Proposition 23

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=air_ogi]
That was a bad error. Melting of Himalayan ice caps is one of those end of civilization deals.
But if you are going to discard all the IPCC date based on that, you might as well disregard all scientific data from any institution that ever made an error. In which case, there is no point arguing with you.

There is plenty of climate change data. You just choose to ignore it.[/quote]

Air: I do? I choose to ignore it? Given that you don’t know me, how do you know that? In point of fact, I don’t choose to ignore it, I simply pointed out the misuse of data. The problem with East Anglia and IPCC has more to do with politicizing science, than shoddy research or a faulty review process. And, as we both know, the Himalayan mistake was not the only one made.

I work in blast engineering and am in a partnership with a major research university, so please don’t preach to me about mistakes or disregarding data from academic institutions. I’m extremely cognizant of university politics, especially within those institutions that rely heavily on government grants.

If the argument is going to be substantive, it has to be backed by meaningful data, and the costs need to be detailed and weighed against the benefits. Simply throwing numbers about is pointless. That was the problem with Kyoto, and it was never fully addressed, and then that particular chicken came home to roost again in Copenhagen.

[jstoesz]

[quote]Investment in wind and solar will result in ton of high end engineering, manufacturing and installation jobs. Sure, some of it will go to China, but European companies that invested early in wind, made a ton of money EXPORTING to China. If we make investment now, you will have cheap clean energy by 2020. If not, it will always be 10 years away.[/quote]

We have had solar for 40+ years, and scientist have always said it will reach parity with oil in 10 years. Have we underfunded out investment in solar, or is it just not here yet? Things that are truly economically viable even in 10 years are subsidized by private investors. The government is only required when a scientists claim of adequacy is clearly a fantasy to those with capital. The government is the sucker.

[quote]AB32 reduces our dependence on foreign oil. We import around 12.2M bbl/day. If there is a correct mix of electric cars and high efficiency vehicles in US, complete switch from heating oil to natural gas, the imports can be completely eliminated. That would result in ability to reduce our defense budget by probably around $400B/year. Do you think $400B tax cut would be good for the economy?
Now, AB32 doesn’t do all of that, but it nudges us in the right direction.[/quote]

“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” And I mean this in all mocking. If our goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (which I am for), let us tax the crap out of it, and open up our own reserves. This backdoor way of getting there is ripe with unintended consequences, which ends up shipping our GHG’s to china (with our jobs).

[quote]As cheap supplies dwindle and third world demand grows, prices of oil will go higher and higher. If nothing else, AB32 is an insurance policy that when oil goes to $200, you will be able to buy a relatively inexpensive electric or high MPG car. California electric car initiative got canceled, but I can guarantee you that a lot of people are very happy they can purchase a Prius.
And before you can say free market can fix all of that, just look how long car manufacturers are taking to introduce efficient vehicles on their own. [/quote]

Instant and severe scarcity does not happen organically. It happens over time, and as fuel gets more expensive, other means of reducing oil consumption will happen organically. Free markets can fix it…notice the prius requires a tax refund and a special carpool lane sticker. Prior to all of this bullshit subsidy, we had the CR-X (better gas mileage than the prius with a standard gas engine) which happened organically from the high gas years of the 70’s.

[quote]Same deal with electricity generation. When the new Enron decides to screw with us, you just put solar panels on your house. In Germany, which has well developed installer market, you can put up solar panels, installation and transformer included, at about $4/W. With San Diego insolation, that translates to about 12c/kWh, without any government subsidies.[/quote]

You can put solar panels on your house now. And even with the government subsidy, they have at least a 20 year buyback period. Was this comment supposed to be in the fantasy land where solar panels are cheaper than nuclear or coal power? How does AB32 get us less dependent on PG&E and more to a decentralized grid (which I am also for BTW).

[quote]And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?[/quote]

What if I said there is a .01% chance that if you get in your car tomorrow you could DIE!!! Would you drive to work tomorrow? This is no argument. If you want to deal with the merits of scientific argument fine, but to dismiss dessent with scare tactics is pointless.

Also of note, no where in your response did I see an argument for AB32 resulting in more employment in California. All that was stated falls into the category of future ethereal benefits.

