| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Energy Forum » Cap and Trade and the Illusion of the New Green... |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Eric Gisin... |
 Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Liberals love cap&trade. But some enviros realize that cap&trade will not reduce CO2!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/cap-and-trade-and-the-illusion-of-the-new-green-economy/
July 1, 2009, 06:30:21 | Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
I don't think Al Gore in his wildest dreams could have imagined how successful the "climate crisis"
movement would become. It is probably safe to assume that this success is not so much the result of
Gore's charisma as it is humanity's spiritual need to be involved in something transcendent - like
saving the Earth.
After all, who wouldn't want to Save the Earth? I certainly would. If I really believed that
manmade global warming was a serious threat to life on Earth, I would be actively campaigning to
'fix' the problem.
But there are two practical problems with the theory of anthropogenic global warming: (1) global
warming is (or at least was) likely to be a mostly natural process; and (2) even if global warming
is manmade, it will be immensely difficult to avoid further warming without new energy technologies
that do not currently exist.
On the first point, since the scientific evidence against global warming being anthropogenic is
what most of the rest of this website is about, I won't repeat it here. But on the second
point.what if the alarmists are correct? What if humanity's burning of fossil fuels really is
causing global warming? What is the best path to follow to fix the problem?
Cap-and-Trade
The most popular solution today is carbon cap-and-trade legislation. The European Union has
hands-on experience with cap-and-trade over the last couple of years, and it isn't pretty. Over
there it is called their Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Here in the U.S., the House of
Representatives last Friday narrowly passed the Waxman-Markey bill. The Senate plans on taking up
the bill as early as the fall of 2009.
Under cap-and-trade, the government institutes "caps" on how much carbon dioxide can be emitted,
and then allows companies to "trade" carbon credits so that the market rewards those companies that
find ways to produce less CO2. If a company ends up having more credits than they need, they can
then sell those credits to other companies.
While it's advertised as a "market-based" approach to pollution reduction, it really isn't since
the market did not freely choose cap-and-trade.it was imposed upon the market by the government.
The 'free market' aspect of it just helps to reduce the economic damage done as a result of the
government regulations.
The Free Market Makes Waxman-Markey Unnecessary
There are several serious problems with cap-and-trade. In the big picture, as Europe has found out,
it will damage the economy. This is simply because there are as yet no large-scale, practical, and
cost-competitive replacements for fossil fuels. As a result, if you punish fossil fuel use with
either taxes or by capping how much energy is allowed to be used, you punish the economy.
Now, if you are under the illusion that cap-and-trade will result in the development of high-tech
replacements for fossil fuels, you do not understand basic economics. No matter how badly you might
want it, you can not legislate a time-travel machine into existence. Space-based solar power might
sound really cool, but the cost of it would be astronomical (no pun intended), and it could only
provide the tiniest fraction of our energy needs. Wind power goes away when the wind stops, and is
only practical in windy parts of the country. Land-based solar power goes away when the sun sets,
and is only practical in the sunny Southwest U.S. While I personally favor nuclear power, it takes
forever to license and build a nuclear power plant, and it would take 1,000 1-gigawatt nuclear
power plants to meet electricity demand in the United States.
And no one wants any of these facilities near where they live.
Fortunately, cap-and-trade legislation is not necessary anyway because incentives already exist -
right now - for anyone to come up with alternative technologies for energy generation and energy
efficiency. Taxpayers and consumers already pay for billions of dollars in both government research
(through taxes) and private research (through the cost of goods and services) to develop new energy
technologies.
Whoever succeeds in these efforts stands to make a lot of money simply because everything we do
requires energy. And I do mean everything.even sitting there and thinking. Using your brain
requires energy, which requires food, which requires fossil fuels to grow, distribute, refrigerate
and cook that food.
Economic Competitiveness in the Global Marketplace
Secondly, when instituted unilaterally by a country, cap-and-trade legislation makes that country
less competitive in the global economy. Imports and trade deficits increase as prices at home rise,
while companies or whole industries close and move abroad to countries where they can be more
competitive.
The Obama administration and congress are trying to minimize this problem by imposing tariffs on
imports, but this then hurts everyone in all of the countries involved. Remember, two countries
only willingly engage in trade with each other because it economically benefits both countries by
reducing costs, thus raising the standard of living in those countries.
