Obama Announces New Climate Plan

[SamH]

False dichotomy smugly stated by someone who has plenty of $$$'s to live in the Rio Grande Valley, able to afford a Volt, able to live in luxury just before retirement.

Agreed. “Climate change” is already costing the US public lots of money - just not in the way people envisioned. New “emissions” regulations on heavy trucks and equipment are adding at least 30% (if not more) to the cost of new semi tractors. That cost is being passed on to consumers. The new regulations are so onerous that Caterpillar has quit producing engines for semis - when just a few yeas ago they were considered the premier supplier to manufacturers. Construction and farm equipment are also facing their own woes. New diesel powered equipment prices are staggering and many are refusing to pay the price.

 

[lynnvinc]

Only very poor people don’t pay taxes. I am not poor. I pay taxes…I hate the idea that I have to pay taxes on my hard-earned money for people wealthier than I to buy expensive cars. Get the government out of the middle. I don’t want to be subsidized (manipulated) by current PC trends. I can make my own choices.

ADDRESS THAT.

There are lots of subsidies out there, many I’d like see ended, like for corn, which makes things harmful to health, like corn syrup, so much cheaper than healthy food. Making me in effect subsidize ill health in this country – not to mention those corn fuels that perhaps involve greater eco harms than just oil from the ground.

We could go thru many subsidies that should be terminated or reduced or better directed, including those to fossil fuels (RR did not correct me, bec he is wrong). And nuclear power, etc, which at the uranium mining process pollutes large areas of our country and harms and kills lots of people…many of whom perhaps have no idea where their cancer came from or that they are breathing in radioactive dust.

At least the EV subsidies have a limit on them, with the idea of helping promote the new technology & help buyers overcome their qualms. But once they’ve sold 200,000 cars for each model, the subsidy ends – and there are not a whole lot selling each year at present – 23,461 Volts in 2012, and 52,581 for all plug-ins. Here are some stats: insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

I figure the Volt may have reduced 2012 tax revenues by at most $176 million, but probably less, since not everyone would have been able to get the full break; maybe $160 million is a reasonable figure, and maybe $350 million for all plug-ins sold in 2012.

Maybe you could figure out how much of your tax each year is going for this, considering the entire budget of the nation and what fraction of it is going for EV tax rebates each year.

Let me know, and maybe I’ll send you the money you have lost to me: You can take the $7500 we got as a tax break, divide that by the US budget for 2012, and multiply that times the portion of the tax burden you bear. I’m thinking it won’t be much more than a few cents, but if it is, I’ll try to refund that to you, bec I am really very happy we bought the Volt, and would have bought it without the tax break, and do not want anyone to feel sad or angry about it.

 

[lynnvinc]

Agreed. “Climate change” is already costing the US public lots of money - just not in the way people envisioned. New “emissions” regulations on heavy trucks and equipment are adding at least 30% (if not more) to the cost of new semi tractors. That cost is being passed on to consumers. The new regulations are so onerous that Caterpillar has quit producing engines for semis - when just a few yeas ago they were considered the premier supplier to manufacturers. Construction and farm equipment are also facing their own woes. New diesel powered equipment prices are staggering and many are refusing to pay the price.

Those emissions regulations are for dangerous local pollutants that cause harm and death, not for CO2. I don’t think anyone relishes babies being aborted or born with birth defects, and born people suffering illnesses and early death because of local vehicle pollution.

The main way to regulate vehicle CO2 emissions is by increasing the CAFE standards and fuel efficiency, which actually helps people save money.

CAFE standards and fuel efficiency increased up thru the early 80s, then stagnated for decades – not because we were so behind other nations (that had their fuel efficiency increasing all along), but because we plowed it into ever more powerful cars perhaps so we could feel more mean and powerful and at the same time not reduce our petrol consumption. Now with new CAFE standards and increasing fuel efficiency we are beginning to catch up with other nations, but still lag very far behind.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There most certainly is on solar panels – with the tax-break, a 12.5% return on investment or 8 years to pay them off (total cost, incl installation by a certified installer); and without the tax-break, a 6% return on investment (better than current bank rates) or 17 years to pay off. Plus the satisfaction that one is helping to mitigate serious environmental problems that harm and kill people and others of God’s creation…as Pope Francis and his predecessors have called us to do.

And I understand there are programs or business deals in some places that will put the solar panels up for free on your roof, then take most of the return on them, giving the homeowner a small portion of that return (as if renting their roofs).

As for the Volt, I never claimed it paid for itself and went on to save $$. In fact when we bought it I expected it to be our splurge for the sake of the life of the world.