[jstoesz]

[quote]Investment in wind and solar will result in ton of high end engineering, manufacturing and installation jobs. Sure, some of it will go to China, but European companies that invested early in wind, made a ton of money EXPORTING to China. If we make investment now, you will have cheap clean energy by 2020. If not, it will always be 10 years away.[/quote]

We have had solar for 40+ years, and scientist have always said it will reach parity with oil in 10 years. Have we underfunded out investment in solar, or is it just not here yet? Things that are truly economically viable even in 10 years are subsidized by private investors. The government is only required when a scientists claim of adequacy is clearly a fantasy to those with capital. The government is the sucker.

[quote]AB32 reduces our dependence on foreign oil. We import around 12.2M bbl/day. If there is a correct mix of electric cars and high efficiency vehicles in US, complete switch from heating oil to natural gas, the imports can be completely eliminated. That would result in ability to reduce our defense budget by probably around $400B/year. Do you think $400B tax cut would be good for the economy?
Now, AB32 doesn’t do all of that, but it nudges us in the right direction.[/quote]

“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” And I mean this in all mocking. If our goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (which I am for), let us tax the crap out of it, and open up our own reserves. This backdoor way of getting there is ripe with unintended consequences, which ends up shipping our GHG’s to china (with our jobs).

[quote]As cheap supplies dwindle and third world demand grows, prices of oil will go higher and higher. If nothing else, AB32 is an insurance policy that when oil goes to $200, you will be able to buy a relatively inexpensive electric or high MPG car. California electric car initiative got canceled, but I can guarantee you that a lot of people are very happy they can purchase a Prius.
And before you can say free market can fix all of that, just look how long car manufacturers are taking to introduce efficient vehicles on their own. [/quote]

Instant and severe scarcity does not happen organically. It happens over time, and as fuel gets more expensive, other means of reducing oil consumption will happen organically. Free markets can fix it…notice the prius requires a tax refund and a special carpool lane sticker. Prior to all of this bullshit subsidy, we had the CR-X (better gas mileage than the prius with a standard gas engine) which happened organically from the high gas years of the 70’s.

[quote]Same deal with electricity generation. When the new Enron decides to screw with us, you just put solar panels on your house. In Germany, which has well developed installer market, you can put up solar panels, installation and transformer included, at about $4/W. With San Diego insolation, that translates to about 12c/kWh, without any government subsidies.[/quote]

You can put solar panels on your house now. And even with the government subsidy, they have at least a 20 year buyback period. Was this comment supposed to be in the fantasy land where solar panels are cheaper than nuclear or coal power? How does AB32 get us less dependent on PG&E and more to a decentralized grid (which I am also for BTW).

[quote]And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?[/quote]

What if I said there is a .01% chance that if you get in your car tomorrow you could DIE!!! Would you drive to work tomorrow? This is no argument. If you want to deal with the merits of scientific argument fine, but to dismiss dessent with scare tactics is pointless.

Also of note, no where in your response did I see an argument for AB32 resulting in more employment in California. All that was stated falls into the category of future ethereal benefits.

[jstoesz]

[quote]Investment in wind and solar will result in ton of high end engineering, manufacturing and installation jobs. Sure, some of it will go to China, but European companies that invested early in wind, made a ton of money EXPORTING to China. If we make investment now, you will have cheap clean energy by 2020. If not, it will always be 10 years away.[/quote]

We have had solar for 40+ years, and scientist have always said it will reach parity with oil in 10 years. Have we underfunded out investment in solar, or is it just not here yet? Things that are truly economically viable even in 10 years are subsidized by private investors. The government is only required when a scientists claim of adequacy is clearly a fantasy to those with capital. The government is the sucker.

[quote]AB32 reduces our dependence on foreign oil. We import around 12.2M bbl/day. If there is a correct mix of electric cars and high efficiency vehicles in US, complete switch from heating oil to natural gas, the imports can be completely eliminated. That would result in ability to reduce our defense budget by probably around $400B/year. Do you think $400B tax cut would be good for the economy?
Now, AB32 doesn’t do all of that, but it nudges us in the right direction.[/quote]

“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” And I mean this in all mocking. If our goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (which I am for), let us tax the crap out of it, and open up our own reserves. This backdoor way of getting there is ripe with unintended consequences, which ends up shipping our GHG’s to china (with our jobs).