The Green Mafia
Third, cap-and-trade is a system that is just begging for cheating, bribing, and cooking the books.
How will a company's (or a farm's) greenhouse gas emissions be gauged, and then monitored over
time? A massive new bureaucracy will be required, with a litany of rules and procedures which have
limited basis in science and previous experience.
And who will decide how many credits will initially be given by the government to each
company/farm/industry? Does anyone expect that these decisions will be impartial, without political
favoritism shown toward one company over another, or one industry over another? This is one reason
why some high-profile corporations are now on the global warming bandwagon. They (or at least a few
of their executives) are trying to position themselves more favorably in what they see to be an
inevitable energy-rationed economic system.
Big Oil and Big Coal Will Not Pay for Cap-and-Trade
Fourth, it is the consumer - the citizen - who will pay for all of this, either in the form of
higher prices, or reduced availability, or reduced economic growth. Companies have no choice but to
pass increased costs on to consumers, and decreased profits to investors. You might think that "Big
Business" will finally be paying their "fair share", but Big Business is what provides jobs. No Big
Business, no jobs.
The Green Jobs Illusion
Fifth, the allure of "green jobs" might be strong, but the economic benefit of those jobs is an
illusion. The claim that many thousands of new green jobs will be created under such a system is
probably true. But achieving low unemployment through government mandates does not create wealth -
it destroys wealth.
Let me illustrate. We could have full employment with green jobs today if we wanted to. We could
pay each other to dig holes in the ground and then fill the holes up again, day after day, month
after month. (Of course, we'll use shovels rather than backhoes to reduce fossil fuel use.) How's
that for a green jobs program?
My point is that it matters a LOT what kinds of jobs are created. Let's say that today 1,000 jobs
are required to create 1 gigawatt of coal-fired electricity. Now, suppose we require that
electricity to come from a renewable source instead. If 5,000 jobs are needed to create the same
amount of electricity with windmills that 1,000 jobs created with coal, then efficiency and wealth
generation will be destroyed.
Sure, you can create as many green jobs as you want, but the comparative productivity of those jobs
is what really matters. In the end, when the government manipulates the economy in such a fashion,
the economy suffers.
And even if a market for green equipment (solar panels, windmills, etc.) does develop, there is
little doubt that countries China will be able to manufacture that equipment at lower cost than the
United States. Especially considering all of our laws, regulations, limits, and restrictions.
So, What's the Alternative?
If anthropogenic global warming does end up being a serious problem, what can be done to move away
from fossil fuels? I would say, encourage economic growth, and burn fossil fuels like there is no
tomorrow! Increased demand will lead to higher prices, and as long as the free market is allowed to
work, new energy technologies will be developed.
As long a demand exists for energy (and it always will), there will be people who find ways to meet
that demand. There is no need for silly awards for best inventions, etc., because the market value
of those inventions will far exceed the value of gimmicky, government-sponsored competitions.
Why are Politicians so Enamored by Cap-and-Trade?
Given the pain (and public backlash) the EU has experienced from two years' experience with its
Emissions Trading Scheme, why would our politicians ignore that foreign experience, as well as
popular sentiment against cap-and-trade here at home, and run full-steam with eyes closed into this
regulatory quagmire?
The only answer I can come up with is: more money and more power for government. As a former
government employee, I am familiar with the mindset. While the goal of a private sector job is to
create wealth, the government employee's main job is to spend as much of that wealth as possible. A
government agency's foremost goal is self preservation, which means perpetuating a public need for
the agency. The idea that our government exists to help enable a better life for its citizens might
have been true 100 years ago, but today it is hopelessly naïve.
All Pain, No Gain
And finally, let's remember what the whole purpose of carbon cap-and-trade is: to reduce future
warming of the climate system. Even some prominent environmentalists are against Waxman-Markey
because they do not believe it will substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions here at home. To
the extent that provisions are added to the bill to make it more palatable to politicians from
agricultural states or industrial states, it then accomplishes even less of what it is intended to
accomplish: reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.
