Now let's say I'm wrong about the land point. Then I'm wrong.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't really see eminent domain as the best solution to aiding the adoption of solar power. A market solution would be much easier and likely engender less resistance.

Combustion based power has massive negative externalities that could easily be priced into a power bill. A carbon tax could be instated that accurately reflect the real damage done by emissions of combustion, rather than the $0 we pay now for spewing whatever we like into the air.

Sure, fight the change all you want, but your power bills will be going up and sooner or later most everyone will switch to the cheaper option and the market for a coal or oil power plant will evaporate.

How many people are really going to be willing to pay more for dirty power?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Feet to the fire if the government did have some sort of "Hey we're gonna put solar panels on your roof for free / significantly reduced cost, you get all the energy you need and anything extra goes to the grid" program I don't think they would have a problem finding volunteers.

The "I'm gonna poke myself in the eye with a sharp stick just because da' gubernment man told me not to and who the hell do who think he is to tell me what to..." strain of Libertarianism isn't that widespread once you get off the internet.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Feet to the fire if the government did have some sort of "Hey we're gonna put solar panels on your roof for free / significantly reduced cost, you get all the energy you need and anything extra goes to the grid" program I don't think they would have a problem finding volunteers.

The "I'm gonna poke myself in the eye with a sharp stick just because da' gubernment man told me not to and who the hell do who think he is to tell me what to..." strain of Libertarianism isn't that widespread once you get off the internet.

It's like the whole light bulb kerfuffle. People pitching a fit that incandescent bulbs weren't going to be available and they were being forced into LED or compact fluorescents. After the initial outrage, no one really cared.

Turns out, people like bulbs that use less electricity and last way longer. Who'd a thunk it.

 

[Mycroft]

It's like the whole light bulb kerfuffle. People pitching a fit that incandescent bulbs weren't going to be available and they were being forced into LED or compact fluorescents. After the initial outrage, no one really cared.

Turns out, people like bulbs that use less electricity and last way longer. Who'd a thunk it.

And I can still buy 40 watt incandescent bulbs for my lava lamp, which requires the extra heat generated to work.

 

[theprestige]

Feet to the fire if the government did have some sort of "Hey we're gonna put solar panels on your roof for free / significantly reduced cost, you get all the energy you need and anything extra goes to the grid" program I don't think they would have a problem finding volunteers.

It's hard to say no to stuff that's paid for by someone else. But we weren't talking about rooftops, we were talking about land use. And we weren't talking about "free" solar installations from the government. We were talking about appropriating private property, waiving conservation rules, and impacting the quality of life of homeowners.

Also, "for free / significantly reduced cost" is weaselly. "For free" is One Thing, especially if I'm not already using my rooftop for anything else. "Significantly reduced cost" translates to, "we're going to put solar on your roof and send you a bill whether you like it or not", which is Something Else Entirely.

The "I'm gonna poke myself in the eye with a sharp stick just because da' gubernment man told me not to and who the hell do who think he is to tell me what to..." strain of Libertarianism isn't that widespread once you get off the internet.

It's not that widespread even on the Internet, considering the only place I've ever seen it is right here in your post.

In fact, your post turns out to be nothing more than a miserable pile of straw men and weasel words.

---

Straw Men and Weasel Words is the name of my Rage Against the Machine cover band.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It's hard to say no to stuff that's paid for by someone else. But we weren't talking about rooftops, we were talking about land use. And we weren't talking about "free" solar installations from the government. We were talking about appropriating private property, waiving conservation rules, and impacting the quality of life of homeowners.

Also, "for free / significantly reduced cost" is weaselly. "For free" is One Thing, especially if I'm not already using my rooftop for anything else. "Significantly reduced cost" translates to, "we're going to put solar on your roof and send you a bill whether you like it or not", which is Something Else Entirely.



It's not that widespread even on the Internet, considering the only place I've ever seen it is right here in your post.

In fact, your post turns out to be nothing more than a miserable pile of straw men and weasel words.

---

Straw Men and Weasel Words is the name of my Rage Against the Machine cover band.

Eminent domain land grabs for solar panel farms would probably be a bad idea, I agree.

Much easier to provide market disincentives for dirty power and incentives for clean power. Demand will lead to supply.