[quote]As cheap supplies dwindle and third world demand grows, prices of oil will go higher and higher. If nothing else, AB32 is an insurance policy that when oil goes to $200, you will be able to buy a relatively inexpensive electric or high MPG car. California electric car initiative got canceled, but I can guarantee you that a lot of people are very happy they can purchase a Prius.
And before you can say free market can fix all of that, just look how long car manufacturers are taking to introduce efficient vehicles on their own. [/quote]

Instant and severe scarcity does not happen organically. It happens over time, and as fuel gets more expensive, other means of reducing oil consumption will happen organically. Free markets can fix it…notice the prius requires a tax refund and a special carpool lane sticker. Prior to all of this bullshit subsidy, we had the CR-X (better gas mileage than the prius with a standard gas engine) which happened organically from the high gas years of the 70’s.

[quote]Same deal with electricity generation. When the new Enron decides to screw with us, you just put solar panels on your house. In Germany, which has well developed installer market, you can put up solar panels, installation and transformer included, at about $4/W. With San Diego insolation, that translates to about 12c/kWh, without any government subsidies.[/quote]

You can put solar panels on your house now. And even with the government subsidy, they have at least a 20 year buyback period. Was this comment supposed to be in the fantasy land where solar panels are cheaper than nuclear or coal power? How does AB32 get us less dependent on PG&E and more to a decentralized grid (which I am also for BTW).

[quote]And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?[/quote]

What if I said there is a .01% chance that if you get in your car tomorrow you could DIE!!! Would you drive to work tomorrow? This is no argument. If you want to deal with the merits of scientific argument fine, but to dismiss dessent with scare tactics is pointless.

Also of note, no where in your response did I see an argument for AB32 resulting in more employment in California. All that was stated falls into the category of future ethereal benefits.

[jstoesz]

[quote]Investment in wind and solar will result in ton of high end engineering, manufacturing and installation jobs. Sure, some of it will go to China, but European companies that invested early in wind, made a ton of money EXPORTING to China. If we make investment now, you will have cheap clean energy by 2020. If not, it will always be 10 years away.[/quote]

We have had solar for 40+ years, and scientist have always said it will reach parity with oil in 10 years. Have we underfunded out investment in solar, or is it just not here yet? Things that are truly economically viable even in 10 years are subsidized by private investors. The government is only required when a scientists claim of adequacy is clearly a fantasy to those with capital. The government is the sucker.

[quote]AB32 reduces our dependence on foreign oil. We import around 12.2M bbl/day. If there is a correct mix of electric cars and high efficiency vehicles in US, complete switch from heating oil to natural gas, the imports can be completely eliminated. That would result in ability to reduce our defense budget by probably around $400B/year. Do you think $400B tax cut would be good for the economy?
Now, AB32 doesn’t do all of that, but it nudges us in the right direction.[/quote]

“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” And I mean this in all mocking. If our goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (which I am for), let us tax the crap out of it, and open up our own reserves. This backdoor way of getting there is ripe with unintended consequences, which ends up shipping our GHG’s to china (with our jobs).

[quote]As cheap supplies dwindle and third world demand grows, prices of oil will go higher and higher. If nothing else, AB32 is an insurance policy that when oil goes to $200, you will be able to buy a relatively inexpensive electric or high MPG car. California electric car initiative got canceled, but I can guarantee you that a lot of people are very happy they can purchase a Prius.
And before you can say free market can fix all of that, just look how long car manufacturers are taking to introduce efficient vehicles on their own. [/quote]

Instant and severe scarcity does not happen organically. It happens over time, and as fuel gets more expensive, other means of reducing oil consumption will happen organically. Free markets can fix it…notice the prius requires a tax refund and a special carpool lane sticker. Prior to all of this bullshit subsidy, we had the CR-X (better gas mileage than the prius with a standard gas engine) which happened organically from the high gas years of the 70’s.

[quote]Same deal with electricity generation. When the new Enron decides to screw with us, you just put solar panels on your house. In Germany, which has well developed installer market, you can put up solar panels, installation and transformer included, at about $4/W. With San Diego insolation, that translates to about 12c/kWh, without any government subsidies.[/quote]

You can put solar panels on your house now. And even with the government subsidy, they have at least a 20 year buyback period. Was this comment supposed to be in the fantasy land where solar panels are cheaper than nuclear or coal power? How does AB32 get us less dependent on PG&E and more to a decentralized grid (which I am also for BTW).