And even if cap-and-trade does what is intended, the reduction in CO2 emissions as a fraction of
global CO2 emissions will moderate future warming by, at most, around one tenth of a degree C by
late in this century. That is probably not even measurable.
Of course, this whole discussion assumes that the climate system is very sensitive to our carbon
dioxide emissions. But if the research we are doing is correct, then manmade global warming is
being overestimated by about a factor of 5, and it is the climate system itself that causes climate
change.not humans.
If that is the case, then nothing humanity does is going to substantially affect climate one way or
the other. Indeed, given the fact that life on Earth depends upon the tiny amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere, I continue to predict that more atmospheric CO2 will, in the end, be a good thing for
life on Earth.
Yet, many politicians are so blinded by the additional political power and tax revenue that will
come from a cap-and-trade system that they do not want to hear any good news from the science. For
instance, in my most recent congressional testimony, the good news I presented was met with an ad
hominem insult from Senator Barbara Boxer.
I can only conclude that some politicians actually want global warming to be a serious threat to
humanity. I wonder why? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeffrey Turner... |
| Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Eric Gisin wrote:
[quote:0bc153535e](2) even if global warming
is manmade, it will be immensely difficult to avoid further warming
without new energy technologies
that do not currently exist.
[/quote:0bc153535e]
And he's a selfish, lazy bastard who can't be arsed to do anything
difficult. Yes, we know. Rest of redundant, duplicitous rant snipped
out of mercy for intelligent readers.
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eric Gisin... |
| Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Another moronic socialist who also believes in AGW death.
Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner at (no spam) localnet.com> wrote in message
news:8uydnVVJloE0JNbXnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d at (no spam) posted.localnet...
[quote:c943f3f17f]Eric Gisin wrote:
(2) even if global warming
is manmade, it will be immensely difficult to avoid further warming without new energy
technologies
that do not currently exist.
And he's a selfish, lazy bastard who can't be arsed to do anything
difficult. Yes, we know. Rest of redundant, duplicitous rant snipped
out of mercy for intelligent readers.
[/quote:c943f3f17f] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:6f0944f22d]Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for transportation are viable :
(1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
(2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs, but combined that can come a long way.
Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take
a long time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid fossil fuel usage.
But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than depending on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save
the US a $500 billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
[/quote:6f0944f22d]
That figure will soar as oil prices soar.
And it's not a matter of "if." It's not even a matter of when. In 3
years it will be like a $2 trillion/year tax that is _not_ recycled
back into the U. S. economy.
[quote:6f0944f22d]There is also coal-to-liquid, but the efficiency (and thus cost) of that path is 2-4x worse than going
coal-to-electricity-to-plug-in-hybrids.
[/quote:6f0944f22d]
The choice is simple. Either spend the $10 - 20 trillion to get
sustainable _now_ or give $100 trillion to foreigners for oil over the
next couple of decades.
The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was funded as a national
security measure. How is bankrupting the U. S. by staying on oil any
better?
Making a virtue of inaction is just lazy thinking.
If we wait, we might end up in a situation where we don't have the
resources to do anything. Then we're just screwed and we'll be living
like Haitians.
We need to be forcing the oil companies to do something akin to
digging their own graves.
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:2dcef6e7fe]Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for
transportation are viable :
(1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
(2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs,
but combined that can come a long way.
Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive
investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take
a long time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out
liquid fossil fuel usage.
But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than depending
on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save
the US a $500 billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
That figure will soar as oil prices soar.
And it's not a matter of "if." It's not even a matter of when. In 3
years it will be like a $2 trillion/year tax that is _not_ recycled
back into the U. S. economy.
There is also coal-to-liquid, but the efficiency (and thus cost) of that
path is 2-4x worse than going
coal-to-electricity-to-plug-in-hybrids.
The choice is simple. Either spend the $10 - 20 trillion to get
sustainable _now_ or give $100 trillion to foreigners for oil over the
next couple of decades.
How can we bankrupt the country?
[/quote:2dcef6e7fe]
GOP tax cuts for the rich always causes deficits to soar. We saw this
under the Gipster and under Dumbya.
Toward the end of the high tax Clinton economic boom the surpluses
were heading toward the trillions and Repugs impeached Clinton for it.
