Obama Announces New Climate Plan

[lynnvinc]

Lots of people believed in MMGW back in 2007. Bush certainly did, but he doesn’t anymore.

Now, of course, the Climategate scandal is known and the scientific consensus has shifted. The Pope’s latest statement about the environment did not include climate change at all. The fact that antarctic ice is actually increasing might have influenced his thoughts as well.

That’s a pretty incredible claim, since there has been ever-increasing evidence of global warming since 2007. Just to mention a few:

• Melting glaciers
• Greenland melt
• melting Arctic
• melting/disintegrating W. Antarctic ice self ice
• now melting E. Anarctic ice (got to keep up with latest findings – see here and here)
• increasing extreme weather events (as predicted by climate scientists) – heatwaves, droughts, floods, wildfires, etc.
• deep ocean warming & total net warming continuing full-speed ahead (despite the sun being in its solar irradiance minimum phase for thepast 15 years, which would have put us at pre-1960s temp levels without ACC).

If people don’t believe ACC is happening anymore, it is the result of a highly effective and well-funded disinformation campaign based on bogus and deceptive “science” and not following the news re weather events around the country and around the world.

It’s gotten so even a sensible layperson aware of what’s going on in reality would be able to say such things related to ACC are happening.

And Pope Benedict came out with strong statement re ACC after “climategate” (AND climategate did absolutely nothing to disprove ACC).

If Pope Francis does not mention ACC eventually, to me it only means he assumes everyone has accepted it and he wants to address all env problems together in telling us we need to “protect creation.” He wouldn’t be telling us to do that as his very first statement, if there were not very very serious problems. And I know that mitigation measures for ACC actually mitigate many of those other serious env problem…so it really is a good thing to mitigate ACC for many many reasons.

And since we can reduce our GHG emissions at least a 75% reduction cost-effectively we should hop to it. Every day we dither is a loss of savings to us and added harms to the earth and our progeny.

 

[lynnvinc]

Have you ever heard the scientific expression, " You don’t eat the menu". Models and theories are nice, but they aren’t reality.

You can tell if energy sources are cost-competitive in a very easy way. Whether a company can make a profit, if they can they produce them using that method. They will build them and you will see them operating without subsidies.

Then let’s just put the fossil fuel and nuke industries out of business by taking away their subsidies and tax-breaks.

Better yet, take away all military aid/escorts/wars/etc related to foreign (or exported) oil. All roads into wilderness areas for mining (and destroying those areas). Up all oil and gas leases to a more reasonable price (that our land, and the land of our progeny that’s being leased and harmed). Great ideas to save tax-payers bundles. The Tea Party should love it.

And then make fossil fuels pay for all the harms they do – totally, including ACC harms, cancer alleys, coal ash harms & spills, etc. etc.

Should bring gasoline up to maybe $50 or more a gallon, and coal-generated electricity up to $1 or more per KWH, figuring conservatively.

 

[lynnvinc]

…The Greenhouse Gas
That Nobody Knew

Quote:
It may sound like somebody’s idea of a bad joke. But last month, a study from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography reported that nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), with a global warming potential of 17,000, is now present in the atmosphere at four times the expected level and rapidly rising. Use of NF3 is currently booming, for products from computer chips and flats-screen LCDs to thin-film solar photovoltaics, an economical and increasingly popular solar power format.
<…>
In an interview with Yale Environment 360, he estimated that 20 or 30 percent of total NF3 production ends up in the atmosphere — not the two percent industry had seemed to suggest. He and Hsu characterized Air Products, the same NF3 producer that the EPA had honored, as producing the annual global warming equivalent of one of the world’s largest coal-fired power plants.
<…>
Solar cells are like any other product, he said, in that the manufacturing process has a global warming footprint. But solar buyers are likely to be particularly concerned with the size of that footprint — and not so pleased to find out that what they thought was a Prius is really just a Hummer on the inside.

You’ve brought up a serious issue, which requires investigation, since I am striving to do the best I can re the environment and want to implement the least harmful options.

I just called up my solar installer (he’ll be installing PV panels & equipment for us in about a week, when the panels arrive).