[quote]And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?[/quote]

What if I said there is a .01% chance that if you get in your car tomorrow you could DIE!!! Would you drive to work tomorrow? This is no argument. If you want to deal with the merits of scientific argument fine, but to dismiss dessent with scare tactics is pointless.

Also of note, no where in your response did I see an argument for AB32 resulting in more employment in California. All that was stated falls into the category of future ethereal benefits.

[jstoesz]

[quote]Investment in wind and solar will result in ton of high end engineering, manufacturing and installation jobs. Sure, some of it will go to China, but European companies that invested early in wind, made a ton of money EXPORTING to China. If we make investment now, you will have cheap clean energy by 2020. If not, it will always be 10 years away.[/quote]

We have had solar for 40+ years, and scientist have always said it will reach parity with oil in 10 years. Have we underfunded out investment in solar, or is it just not here yet? Things that are truly economically viable even in 10 years are subsidized by private investors. The government is only required when a scientists claim of adequacy is clearly a fantasy to those with capital. The government is the sucker.

[quote]AB32 reduces our dependence on foreign oil. We import around 12.2M bbl/day. If there is a correct mix of electric cars and high efficiency vehicles in US, complete switch from heating oil to natural gas, the imports can be completely eliminated. That would result in ability to reduce our defense budget by probably around $400B/year. Do you think $400B tax cut would be good for the economy?
Now, AB32 doesn’t do all of that, but it nudges us in the right direction.[/quote]

“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” And I mean this in all mocking. If our goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (which I am for), let us tax the crap out of it, and open up our own reserves. This backdoor way of getting there is ripe with unintended consequences, which ends up shipping our GHG’s to china (with our jobs).

[quote]As cheap supplies dwindle and third world demand grows, prices of oil will go higher and higher. If nothing else, AB32 is an insurance policy that when oil goes to $200, you will be able to buy a relatively inexpensive electric or high MPG car. California electric car initiative got canceled, but I can guarantee you that a lot of people are very happy they can purchase a Prius.
And before you can say free market can fix all of that, just look how long car manufacturers are taking to introduce efficient vehicles on their own. [/quote]

Instant and severe scarcity does not happen organically. It happens over time, and as fuel gets more expensive, other means of reducing oil consumption will happen organically. Free markets can fix it…notice the prius requires a tax refund and a special carpool lane sticker. Prior to all of this bullshit subsidy, we had the CR-X (better gas mileage than the prius with a standard gas engine) which happened organically from the high gas years of the 70’s.

[quote]Same deal with electricity generation. When the new Enron decides to screw with us, you just put solar panels on your house. In Germany, which has well developed installer market, you can put up solar panels, installation and transformer included, at about $4/W. With San Diego insolation, that translates to about 12c/kWh, without any government subsidies.[/quote]

You can put solar panels on your house now. And even with the government subsidy, they have at least a 20 year buyback period. Was this comment supposed to be in the fantasy land where solar panels are cheaper than nuclear or coal power? How does AB32 get us less dependent on PG&E and more to a decentralized grid (which I am also for BTW).

[quote]And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?[/quote]

What if I said there is a .01% chance that if you get in your car tomorrow you could DIE!!! Would you drive to work tomorrow? This is no argument. If you want to deal with the merits of scientific argument fine, but to dismiss dessent with scare tactics is pointless.

Also of note, no where in your response did I see an argument for AB32 resulting in more employment in California. All that was stated falls into the category of future ethereal benefits.

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
We have had solar for 40+ years, and scientist have always said it will reach parity with oil in 10 years. Have we underfunded out investment in solar, or is it just not here yet? Things that are truly economically viable even in 10 years are subsidized by private investors. The government is only required when a scientists claim of adequacy is clearly a fantasy to those with capital. The government is the sucker.
[/quote]

Prices of solar panels declined by 50% in last 2 years. How much did the price of nuclear plants and coal decline by?