This gets a bit complicated as power companies often operate with public/private partnerships with local municipalities. Although, in cases where the government is basically sanctioning a monopoly, it seems that making strict demands would be pretty reasonable.

If there's a market for non-polluting power and the technology exists to make it feasible, there's no reason to think that land couldn't just be bought as part of a profitable business endeavor.

We just need to increase the price of CO2 emission higher than it's current price of $0.00 to truly reflect the damage it inflicts on our environment.

Plenty of people would be happy to put panels on their roof, but the initial outlay of money makes it hard, even if the long term financial return is positive. Subsidized financing would probably be an easy policy to justify.

 

[theprestige]

Eminent domain land grabs for solar panel farms would probably be a bad idea, I agree.

Slow your roll, my ninja. I don't agree that they would probably be a bad idea.

Much easier to provide market disincentives for dirty power and incentives for clean power. Demand will lead to supply.

Clean power is also very dirty.

<respectful snip>

We just need to increase the price of CO2 emission higher than it's current price of $0.00 to truly reflect the damage it inflicts on our environment.

In that case, we also need to properly price the externalities from solar panel manufacturing, etc.

Plenty of people would be happy to put panels on their roof, but the initial outlay of money makes it hard, even if the long term financial return is positive. Subsidized financing would probably be an easy policy to justify.

Which is, again, not what we were talking about. But for what it's worth, California has in fact been subsidizing solar panel installations. So you've got that program as a model if that's the policy you're inclined towards.

Towards which you are inclined.

 

[Ziggurat]

We just need to increase the price of CO2 emission higher than it's current price of $0.00 to truly reflect the damage it inflicts on our environment.

Nobody has any idea how to price that correctly.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Slow your roll, my ninja. I don't agree that they would probably be a bad idea.


Clean power is also very dirty.


In that case, we also need to properly price the externalities from solar panel manufacturing, etc.


Which is, again, not what we were talking about. But for what it's worth, California has in fact been subsidizing solar panel installations. So you've got that program as a model if that's the policy you're inclined towards.

Towards which you are inclined.

I think I have failed to understand where this thread's topic is currently located. I tried to follow quote's back up, but gave up after a few iterations of folks quibbling back and forth about what the real issue is. I never should have got involved. Life is full of regrets.

I'll just say that I don't think solar alone is going to save our bacon. The anti-nuke power strain of many environmentalists is very irritating to me, as that technology seems the closest of any to actually being able to replace combustion based power. Not that I don't recognize the many downsides of nuclear power, but that those downsides seem more tolerable than the next best option, which as far as I can tell is staying on combustion until some miracle technology is invented/matured at an unknown date.

 

[varwoche]

For those of you drawn to a candidate who assigns a high priority to climate change, and is able to frame the issue effectively, you might want to check out Jay Inslee, WA state governor.

 

[lomiller]

Nobody has any idea how to price that correctly.

Don't project your own ignorance on the rest of the world. The correct price is whatever brings demand down to levels such that targets for safe (ish) atmospheric concentrations are met. You don't need to know exactly what that price is up front to accomplish this.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Nobody has any idea how to price that correctly.

Nobody has any idea on how to price anything 'correctly'. But a market grossly distorted by externalities is even worse, because it guarantees very incorrect pricing which invites disaster. And we are looking at disaster on a scale that has never been seen before.

A carbon tax that was priced 'correctly' is out of the question anyway, because it would make fossil fuels prohibitively expensive. Imagine if everyone in the World had to pay for their contribution to the damage already done - we would all be bankrupt! But 'correct' pricing isn't necessary. Renewables are already winning in the marketplace. All we have to do is not fight them, by not putting up roadblocks, spreading disinformation and subsidizing dirty power.

The real problem facing renewables is that they are 'new', and the fossils that must be replaced are people, not fuels.

 

[novaphile]

I know a farmer who gets paid for wind turbines on his property.

Originally they didn't even put up fences around them, and the cattle were able to graze right up to the towers.

Eventually they did put up some fences, the bloody cows kept licking the paint off the towers.

Every time I see the guy, he's so happy about the rent he gets for having those towers on his land...

BTW. No one here is going to buy the ******** about "rare earth", toxic chemicals, cost more to make than they can generate, etc. about solar panels.

If they cost more to make than the energy they generate, all the companies that make them would be bankrupt now, wouldn't they?