Later I did a spreadsheet and calculated that the savings from the Volt (we drive about 36-40 miles for $1.23 in electricity) would pay for the difference between it and the car my husband wanted

With all due respect, and I hope you’re right about your solar panels for your sake, but I have seen so many of these “it’ll pay for itself” calculations over the years that I am very skeptical of such claims. I have even seen financial analysts do these very elegant computations proving beyond all doubt that “X” would yield “Y” or "this business will break even in “Z” months and then turn a profit of such and such, only to see a very different result. Many a now-defunct bank has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was not only solvent but making money when it was on the verge of going toes up.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Those emissions regulations are for dangerous local pollutants that cause harm and death, not for CO2. I don’t think anyone relishes babies being aborted or born with birth defects, and born people suffering illnesses and early death because of local vehicle pollution.

The main way to regulate vehicle CO2 emissions is by increasing the CAFE standards and fuel efficiency, which actually helps people save money.

CAFE standards and fuel efficiency increased up thru the early 80s, then stagnated for decades – not because we were so behind other nations (that had their fuel efficiency increasing all along), but because we plowed it into ever more powerful cars perhaps so we could feel more mean and powerful and at the same time not reduce our petrol consumption. Now with new CAFE standards and increasing fuel efficiency we are beginning to catch up with other nations, but still lag very far behind.

It’s not a matter of being “ahead” or “behind”. Economies use the production advantages that are available to them. In China and India it’s dirt-cheap subsistence labor. In Brazil it’s the tropical temperatures that allow for double cropping. In Europe, it’s very high density populations and importation of cheap labor that will chase the natives out someday. In the U.S. it’s cheap, abundant energy and good transportation infrastructure. So, we’re going to give those up for the sake of a theory that’s suspect at best, and see what we can do about making labor as cheap as it is in China and India.

Good plan there, Obama.

 

[lcburgundy]

With all due respect, and I hope you’re right about your solar panels for your sake, but I have seen so many of these “it’ll pay for itself” calculations over the years that I am very skeptical of such claims. I have even seen financial analysts do these very elegant computations proving beyond all doubt that “X” would yield “Y” or "this business will break even in “Z” months and then turn a profit of such and such, only to see a very different result. Many a now-defunct bank has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was not only solvent but making money when it was on the verge of going toes up.

When I was in a leadership position in a housing community, we actually did receive a solicitation for installing a solar array. Now, I’ll grant that I’m at a fairly northern latitude, but when you stripped out the overinflated price you could sell the power to the utility for and the tax breaks on our end, the payback period was, no joke, > 25 years. Actually longer than the life of the panels. If the payback periods really were so great, people would be knocking on your door hoping to rent some of your roof. But they aren’t, so they don’t.

When these installations make economic sense, people will not have to be coerced or shamed into them.

 

[qui_est_ce]

When I was in a leadership position in a housing community, we actually did receive a solicitation for installing a solar array. Now, I’ll grant that I’m at a fairly northern latitude, but when you stripped out the overinflated price you could sell the power to the utility for and the tax breaks on our end, the payback period was, no joke, > 25 years. Actually longer than the life of the panels. If the payback periods really were so great, people would be knocking on your door hoping to rent some of your roof. But they aren’t, so they don’t.

I can’t tell you how many broken and unused solar panels I have seen on houses around here.

When these installations make economic sense, people will not have to be coerced or shamed into them.

This is something Obama doesn’t understand. We are a demand economy. It’s the only thing that really works in the end.

Still wondering where the solar panels in the White House are, though.

 

[coco2]

I like that the President stated that we don’t have time for the “flat Earth society”.

Maybe later he will include those who think the world is 6000 years old.

Folks may have problems with Obama but it is great to have a leader who acknowledges valid science.

Valid science?! I am a science teacher and I can tell you that this is a very disputed subject in the science world. However, you would never know it because the media slants information. There are many scientists who have been trying to dispute this information, but cannot get their findings out into the mainstream.
Calling a group of scientists “flat earth society” is just inappropriate, and causes the divide to widen. All science is theory, by the way. ALL of it. And it changes all the time.

 

[Darryl1958]

Valid science?! I am a science teacher and I can tell you that this is a very disputed subject in the science world. However, you would never know it because the media slants information. There are many scientists who have been trying to dispute this information, but cannot get their findings out into the mainstream.
Calling a group of scientists “flat earth society” is just inappropriate, and causes the divide to widen. All science is theory, by the way. ALL of it. And it changes all the time.

Obama’s argument is not science. It is rhetoric. It is bullying. It requires no facts, just the expectation that there are enough cowards who will chose to follow rather than become the brunt of the ridicule.

The fact that it passes as science to his supporters is informative of their mindset.

 

[lynnvinc]

With all due respect, and I hope you’re right about your solar panels for your sake, but I have seen so many of these “it’ll pay for itself” calculations over the years that I am very skeptical of such claims.