He told me they are not using “thin-film” solar PVs, which he said are no good for solar panels. (We do not have a flat-screen TV but a very old clonker, but we do have a computer, with chips no doubt made with that NF3.)

Then I looked into it further and found this article about not only NF3 used in thin-film solar PV, but also sulfur hexafloride (SF6) used in solar PV manufacturing and various other problems at “Eco Etiquette: How Green Are Solar Panels?” huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-grayson/eco-etiquette-how-green-a_b_554717.html

So I’ve emailed the company from which our solar installer ordered our PV panels, Canadian Solar, to find out about this. I’m just hoping the answer comes back that no or very little SF6 is used, and what is used is offset within 1 or 2 years by choosing solar over coal (altho we are actually on 100% wind).

Anyway, thanks for the info. I take legitimate concerns and issues seriously. I really do want to make the right choices considering all the benefits and all the costs & harms.

The Eco-Etiquette article also tells there are (more) benign alternatives that can and are being used by some companies, and ends with:

So, do any of the above disclaimers mean we should say “see ya” to solar? Of course not. Even with the energy and waste involved, PV power in exchange for all our fossil fuels would still reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent.

I’ll let you know what Canadian Solar has to say about the SF6…understanding that companies have a tendency to underestimate their harms and overestimate their benefits.

 

[StudentMI]

Should bring gasoline up to maybe $50 or more a gallon, and coal-generated electricity up to $1 or more per KWH, figuring conservatively.

And that would mean what for those who can’t afford a hybrid?

 

[lynnvinc]

And that would mean what for those who can’t afford a hybrid?

Don’t worry it will never ever happen, not even a reduction in fossil fuel subsidies and tax-breaks.

Follow the money and see who funds the political campaigns of politicians who make the laws and rules

With Solyndra – but also fossil fuel companies – as prime examples.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Then let’s just put the fossil fuel and nuke industries out of business by taking away their subsidies and tax-breaks.

Sure, take away the tax breaks, also take away the over-regualtion and overall the price will drop. The ‘tax breaks and subsidies’ for Oil companies consist of allowing a faster rate of depreciation of some equipment compared to other industries. We can argue whether the equipment does get burnt-out quicker in oil work. But, taking away the break just means they’ll be depreciating multiple pieces of equipment over a longer term.

Better yet, take away all military aid/escorts/wars/etc related to foreign (or exported) oil.

What wars for oil? Where have we ever gotten oil from a war we’ve fought in? The only thing we’ve ever gotten from countries we’ve fought for or in is enough land to bury our dead. Maybe the wars would have made more sense if we’d been less altruistic in ‘building democracies’ and more focused on securing resources.

All roads into wilderness areas for mining (and destroying those areas). Up all oil and gas leases to a more reasonable price (that our land, and the land of our progeny that’s being leased and harmed). Great ideas to save tax-payers bundles. The Tea Party should love it.

Oil leases? You mean the ones that our government isn’t allowing the oil companies to drill on anyway? How many new leases has the government put out for bid in the last 10 years, 5 years, 1 year? It’s been going down, and again, even a company that wins a bid (and pays for it) can’t get approval to drill. All the new start drilling has been on private land.

Have you looked at the environmental regulations on the oil industry for replanting, restoration etc.?

And then make fossil fuels pay for all the harms they do – totally, including ACC harms, cancer alleys, coal ash harms & spills, etc. etc.

Should bring gasoline up to maybe $50 or more a gallon, and coal-generated electricity up to $1 or more per KWH, figuring conservatively.

In CA we’ll probably be paying that, at least for electricity, due to the insanity and lack of realism in the alternative energy requirements on power companies

 

[Ridgerunner]

That’s a pretty incredible claim, since there has been ever-increasing evidence of global warming since 2007. Just to mention a few:

• Melting glaciers
• Greenland melt
• melting Arctic
• melting/disintegrating W. Antarctic ice self ice
• now melting E. Anarctic ice (got to keep up with latest findings – see here and here)
• increasing extreme weather events (as predicted by climate scientists) – heatwaves, droughts, floods, wildfires, etc.
• deep ocean warming & total net warming continuing full-speed ahead (despite the sun being in its solar irradiance minimum phase for thepast 15 years, which would have put us at pre-1960s temp levels without ACC).