And all the people, like me, who've been using them for ten years would also be bankrupt, wouldn't we?

The ones on my roof are quite happily paying my electricity bills every day.

I know another farmer, with a stand-alone solar system, with thirty year old panels, which are still generating 80% of their original rated capacity.

And there's nothing about them which isn't recyclable so spare us the blather.

Glass, plastic and aluminium with a miniscule coating of electronics.

Maybe you should shill somewhere else?

 

[Ziggurat]

Don't project your own ignorance on the rest of the world. The correct price is whatever brings demand down to levels such that targets for safe (ish) atmospheric concentrations are met. You don't need to know exactly what that price is up front to accomplish this.

That’s a different price model than was proposed above. And good luck getting China and India on board.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I'll just say that I don't think solar alone is going to save our bacon. The anti-nuke power strain of many environmentalists is very irritating to me, as that technology seems the closest of any to actually being able to replace combustion based power.

When the nuclear industry itself disagrees with your opinion, you have to consider that it might not be well informed.

Nuclear isn't going to do it. Neither is solar, or wind, or any other technology alone. But after 65 years nuclear is still plodding along, while renewables are racing ahead. Putting all your money on the slowest horse is not the smartest bet.

The 'anti-nuke power strain' may be irritating to you, but consider how irritating the 'anti-renewable power strain' is to the rest of us. "Wind turbines kill birds!" they cry, meanwhile not giving a damn about the millions that die from hitting windows or being eaten by pets. "Solar panels don't work at night!" they exclaim with delight, apparently unaware that we already know that and have planned accordingly. "Electric cars don't have the range, and you have to plug them in every day!" they complain, even while themselves using a myriad of battery-powered devices that need regular recharging. One wonders what they are so afraid of.

 

[novaphile]

"Electric cars don't have the range, and you have to plug them in every day!" they complain, even while themselves using a myriad of battery-powered devices that need regular recharging. One wonders what they are so afraid of.

For the last one, I blame Toyota, and their ridiculous "Plugging things in is bad!" commercials, which cheerfully ignore Toyota owners having to "plug in" their cars at petrol stations every week.

Idiots.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

That’s a different price model than was proposed above. And good luck getting China and India on board.

With our current administration, good luck getting them on board with anything. But we needn't worry, China and India are doing 'it' despite us.

Climate change in China

In 2017, China released specific details of its proposed national carbon market. This program would initially cover the country's power generation sector (which contributes to half of China's overall emissions), and within the power sector, only companies emitting 26,000 tons of carbon per year. Nathaniel Keohane, Vice President for Global Climate at the Environmental Defense Fund, said that this initial stage would cover 3.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions... trading is projected to begin in 2020, with the establishment of basic infrastructure set to continue through 2018 and simulated trading in the power sector to begin in 2019. After 2020, trading will hypothetically expand to also cover 7 other sectors: petrochemicals, chemicals, building materials, iron and steel, non-ferrous metals, paper, and civil aviation, for a total of about 6,000 companies.

India Steps Up Climate Change Efforts

Last month, the Ministry of Environment and Forests released a report listing 20 initiatives that the country is undertaking to address climate change at home. These steps come as part of India's larger National Action Plan on Climate Change...

The Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency contains initiatives designed to improve the efficiency of energy use across sectors. The government has said the program will include a series of mandated efficiency standards for vehicles, buildings, and appliances; a market-based mechanism to trade energy-efficiency certificates; and other mechanisms to finance efficiency efforts, such as tax exemptions and insurance funds."

Meanwhile, guess who's dragging the chain? Us.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

For the last one, I blame Toyota, and their ridiculous "Plugging things in is bad!" commercials, which cheerfully ignore Toyota owners having to "plug in" their cars at petrol stations every week.

Idiots.

Haven't seen that ad, but yes Toyota were idiots for not embracing fully electric vehicles. However the attitude predates Toyota's misguided attack on their competition, with the same people also denigrating the Prius (for all the wrong reasons) and anything else that dared to call itself 'green'.

So I hope you are not serious, because blaming Toyota for the 'anti-electric car strain' would be ridiculous.

 

[Belz...]

Nuclear isn't going to do it. Neither is solar, or wind, or any other technology alone. But after 65 years nuclear is still plodding along, while renewables are racing ahead.

Yeah, but ask yourself why.