[quote=jstoesz]
“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” And I mean this in all mocking. If our goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (which I am for), let us tax the crap out of it, and open up our own reserves. This backdoor way of getting there is ripe with unintended consequences, which ends up shipping our GHG’s to china (with our jobs).
[/quote]
So you have a problem with AB32 as an economy destroying tax, but no problem with tax on foreign oil? Riiight.
And China produces 1/4 of carbon emissions per capita as does US. Chian will shortly become the largest consumer of wind power and 2nd largest consumer of solar power (after Germany) by 2020. So if you want to scapegoat, find someone else.

[quote=jstoesz]
Instant and severe scarcity does not happen organically. It happens over time, and as fuel gets more expensive, other means of reducing oil consumption will happen organically. Free markets can fix it…notice the prius requires a tax refund and a special carpool lane sticker. Prior to all of this bullshit subsidy, we had the CR-X (better gas mileage than the prius with a standard gas engine) which happened organically from the high gas years of the 70’s.
[/quote]
Oil went from $25/b to $140/b in less that one automotive design cycle. Prius rebate was cut in 2007 and HOV access in January. And if you are in CR-X and collide with a scooter, scooter rider had a better chance of surviving than you.

[quote=jstoesz]
How does AB32 get us less dependent on PG&E and more to a decentralized grid (which I am also for BTW).
[/quote]
It does.

[quote=jstoesz]
What if I said there is a .01% chance that if you get in your car tomorrow you could DIE!!! Would you drive to work tomorrow? This is no argument. If you want to deal with the merits of scientific argument fine, but to dismiss dessent with scare tactics is pointless.
[/quote]
If you knew there was a 30% chance of getting into a car accident tomorrow, would you do anything different? Would you write your will? Or make sure you have first aid kit in the car?
Or would you close your eyes and keep going.

I am not sure where you see scare tactics in my post. East California was turned into agricultural land by Sierra Nevada water. If that water is reduced, as climate change models predict, what do you think is going to happen?

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
We have had solar for 40+ years, and scientist have always said it will reach parity with oil in 10 years. Have we underfunded out investment in solar, or is it just not here yet? Things that are truly economically viable even in 10 years are subsidized by private investors. The government is only required when a scientists claim of adequacy is clearly a fantasy to those with capital. The government is the sucker.
[/quote]

Prices of solar panels declined by 50% in last 2 years. How much did the price of nuclear plants and coal decline by?

[quote=jstoesz]
“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” And I mean this in all mocking. If our goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (which I am for), let us tax the crap out of it, and open up our own reserves. This backdoor way of getting there is ripe with unintended consequences, which ends up shipping our GHG’s to china (with our jobs).
[/quote]
So you have a problem with AB32 as an economy destroying tax, but no problem with tax on foreign oil? Riiight.
And China produces 1/4 of carbon emissions per capita as does US. Chian will shortly become the largest consumer of wind power and 2nd largest consumer of solar power (after Germany) by 2020. So if you want to scapegoat, find someone else.

[quote=jstoesz]
Instant and severe scarcity does not happen organically. It happens over time, and as fuel gets more expensive, other means of reducing oil consumption will happen organically. Free markets can fix it…notice the prius requires a tax refund and a special carpool lane sticker. Prior to all of this bullshit subsidy, we had the CR-X (better gas mileage than the prius with a standard gas engine) which happened organically from the high gas years of the 70’s.
[/quote]
Oil went from $25/b to $140/b in less that one automotive design cycle. Prius rebate was cut in 2007 and HOV access in January. And if you are in CR-X and collide with a scooter, scooter rider had a better chance of surviving than you.

[quote=jstoesz]
How does AB32 get us less dependent on PG&E and more to a decentralized grid (which I am also for BTW).
[/quote]
It does.

[quote=jstoesz]
What if I said there is a .01% chance that if you get in your car tomorrow you could DIE!!! Would you drive to work tomorrow? This is no argument. If you want to deal with the merits of scientific argument fine, but to dismiss dessent with scare tactics is pointless.
[/quote]
If you knew there was a 30% chance of getting into a car accident tomorrow, would you do anything different? Would you write your will? Or make sure you have first aid kit in the car?
Or would you close your eyes and keep going.

I am not sure where you see scare tactics in my post. East California was turned into agricultural land by Sierra Nevada water. If that water is reduced, as climate change models predict, what do you think is going to happen?