And then Dumbya cut taxes on the rich and eventually the entire system
collapsed under the debt caused by GOP tax cuts for the rich.
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rob Dekker... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Eric Gisin" <gisin at (no spam) uniserve.com> wrote in message news:h2hb0s$aee$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
.....
[quote:e53055d31d]Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
[/quote:e53055d31d]
Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for transportation are viable :
(1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
(2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs, but combined that can come a long way.
Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take
a long time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid fossil fuel usage.
But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than depending on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save
the US a $500 billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
There is also coal-to-liquid, but the efficiency (and thus cost) of that path is 2-4x worse than going
coal-to-electricity-to-plug-in-hybrids.
Rob |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:73132b1f21]Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for
transportation are viable :
(1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
(2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs,
but combined that can come a long way.
Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive
investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take a long
time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid fossil
fuel usage.
But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than depending
on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save the US a $500
billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
How is the electricity you need going to be generated?
[/quote:73132b1f21]
Try googling "power plants."
Are you this stoopid in real life or are you just pulling our legs?
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bret Cahill... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:7d3bc44bd1]Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for transportation are viable :
(1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
(2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs, but combined that can come a long way.
Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take
a long time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid fossil fuel usage.
But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than depending on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save
the US a $500 billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
That figure will soar as oil prices soar.
And it's not a matter of "if." It's not even a matter of when. In 3
years it will be like a $2 trillion/year tax that is _not_ recycled
back into the U. S. economy.
There is also coal-to-liquid, but the efficiency (and thus cost) of that path is 2-4x worse than going
coal-to-electricity-to-plug-in-hybrids.
The choice is simple. Either spend the $10 - 20 trillion to get
sustainable _now_ or give $100 trillion to foreigners for oil over the
next couple of decades.
The national debt held by the public is less than 8 Trillion,
where do you suggest the 10 Trillion could come from?
[/quote:7d3bc44bd1]
From the $100 trillion in savings from not buying foreign oil.
[quote:7d3bc44bd1]The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was funded as a national
security measure. How is bankrupting the U. S. by staying on oil any
better?
The balance of trade is not tightly connected to the
national debt, owners of dollars can buy real estate, start up
new companies here, buy stock in existing companies, etc.
[/quote:7d3bc44bd1]
But Americans won't be the owners of those dollars.
The poor will want to motor around so they'll have to tax the rich to
get the money to pay for the $15/gallon fuel.
The money will go directly from the rich to oil rich despotisms.
And there's no reason for it to come back since we don't manufacture
anything here anymore except bs.
[quote:7d3bc44bd1]Making a virtue of inaction is just lazy thinking.
Not lazy thinking,
[/quote:7d3bc44bd1]
It's lazy thinking.
[quote:7d3bc44bd1]just the very thing lawyers in congress
are good at.
If we wait, we might end up in a situation where we don't have the
resources to do anything. Then we're just screwed and we'll be living
like Haitians.
I don't follow that, as long as foreigners hold dollars
[/quote:7d3bc44bd1]
Then they'll be riding around in Huimmers and we'll be living like
Hatians.
[quote:7d3bc44bd1]it
does not affect anything,
[/quote:7d3bc44bd1]
Then let me hold your dollars.
Are you this dumb in real life or are you just pulling our legs?
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| What A. Fool... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 17:04:52 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
[quote:dfd82648bc]Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for transportation are viable :
(1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
(2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs, but combined that can come a long way.
Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take
a long time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid fossil fuel usage.
But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than depending on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save
the US a $500 billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
That figure will soar as oil prices soar.
And it's not a matter of "if." It's not even a matter of when. In 3
years it will be like a $2 trillion/year tax that is _not_ recycled
back into the U. S. economy.
There is also coal-to-liquid, but the efficiency (and thus cost) of that path is 2-4x worse than going
coal-to-electricity-to-plug-in-hybrids.
The choice is simple. Either spend the $10 - 20 trillion to get
sustainable _now_ or give $100 trillion to foreigners for oil over the
next couple of decades.
[/quote:dfd82648bc]
The national debt held by the public is less than 8 Trillion,
where do you suggest the 10 Trillion could come from?