If people don’t believe ACC is happening anymore, it is the result of a highly effective and well-funded disinformation campaign based on bogus and deceptive “science” and not following the news re weather events around the country and around the world.

It’s gotten so even a sensible layperson aware of what’s going on in reality would be able to say such things related to ACC are happening.

And Pope Benedict came out with strong statement re ACC after “climategate” (AND climategate did absolutely nothing to disprove ACC).

If Pope Francis does not mention ACC eventually, to me it only means he assumes everyone has accepted it and he wants to address all env problems together in telling us we need to “protect creation.” He wouldn’t be telling us to do that as his very first statement, if there were not very very serious problems. And I know that mitigation measures for ACC actually mitigate many of those other serious env problem…so it really is a good thing to mitigate ACC for many many reasons.

And since we can reduce our GHG emissions at least a 75% reduction cost-effectively we should hop to it. Every day we dither is a loss of savings to us and added harms to the earth and our progeny.

I really don’t want to get involved in another “your quote/my quote” high school debate thing with you. But since you obviously spend a significant amount of your time looking these things up, you know full well:

1. That there are others, including the Russian scientific institutes, who say the arctic ice is increasing, not decreasing. In any event, there was less arctic ice in the Medieval Warming Period than now.
2. There are others who “scientifically establish” that antarctic ice is growing, not decreasing. But regardless, antarctica was ice-free long ago. There are palm tree fossils there.
3. I think the MMGW promoters even admit the Greenland ice is showing net gains. It’s inland, though. They attribute that to MMGW too, of course. “More snow because more moisture in the atmosphere because of MMGW”. Regardless, during the Medieval Warming Period, Greenland actually was a “green land”. Vikings grew grain there; something it’s far too cold to do now.
4. Deep ocean temps are dropping, not rising, as the ocean yields up its stored heat into the atmosphere. Regardless, air-to-ocean temp transfers are minimal because water stores vastly more energy than does air. A few decades of warm air would have very little effect on the oceans.
5. Some “climate scientists” think the present weather is caused by MMGW. Some say it’s due to long cycles. Regardless, it was warmer in the 1930s than it is now. What we might be witnessing is the final stage of temperature equalization from the Medieval Warming period between oceans and atmosphere. If so, we’re likely in for a cooling period. If the last ten years are any indication, that’s more likely than not.

Popes and clerical people of all kinds are presented with information. A few years ago, the MMGW promoters had all the funding and had more credibility than they have now. Since Pope Francis’ latest statement about preserving creation contained no mention of MMGW at all (and he didn’t say where he thought it was coming from even in 2007). Possibly that’s because contrary information is beginning to mount up despite the efforts of totalitarians like Obama and billionaires like Soros to counter it.

But no matter what, ALL phenomena the MMGW promoters use is entirely explainable by natural causes. Bringing up Occam’s razor again, one does not fly to needlessly complex (and often fanciful) explanations for the climate and the weather when very simple and obvious ones will do it.

And also no matter what, the Obama “plan” is cruel and heartless. The fact that he, himself, doesn’t live as if he believes it (nor do any of the billionaires who have invested in it) tells us the cruelty is nothing but a conscious attempt to cause misery for self-aggrandizement. No one should support that.

 

[qui_est_ce]

styrgwillidar:
So far, the only government subsidy I’ve found for coal is research into clean coal.

 

[Lapey]

Don’t worry it will never ever happen, not even a reduction in fossil fuel subsidies and tax-breaks.

Follow the money and see who funds the political campaigns of politicians who make the laws and rules

With Solyndra – but also fossil fuel companies – as prime examples.

You can follow the money straight to the democrat party. How much did GE pay in taxes last year?

 

[qui_est_ce]

And also no matter what, the Obama “plan” is cruel and heartless. **The fact that he, himself, doesn’t live as if he believes it (nor do any of the billionaires who have invested in it) **tells us the cruelty is nothing but a conscious attempt to cause misery for self-aggrandizement. No one should support that.

I’m still wondering why Obama hasn’t put in solar panels in the White House yet. Or are only the peasants supposed to suffer under the “green energy” energy policies he’s -]investing/-]-] subsidizing/-] taxing us on?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Then let’s just put the fossil fuel and nuke industries out of business by taking away their subsidies and tax-breaks.