I have good friends who have had solar panels for some time, and they are getting a great payback, and were telling me a few months ago when I enquired about getting them that the prices had gone down substantially in the past few years making it an even better investment. Our solar installer told us the same thing.

Now it looks like prices will be tumbling even further. Eventually solar without subsidies will be cheaper per unit of energy than coal and oil with their subsidies and tax-breaks. It seems right now fairly close to being about the same price as these (without factoring in the huge externalities of harms and deaths from fossil fuels, which would make the price of coal and oil go off the charts, depending on how much price one puts on human lives).

With the subsidies solar is an investment no sensible person with funds to invest can pass by. As I said we are already on 100% and are going about half solar mainly for the sake of investing, but also to contribute to the overall alt energy in the country – be a more active part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

Wind, of course, has been cheaper for some time.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have good friends who have had solar panels for some time, and they are getting a great payback, and were telling me a few months ago when I enquired about getting them that the prices had gone down substantially in the past few years making it an even better investment. Our solar installer told us the same thing.

Now it looks like prices will be tumbling even further. Eventually solar without subsidies will be cheaper per unit of energy than coal and oil with their subsidies and tax-breaks. It seems right now fairly close to being about the same price as these (without factoring in the huge externalities of harms and deaths from fossil fuels, which would make the price of coal and oil go off the charts, depending on how much price one puts on human lives).

With the subsidies solar is an investment no sensible person with funds to invest can pass by. As I said we are already on 100% and are going about half solar mainly for the sake of investing, but also to contribute to the overall alt energy in the country – be a more active part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

Wind, of course, has been cheaper for some time.

Looks like Germany, heavily invested in wind energy, is getting out of that business, though. Too expensive to keep subsidizing.

I’ll wait until solar is economical without expecting taxpayers to pay for it. Perhaps someday it will actually be efficient and pay to do it. Until then, there is no moral justification for artificially making energy more expensive than it has to be.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Looks like Germany, heavily invested in wind energy, is getting out of that business, though. Too expensive to keep subsidizing.

I’ll wait until solar is economical without expecting taxpayers to pay for it. Perhaps someday it will actually be efficient and pay to do it. Until then, there is no moral justification for artificially making energy more expensive than it has to be.

I would guess solar works in the Rio Grande Valley. Lots of sunshine.

I hadn’t heard Germany was getting out of the wind energy business. You wouldn’t believe how unsightly these things are. The North Sea is full of them. I also heard they kill migrating birds.

 

[tomarin]

Looks like Germany, heavily invested in wind energy, is getting out of that business, though. Too expensive to keep subsidizing.

I’ll wait until solar is economical without expecting taxpayers to pay for it. Perhaps someday it will actually be efficient and pay to do it. Until then, there is no moral justification for artificially making energy more expensive than it has to be.

That’s something I’ve never understood; how a renewable resource like wind could become a white elephant. There was an article on the German government’s decision in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal which I guess I should read.

 

[qui_est_ce]

That’s something I’ve never understood; how a renewable resource like wind could become a white elephant. There was an article on the German government’s decision in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal which I guess I should read.

From today’s WSJ

Politicians love to portray green power as a great job-creation program, although even Mr. Obama implicitly acknowledged last week that the natural-gas boom has done far more for the U.S. economy—and greenhouse-gas emissions—than any renewable boondoggle ever has. But the truth is that if carbon-reduction programs paid for themselves, businesses would probably seek out the efficiencies anyway.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That’s something I’ve never understood; how a renewable resource like wind could become a white elephant. There was an article on the German government’s decision in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal which I guess I should read.

I don’t pretend to any expertise in this, but it is my understanding the windmills are very expensive to build and expensive to maintain. Also, when they’re not working, the grid needs another power source. That power source goes up and down opposite to what the wind does. It is my understanding that’s really wasteful. Also, I understand Germany dismantled some of its “cheap energy” fueled plants (like coal) in anticipation of a much better return on wind power, and is now being forced to buy more and more power from the plants that are left.

 

[Ridgerunner]

With the subsidies solar is an investment no sensible person with funds to invest can pass by. As I said we are already on 100% and are going about half solar mainly for the sake of investing, but also to contribute to the overall alt energy in the country – be a more active part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

Wind, of course, has been cheaper for some time.

I’ll look into it when it is indisputably economical to do so. Right now it isn’t, or there wouldn’t have to be subsidies. And there is no way alterations to my house wouldn’t be required to change over. I’m not going to do that unless and until it clearly works well and clearly makes economic sense on its own.

Wind is not ever likely to be worthwhile where I live. Texas Panhandle maybe. Wichita, maybe. Those are windy places. Here, it’s almost always either still or a light breeze. Rarely is there enough wind to even fly a flag.