[quote:dfd82648bc]The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was funded as a national
security measure. How is bankrupting the U. S. by staying on oil any
better?
[/quote:dfd82648bc]
The balance of trade is not tightly connected to the
national debt, owners of dollars can buy real estate, start up
new companies here, buy stock in existing companies, etc.
[quote:dfd82648bc]Making a virtue of inaction is just lazy thinking.
[/quote:dfd82648bc]
Not lazy thinking, just the very thing lawyers in congress
are good at.
[quote:dfd82648bc]If we wait, we might end up in a situation where we don't have the
resources to do anything. Then we're just screwed and we'll be living
like Haitians.
[/quote:dfd82648bc]
I don't follow that, as long as foreigners hold dollars it
does not affect anything, and when they spend dollars,
doesn't it mean income for somebody in the US?
If it all was spent on buying US exports, wouldn't that
help the GDP? Isn't the reason there is a trade debt
that others have not been spending the dollars to buy
US goods and services (or real estate or whatever)?
[quote:dfd82648bc]We need to be forcing the oil companies to do something akin to
digging their own graves.
Bret Cahill
[/quote:dfd82648bc]
Most are international companies now, what needs
to be done is becoming less clear, and a few extremist
greens are causing a lot of problems, like shutting down
a big part of the irrigation in California, driving up prices
of produce.
But perhaps it will soon become apparent what
has to be done, the national debt interest problem and
the borrow and spend issue has to be resolved, but
I don't see where it is connected to the balance of
trade debt. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jerry Okamura... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in message
news:450d6360-b484-429f-aebe-35da106db58b at (no spam) u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
[quote:930e14423d]Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for
transportation are viable :
(1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
(2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs,
but combined that can come a long way.
Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive
investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take
a long time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out
liquid fossil fuel usage.
But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than depending
on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save
the US a $500 billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
That figure will soar as oil prices soar.
And it's not a matter of "if." It's not even a matter of when. In 3
years it will be like a $2 trillion/year tax that is _not_ recycled
back into the U. S. economy.
There is also coal-to-liquid, but the efficiency (and thus cost) of that
path is 2-4x worse than going
coal-to-electricity-to-plug-in-hybrids.
The choice is simple. Either spend the $10 - 20 trillion to get
sustainable _now_ or give $100 trillion to foreigners for oil over the
next couple of decades.
How can we bankrupt the country? Besides, with Obama running up huge debts,[/quote:930e14423d]
aren't we well on our way to bankrupting the country? Does it really matter
how the country goes bankrupt? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| What A. Fool... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 20:41:16 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
[quote:96f830ecf2]Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for transportation are viable :
(1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
(2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs, but combined that can come a long way.
Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take
a long time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid fossil fuel usage.
But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than depending on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save
the US a $500 billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
That figure will soar as oil prices soar.
And it's not a matter of "if." Â It's not even a matter of when. Â In 3
years it will be like a $2 trillion/year tax that is _not_ recycled
back into the U. S. economy.
There is also coal-to-liquid, but the efficiency (and thus cost) of that path is 2-4x worse than going
coal-to-electricity-to-plug-in-hybrids.
The choice is simple. Â Either spend the $10 - 20 trillion to get
sustainable _now_ or give $100 trillion to foreigners for oil over the
next couple of decades.
     The national debt held by the public is less than 8 Trillion,
where do you suggest the 10 Trillion could come from?
From the $100 trillion in savings from not buying foreign oil.
[/quote:96f830ecf2]
The entire assets of the world in real estate, stocks, bonds,
money accounts and everything else is about $65 Trillion.
You have the right idea, just too liberal when talking
about money. The total US currency in existence is less
than 900 Billion, and more than half of that circulates overseas.
[quote:96f830ecf2][snip]
Bret Cahill[/quote:96f830ecf2] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris From Suffolk, NY... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 4, 12:02 am, What A. Fool <Wh... at (no spam) fool.ami> wrote:
[quote:572e0002f2]On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 20:41:16 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
You have the right idea, just too liberal when talking
about money. The total US currency in existence is less
than 900 Billion, and more than half of that circulates overseas.
[snip]
Bret Cahill
[/quote:572e0002f2]
Your figure does not account for digital currency or money held by
banks and treasuries. That is only the paper and coin money held by
the public.