Nukes don’t put CO2 into the atmosphere. Why do you want them out of business? Because they warm peoples’ homes? Because Obama wants to make utility bills “skyrocket”, and that will help him do it? What are you thinking?

AND AGAIN, and you know this, oil and gas receive NO GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES. Their only “tax break” is depreciation, just as it is with every industry. It is absurd to think taking away depreciation will make them go out of business. They’ll just add a few more cents to the price of fuel (maybe not even that much) and we’ll all pay it, because we need their product, just as we pay sales tax on the food we eat…because we need to eat. Even then, it won’t be anywhere near what the government gets out of it.

Why not just prohibit home heating and fuel altogether in the name of Obama and MMGW ? The country will explode. He’ll be driven out of office on a rail, and nobody will ever believe in MMGW or social tinkering based on it again.

 

[Lapey]

Then let’s just put the fossil fuel and nuke industries out of business by taking away their subsidies and tax-breaks.

Better yet, take away all military aid/escorts/wars/etc related to foreign (or exported) oil. All roads into wilderness areas for mining (and destroying those areas). Up all oil and gas leases to a more reasonable price (that our land, and the land of our progeny that’s being leased and harmed). Great ideas to save tax-payers bundles. The Tea Party should love it.

And then make fossil fuels pay for all the harms they do – totally, including ACC harms, cancer alleys, coal ash harms & spills, etc. etc.

Should bring gasoline up to maybe $50 or more a gallon, and coal-generated electricity up to $1 or more per KWH, figuring conservatively.

If you are ignorant enough to believe coal fired plants are cheap because of subsidies, then I guess its no use for me to continue. Clean coal technology is there because of private business, like the fortune 500 corporation I work for. You have nothing to go on but propaganda; I have 30 years in the business.

Solar is only viable because of tax incentives of over 80% to the consumer paid for by the tax payers against their will.

Natural gas is the cheapest now because of private industry advances, in spite of government pressure and nuts pushing to outlaw fracking for no reason but the fact that they don’t like fossil fuels

Your great intellectual world is starting to crumble, crumble because of truth.

PS. Why do you ignore my posts? Can’t answer adequately?

 

[Lapey]

Then let’s just put the fossil fuel and nuke industries out of business by taking away their subsidies and tax-breaks.

By the way, what do you know about the nuclear power industry besides the propaganda you have ingested? The company I work for is the largest operator of nuclear plants and we are the best in the world at it. I can assure you this government does not do anything but penalize us for doing what we do.

Google River Bend Nuclear power plant to see what your beloved government did to the construction costs of that plant. It brought it from millions to billions because of rapidly changing regulations, AFTER construction permits and all approvals were granted. There are no such things as nuclear subsidies, that is a lie.

 

[Lapey]

That’s a pretty incredible claim, since there has been ever-increasing evidence of global warming since 2007. Just to mention a few:

• Melting glaciers
• Greenland melt
• melting Arctic
• melting/disintegrating W. Antarctic ice self ice
• now melting E. Anarctic ice (got to keep up with latest findings – see here and here)
• increasing extreme weather events (as predicted by climate scientists) – heatwaves, droughts, floods, wildfires, etc.
• deep ocean warming & total net warming continuing full-speed ahead (despite the sun being in its solar irradiance minimum phase for thepast 15 years, which would have put us at pre-1960s temp levels without ACC).

If people don’t believe ACC is happening anymore, it is the result of a highly effective and well-funded disinformation campaign based on bogus and deceptive “science” and not following the news re weather events around the country and around the world.

It’s gotten so even a sensible layperson aware of what’s going on in reality would be able to say such things related to ACC are happening.

And Pope Benedict came out with strong statement re ACC after “climategate” (AND climategate did absolutely nothing to disprove ACC).

If Pope Francis does not mention ACC eventually, to me it only means he assumes everyone has accepted it and he wants to address all env problems together in telling us we need to “protect creation.” He wouldn’t be telling us to do that as his very first statement, if there were not very very serious problems. And I know that mitigation measures for ACC actually mitigate many of those other serious env problem…so it really is a good thing to mitigate ACC for many many reasons.