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
We have had solar for 40+ years, and scientist have always said it will reach parity with oil in 10 years. Have we underfunded out investment in solar, or is it just not here yet? Things that are truly economically viable even in 10 years are subsidized by private investors. The government is only required when a scientists claim of adequacy is clearly a fantasy to those with capital. The government is the sucker.
[/quote]

Prices of solar panels declined by 50% in last 2 years. How much did the price of nuclear plants and coal decline by?

[quote=jstoesz]
“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” And I mean this in all mocking. If our goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (which I am for), let us tax the crap out of it, and open up our own reserves. This backdoor way of getting there is ripe with unintended consequences, which ends up shipping our GHG’s to china (with our jobs).
[/quote]
So you have a problem with AB32 as an economy destroying tax, but no problem with tax on foreign oil? Riiight.
And China produces 1/4 of carbon emissions per capita as does US. Chian will shortly become the largest consumer of wind power and 2nd largest consumer of solar power (after Germany) by 2020. So if you want to scapegoat, find someone else.

[quote=jstoesz]
Instant and severe scarcity does not happen organically. It happens over time, and as fuel gets more expensive, other means of reducing oil consumption will happen organically. Free markets can fix it…notice the prius requires a tax refund and a special carpool lane sticker. Prior to all of this bullshit subsidy, we had the CR-X (better gas mileage than the prius with a standard gas engine) which happened organically from the high gas years of the 70’s.
[/quote]
Oil went from $25/b to $140/b in less that one automotive design cycle. Prius rebate was cut in 2007 and HOV access in January. And if you are in CR-X and collide with a scooter, scooter rider had a better chance of surviving than you.

[quote=jstoesz]
How does AB32 get us less dependent on PG&E and more to a decentralized grid (which I am also for BTW).
[/quote]
It does.

[quote=jstoesz]
What if I said there is a .01% chance that if you get in your car tomorrow you could DIE!!! Would you drive to work tomorrow? This is no argument. If you want to deal with the merits of scientific argument fine, but to dismiss dessent with scare tactics is pointless.
[/quote]
If you knew there was a 30% chance of getting into a car accident tomorrow, would you do anything different? Would you write your will? Or make sure you have first aid kit in the car?
Or would you close your eyes and keep going.

I am not sure where you see scare tactics in my post. East California was turned into agricultural land by Sierra Nevada water. If that water is reduced, as climate change models predict, what do you think is going to happen?

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
We have had solar for 40+ years, and scientist have always said it will reach parity with oil in 10 years. Have we underfunded out investment in solar, or is it just not here yet? Things that are truly economically viable even in 10 years are subsidized by private investors. The government is only required when a scientists claim of adequacy is clearly a fantasy to those with capital. The government is the sucker.
[/quote]

Prices of solar panels declined by 50% in last 2 years. How much did the price of nuclear plants and coal decline by?

[quote=jstoesz]
“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” And I mean this in all mocking. If our goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (which I am for), let us tax the crap out of it, and open up our own reserves. This backdoor way of getting there is ripe with unintended consequences, which ends up shipping our GHG’s to china (with our jobs).
[/quote]
So you have a problem with AB32 as an economy destroying tax, but no problem with tax on foreign oil? Riiight.
And China produces 1/4 of carbon emissions per capita as does US. Chian will shortly become the largest consumer of wind power and 2nd largest consumer of solar power (after Germany) by 2020. So if you want to scapegoat, find someone else.

[quote=jstoesz]
Instant and severe scarcity does not happen organically. It happens over time, and as fuel gets more expensive, other means of reducing oil consumption will happen organically. Free markets can fix it…notice the prius requires a tax refund and a special carpool lane sticker. Prior to all of this bullshit subsidy, we had the CR-X (better gas mileage than the prius with a standard gas engine) which happened organically from the high gas years of the 70’s.
[/quote]
Oil went from $25/b to $140/b in less that one automotive design cycle. Prius rebate was cut in 2007 and HOV access in January. And if you are in CR-X and collide with a scooter, scooter rider had a better chance of surviving than you.

[quote=jstoesz]
How does AB32 get us less dependent on PG&E and more to a decentralized grid (which I am also for BTW).
[/quote]
It does.