I don't think Congress even knows how many dollars are actually out
there, hence the HR 1207 bill to audit the federal reserve. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jerry Okamura... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in message
news:76f98f9f-5eed-46eb-a220-63e183cc8660 at (no spam) s1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
[quote:507b1d49cb]Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas
for
transportation are viable :
(1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
(2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs,
but combined that can come a long way.
Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive
investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take
a long time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out
liquid fossil fuel usage.
But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than
depending
on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save
the US a $500 billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
That figure will soar as oil prices soar.
And it's not a matter of "if." It's not even a matter of when. In 3
years it will be like a $2 trillion/year tax that is _not_ recycled
back into the U. S. economy.
There is also coal-to-liquid, but the efficiency (and thus cost) of
that
path is 2-4x worse than going
coal-to-electricity-to-plug-in-hybrids.
The choice is simple. Either spend the $10 - 20 trillion to get
sustainable _now_ or give $100 trillion to foreigners for oil over the
next couple of decades.
How can we bankrupt the country?
[/quote:507b1d49cb]
GOP tax cuts for the rich always causes deficits to soar. We saw this
under the Gipster and under Dumbya.
An outright lie. It is a two part equation, not a one part equation.
Deficits occur when you spend more than you receive. It is as simple as
that. You can cut revenue, and not have deficits, if you also cut spending
accordingly. It is also a lie because revenue continue to increase even
when there is a cut in taxes.
Toward the end of the high tax Clinton economic boom the surpluses
were heading toward the trillions and Repugs impeached Clinton for it.
Another lie. Clinton was impeached on December 19th 1998. Also a lie about
the national debt...
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jerry Okamura... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in message
news:bddbdd48-430b-480f-a8e5-ccce53c4b673 at (no spam) a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
[quote:2415c92f30]Tell us what possible can replace oil&gas for transportation?
Apart from efficiency improvements, two real alternatives to oil/gas for
transportation are viable :
(1) Electricity, by means of plug-in hybrids.
(2) Biofuels (various forms competing).
Neither one by itself is able to replace all transportation fuel needs,
but combined that can come a long way.
Not surprisingly, to replace oil/gas, both of them need massive
investments (from public and/or government) and it will likely take a
long
time (20-30 years) to phase in plug-in hybrids and phase out liquid
fossil
fuel usage.
But both are sustainable and offer energy security (rather than
depending
on foreign oil). They will get the junkie off oil and save the US a $500
billion to $1 trillion per year in money flowing abroad.
How is the electricity you need going to be generated?
[/quote:2415c92f30]
Try googling "power plants."
Are you this stoopid in real life or are you just pulling our legs?
Which tells us what? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| What A. Fool... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 01:38:05 -0700 (PDT), "Chris From Suffolk, NY"
<christopher.cantwell at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:0aab02d977]On Jul 4, 12:02Â am, What A. Fool <Wh... at (no spam) fool.ami> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 20:41:16 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
      You have the right idea, just too liberal when talking
about money. Â Â The total US currency in existence is less
than 900 Billion, and more than half of that circulates overseas.
[snip]
Bret Cahill
Your figure does not account for digital currency or money held by
banks and treasuries. That is only the paper and coin money held by
the public.
I don't think Congress even knows how many dollars are actually out
there, hence the HR 1207 bill to audit the federal reserve.
[/quote:0aab02d977]
There isn't any "digital" currency, about 900 Billion is
for printed currency, all "accounts" are counted as M1 or M2.
The FRB knows to the dollar how much currency is out,
and how much they have in the warehouses, the NY FRB has
the biggest supply because the service most of the western
hemisphere and Europe when currency is requested at the
going exchange rate.
An audit of the FRB would cover far more than currency,
as the FRB services all banks plus some armored car money
delivery services.
The 65 Trillion I mentioned does include every account,
stock, bond and property in the world.
The US share of world action is so great, it is in the
interest of every country to cooperate in solving the money
crisis and get out of the tax and spend, and the borrow and
spend modes.
Allowing the FRB to buy treasuries other than on
a short term basis would be very silly, with the government
paying itself interest. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:41 pm
|
|