And since we can reduce our GHG emissions at least a 75% reduction cost-effectively we should hop to it. Every day we dither is a loss of savings to us and added harms to the earth and our progeny.

What great act of man caused the Ice Age…what burning of fossil fuel cause it to end?

Your points are questionable on their own, much less whether they are caused by man if they are true.

I guess you will tell me the polar bear population is dwindling too. That’s another lie you have been spoon fed.

Climate fluctuations are totally natural not man made and you have nothing but opinions and/or ideas to back up your assertions to show otherwise.

 

[tomarin]

Solar is only viable because of tax incentives of over 80% to the consumer paid for by the tax payers against their will.

Why is that, anyway? Is there a simple straightforward reason?

 

[Lapey]

Why is that, anyway? Is there a simple straightforward reason?

For what? Why the taxpayers would rather not pay or this is only viable because of the subsidies?

Solar is not viable because it is not efficient enough to make it a worthy investment, so the leftists in charge are making it mandatory through government regulation.

We are connecting thousands of these solar panel banks that are built upon rooftops throughout our service area. Two points, one, if the consumers had to pay for these on their own they wouldn’t. two, if the taxpayers would have a choice we would not pay for these.

These consumers are being sold a bill of goods because of good intentions. They are told these solar panels will end their electricity bills and even get a check from the utility, how laughable. But here is the punch line; you and I are paying for this joke!

 

[lynnvinc]

You can follow the money straight to the democrat party. How much did GE pay in taxes last year?

And both G.H. Bush and Clinton were funded the same amount by the fossil fuel industries. And I wouldn’t be surprised to find if coal had helped fund Obama’s IL senatoral campaign. Or the fracking industry possibly helping fund his last prez campaign – since he’s going full steam ahead with allowing unrestricted fracking, despite the horrible pollution it is generating for many many generations to come.

One has to ask why fracking fluids for underground injection were exempt from Chenney’s 2005 Energy Policy Act, which was written by his buddies in the fossil fuel industries… and that exemption is still on the books. They could inject cyanide or worse with impugnity. But since it is not regulated by the EPA, there are no big studies to monitor it or check the health effect. We’re flying blind into a very polluted future.

Such money is truly infecting our politics on both sides. And not only fossil fuel money, but agbiz, chem, and pharm money, etc.

The upshot is that the gov is more interested in protecting the bottom line of industries, putting the people last in line re helping to protect their health and lives from dangers.

It’s very bad on both sides of the aisle.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Why is that, anyway? Is there a simple straightforward reason?

Because Obama’s fundraisers are in the business.

 

[tomarin]

For what? Why the taxpayers would rather not pay or this is only viable because of the subsidies?

For why it is not viable. I think you answered that in the post, because it’s not efficient. I would imagine coal is more efficient because there is a tremendous amount of energy stored in coal, due to the fact that it was once organic matter which did not decompose, so the energy stored in its cells because of photosynthesis did not escape into the environment.

 

[Lapey]

And both G.H. Bush and Clinton were funded the same amount by the fossil fuel industries. And I wouldn’t be surprised to find if coal had helped fund Obama’s IL senatoral campaign. Or the fracking industry possibly helping fund his last prez campaign – since he’s going full steam ahead with allowing unrestricted fracking, despite the horrible pollution it is generating for many many generations to come.

One has to ask why fracking fluids for underground injection were exempt from Chenney’s 2005 Energy Policy Act, which was written by his buddies in the fossil fuel industries… and that exemption is still on the books. They could inject cyanide or worse with impugnity. But since it is not regulated by the EPA, there are no big studies to monitor it or check the health effect. We’re flying blind into a very polluted future.

Such money is truly infecting our politics on both sides. And not only fossil fuel money, but agbiz, chem, and pharm money, etc.

The upshot is that the gov is more interested in protecting the bottom line of industries, putting the people last in line re helping to protect their health and lives from dangers.

It’s very bad on both sides of the aisle.

How do you go through life thinking people are so inherently evil? So now Dick Chaney is purposely poisoning people for profit? You have no proof that anything that has been blamed on fracking is true. You are truly misled and a perfect example of how screwed up our higher education system is in our country. I feel for you and will pray for you.