[quote=jstoesz]
What if I said there is a .01% chance that if you get in your car tomorrow you could DIE!!! Would you drive to work tomorrow? This is no argument. If you want to deal with the merits of scientific argument fine, but to dismiss dessent with scare tactics is pointless.
[/quote]
If you knew there was a 30% chance of getting into a car accident tomorrow, would you do anything different? Would you write your will? Or make sure you have first aid kit in the car?
Or would you close your eyes and keep going.

I am not sure where you see scare tactics in my post. East California was turned into agricultural land by Sierra Nevada water. If that water is reduced, as climate change models predict, what do you think is going to happen?

[air_ogi]

[quote=jstoesz]
We have had solar for 40+ years, and scientist have always said it will reach parity with oil in 10 years. Have we underfunded out investment in solar, or is it just not here yet? Things that are truly economically viable even in 10 years are subsidized by private investors. The government is only required when a scientists claim of adequacy is clearly a fantasy to those with capital. The government is the sucker.
[/quote]

Prices of solar panels declined by 50% in last 2 years. How much did the price of nuclear plants and coal decline by?

[quote=jstoesz]
“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” And I mean this in all mocking. If our goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (which I am for), let us tax the crap out of it, and open up our own reserves. This backdoor way of getting there is ripe with unintended consequences, which ends up shipping our GHG’s to china (with our jobs).
[/quote]
So you have a problem with AB32 as an economy destroying tax, but no problem with tax on foreign oil? Riiight.
And China produces 1/4 of carbon emissions per capita as does US. Chian will shortly become the largest consumer of wind power and 2nd largest consumer of solar power (after Germany) by 2020. So if you want to scapegoat, find someone else.

[quote=jstoesz]
Instant and severe scarcity does not happen organically. It happens over time, and as fuel gets more expensive, other means of reducing oil consumption will happen organically. Free markets can fix it…notice the prius requires a tax refund and a special carpool lane sticker. Prior to all of this bullshit subsidy, we had the CR-X (better gas mileage than the prius with a standard gas engine) which happened organically from the high gas years of the 70’s.
[/quote]
Oil went from $25/b to $140/b in less that one automotive design cycle. Prius rebate was cut in 2007 and HOV access in January. And if you are in CR-X and collide with a scooter, scooter rider had a better chance of surviving than you.

[quote=jstoesz]
How does AB32 get us less dependent on PG&E and more to a decentralized grid (which I am also for BTW).
[/quote]
It does.

[quote=jstoesz]
What if I said there is a .01% chance that if you get in your car tomorrow you could DIE!!! Would you drive to work tomorrow? This is no argument. If you want to deal with the merits of scientific argument fine, but to dismiss dessent with scare tactics is pointless.
[/quote]
If you knew there was a 30% chance of getting into a car accident tomorrow, would you do anything different? Would you write your will? Or make sure you have first aid kit in the car?
Or would you close your eyes and keep going.

I am not sure where you see scare tactics in my post. East California was turned into agricultural land by Sierra Nevada water. If that water is reduced, as climate change models predict, what do you think is going to happen?

[air_ogi]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Air: I do? I choose to ignore it? Given that you don’t know me, how do you know that? [/quote]

Based on the fact that you took one mistake and decided that all data that disagrees with your conclusion is bogus.

Go to IPCC’s site, the provide a ton of data. Or go to NASA’s site, they provide a ton of data (for example on Greenland melting) as well.

[air_ogi]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Air: I do? I choose to ignore it? Given that you don’t know me, how do you know that? [/quote]

Based on the fact that you took one mistake and decided that all data that disagrees with your conclusion is bogus.

Go to IPCC’s site, the provide a ton of data. Or go to NASA’s site, they provide a ton of data (for example on Greenland melting) as well.

[air_ogi]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Air: I do? I choose to ignore it? Given that you don’t know me, how do you know that? [/quote]

Based on the fact that you took one mistake and decided that all data that disagrees with your conclusion is bogus.

Go to IPCC’s site, the provide a ton of data. Or go to NASA’s site, they provide a ton of data (for example on Greenland melting) as well.

[air_ogi]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Air: I do? I choose to ignore it? Given that you don’t know me, how do you know that? [/quote]

Based on the fact that you took one mistake and decided that all data that disagrees with your conclusion is bogus.

Go to IPCC’s site, the provide a ton of data. Or go to NASA’s site, they provide a ton of data (for example on Greenland melting) as well.

[Author]

Posts