Well west of here, out on the plains, there are still some windmill-driven water tanks for cattle. I’m sure lack of access to electric power in remote locations has something to do with that. But undoubtedly the wind is at least sufficiently reliable to keep stock tanks filled. But that’s out on the prairie “where the wind blows free” (every day, and strongly).

 

[lynnvinc]

Valid science?! I am a science teacher and I can tell you that this is a very disputed subject in the science world. However, you would never know it because the media slants information. There are many scientists who have been trying to dispute this information, but cannot get their findings out into the mainstream.
Calling a group of scientists “flat earth society” is just inappropriate, and causes the divide to widen. All science is theory, by the way. ALL of it. And it changes all the time.

I much prefer to follow another teacher on the topic of ACC, one with a degree in science, Pope Francis.

In 2007 as Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio he headed the commission that drafted “Aparecida” the document of the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean in Aparecida, Brazil (catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1301615.htm).

Excerpts from Aparecida re its call to address climate change: old.usccb.org/latinamerica/english/aparecida_Ingles.pdf

1. …International extractive industries and agribusiness often do not respect the economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights of the local populations, and do not assume their responsibilities. Preserving nature is very often subordinated to economic development, with damage to biodiversity, exhaustion of water reserves and other natural resources, air pollution, and climate change. The possibilities and potential problems of producing biofuels should be studied so that the value of human persons and their survival needs prevail. Latin America has the most abundant aquifers on the planet, along with vast extensions of forest lands which are humanity’s lungs. The world thus receives free of charge environmental services, benefits that are not recognized economically. The region is affected by the warming of the earth and climate change caused primarily by the unsustainable way of life of industrialized countries…
2. We likewise note the shrinking of ice fields throughout the world: dwindling ice in the Arctic, whose impact is now being observed in the flora and fauna of that ecosystem; global warming can also be felt in the thundering crackle of blocks of Antarctic ice that are reducing the glacier coverage of the continent which regulates world climate. Twenty years ago speaking from the tip of the Americas, John Paul II pointed out prophetically:

From the Southern Cone of the American Continent and facing the limitless spaces of the Antarctic, I issue a cry to all those responsible for our planet to protect and preserve nature created by God: Let us not allow our world to be an ever more degraded and degrading land.32

 

[SamH]

Those emissions regulations are for dangerous local pollutants that cause harm and death, not for CO2. I don’t think anyone relishes babies being aborted or born with birth defects, and born people suffering illnesses and early death because of local vehicle pollution.
.

Really? Name one person that died from diesel pollution.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’ll look into it when it is indisputably economical to do so. Right now it isn’t, or there wouldn’t have to be subsidies. And there is no way alterations to my house wouldn’t be required to change over. I’m not going to do that unless and until it clearly works well and clearly makes economic sense on its own.

Wind is not ever likely to be worthwhile where I live. Texas Panhandle maybe. Wichita, maybe. Those are windy places. Here, it’s almost always either still or a light breeze. Rarely is there enough wind to even fly a flag.

Well west of here, out on the plains, there are still some windmill-driven water tanks for cattle. I’m sure lack of access to electric power in remote locations has something to do with that. But undoubtedly the wind is at least sufficiently reliable to keep stock tanks filled. But that’s out on the prairie “where the wind blows free” (every day, and strongly).

Why doesn’t the White House have solar panels? You know the White House uses a lot more energy than the average home.

 

[lynnvinc]

I’ll look into it when it is indisputably economical to do so. Right now it isn’t, or there wouldn’t have to be subsidies. And there is no way alterations to my house wouldn’t be required to change over. I’m not going to do that unless and until it clearly works well and clearly makes economic sense on its own.

I hear you. We really couldn’t think about solar until we replaced our roof, which has needed replacing for years, but we just kept having it patched and patched. Until finally we did it some 5 months ago. That was a really huge expense, and we don’t really expect it to raise our home value to the extent of the cost, but it had to be done.

However, our delay in doing that turned out good, since the price in solar panels has come down drastically in the meantime.

Also, having received our tax-break for the Volt this year, my husband was amenable to seeking other tax-breaks for next year.

There are lots of businesses getting all sorts of tax-breaks. I just don’t understand people who refuse to get in on existing tax-breaks because of ?? scruples that there should not be any tax breaks at all, but at the same time say they hate paying taxes. I don’t get it, but that’s fine if that’s the way people want it.

I only hate paying taxes when they are mainly going into pro-death projects – military build up, wars, fossil fuels, polluting/killing industries, abortions, etc. Otherwise I’m willing to pay more taxes, if they go into pro-life projects…like solar, wind, EVs, health care for all (esp the poor who can’t afford it), etc.

Now my husband disagrees with me re paying more taxes for good purposes; he’s like you all here, rather pay less taxes than more taxes, but he is willing to go in for tax breaks, unlike you all.