Here's what we are getting for our one Billion a day:
http://toryaardvark.com/2011/11/17/14000...
Nice hun?
-----------------------
Gary F - WOW that's cool, I didn't know Elvis knew Bigfoot.
-----------------------
You people are getting facts from Wikipedia? Do you get your news from comedy central and msnbc as well? Fools, Ted Danson told us on Earth day (what a joke) in 1973, that we only had ten years left due to "climate change", An expert if I ever heard one. By the way the earth has not increased in temp. in over 10 years, That's because the heats going deep into the oceans. There is always some stupid answers to explain why they're wrong.
Some of those big windmills are kinda cool to look at. Other than that it's just a colossal waste of money that could have been better spent on something else.
@FSM... speaking as a "Denier" I'm not in favour of oil subsidies either.
Absolutely Nothing!
What was missed in the statements about the higher levels of fossil fuel subsidies is that when you look at the return on 'investment', fossil fuel cost per unit of energy is dramatically less than that of so-called 'renewables'. Fossil fuel subsidies are a MUCH better deal for the world's taxpayers.
I'm sure that it was an 'honest' omission.
Development of energy sources. Most of the dollars included in the report of private companies developing solar and wind power. 38% of the total expenditures were towards solar power, 24% wind power, and 8% towards other renewable energy. Another 8% went towards programs that improve energy efficiency. That's 70% just to develop modern energy sources so that people in the future can do stuff.
94% of the expenditures went to progress that can mitigate climate change. The other 6% went to adaptions and that is where I expect costs will have to increase. 3% went to managing water supply, less than 1% each to Infrastructure/Coastal protection, Disaster risk management and agriculture/natural resource management.
According to the article we are not spending near enough to prevent a 2 degree C of warming. Although, if we were to invest substantially in nuclear power, about 1cent per kWh more than coal, we would get more bang for the buck.
31,000 university grads. Not every university grad is a scientist.
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifica...
You, of course, are going to say "Nothing".
And pick such an answer.
However the science, and the scientific community nearly unamously says it's warming, due to fossil fuel burning.
But should we care?
We'll be dead and gone before it gets really bad.
When there's a bond measure to improve schools in our community, and we no longer have kids in school, should we vote for it?
Just depends on one's sense of responsibility.
We've inherited a pretty nice country, in large part because those who came before us spent money to build a country that they didn't live to enjoy.
Are we going to do the same for our children and grandchildren?
Whatever benefits we are getting I think we need to redirect some of the money.
I wonder how much it would cost to provide everyone in the world with electricity?
Or provide them with clean drinking water ...
Or improved cancer research etc etc?
One area seems to have cornered the market.
Subsidies: If anyone thinks they know what a fossil fuel subsidy is they need to read this:
http://www.globaldashboard.org/2012/12/0...
There are: lies, damned lies and fossil fuel subsidies!
I think a conservative estimate of the oil subsidies and tax breaks associated with oil companies would be somewhere in the hundreds of trillion's of dollars or more than a quadrillion possibly in the US alone in the last 60 years. Much of this helped the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. So 350 + billion is a drop in the bucket by comparison, much of which is devoted to alternative energy which will reduce carbon emissions and insure a future for upcoming generations.
It was actually Bush jr. who gave alternative energy a setback by eliminating investor tax breaks for alternative energy, hence slowdown in solar power advances. You DA deniers still refuse to accept the reality of AGW and continue to post basically irrelevant questions such as this instead of working towards solutions. Shame on you all for being so easily duped and narrow minded
Well the mining companies are still happy because while we figure out "renewable" energy they are starting to get permission to mine methane hydrates. This will be an interesting few decades. :D
Maxx --
Do you purposely choose to believe every stupid thing in the world or are you unable to identify stupidity when you encounter it?
http://www.aweablog.org/blog/post/fact-c...
=====
edit --
>>Gary F: Just look at MAXX's article. It shows pictures...<<
Here is a picture of Bigfoot leaving Elvis's birthday party - and it's better evidence than anything Deniers have against AGW.
http://kkt004.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/bigfoot.jpg
http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/1-billion-a-day-spent-to-fight-global-warming/?cat_orig=politics
Plenty of benefits. By spending this money, it serves to keep poor countries from developing fossil fuel energy. In other words, they stay poor. This is good for rich countries that can stay at the top.
Plus, the planet has stopped warming.
I guess that depends what "we" you are asking about. For me, they tell me my benefit is that my grandkids won't have to move to the Arctic. All I need to do is pay for these guys to fly around the world and attend meeting in posh hotels where they discuss how they are going to spend my money.
And one pot for my money to go is into their technologies which are not yet market-ready but are needed now so my grandkids won't have to move to the Arctic. And I'm sure there's some sort of administrative fee to implement this grand plan. Gotta build some buildings and hire some staff you know.
The future is going to get interesting when Joe Public wakes up from his slumber.
Anyone interested in this question should go straight to the source:
http://climatepolicyinitiative.org/publi...
The methodology behind the numbers is murky, but anyone who accepts them uncritically, as you do Sagebrush, is being inconsistent if their much larger (but probably too low) numbers for fossil fuel subsidies are ignored.
In any case, -again, if the methodology here is CONSISTENTLY accepted- investment in alternatives to fossil fuels does at least provide benefits to offset the cost of investing in them. Subsidies for fossil fuels produce a significant net ADDITION to the costs of those subsidies, not an offset to them.
Interesting article it compares the INVESTMENT of $359 Billion into renewable energy sources with the $523 Billion a year in SUBSIDIES to oil and other fossil fuel industries.
One economic benefit to the consumer would be that the investments into wind farms results in cheaper electricity prices when compared to coal plants. [1] Surely you'd agree that this is a good thing?
The irony is of course that subsidies to big oil is perfectly acceptable to the deniers, but subsidies to clean energy is not...
Hilarious, misleadingly claiming that an 1987 wind farm was abandoned, while it was replaced by a newer and more efficient one [2] is "eloquent" in your opinion? The wikipedia (point of view neutral) article shows wind on average is cheaper then coal, then again, we already established that you guys don't play nice with facts. And the average life expectancy of a coal plant is 30 years. [3]
Off topic; The Obamacare website is a gigantic screw up, not surprising with over 50 private contractors building it and one could easily ask the question if that shows that private contractors and competition are bad. It is stupid to have 50+ companies work on a project. I have worked as a contractor in both the private and public sector and the bureaucracy and incompetency is rife everywhere. (Banks and insurance companies being the worst and department of transport being the least bad, of the large institutions)
On the subject of health care, as any one with at least half a brain can see that a single payer system is not only far more cost effective, it also provides for better outcomes in general. Just like the Obamacare website fiasco it shows that competition is not always more efficient and better. Sadly "Christians" like yourself (*) , are opposed to this. I guess you prefer Americans paying more and getting less all in the name of profit. [4] Even more ironic is that Obamcare was modeled after Romneycare [5], who was the Republican candidate for president...
*) Quote by Sagebrush "execute all those who voted for Obama", "Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch", "Justice and equality are codewords for communism"
Back on topic; Not once have I seen the hypocrites (**) who oppose subsidies for "clean" energy call to end the subsidies for "dirty" energy. Even when those subsidies for "dirty" energy are MORE THEN THE TOTAL INVESTMENT in "clean" energy. And the best deniers can come up with is that old wind farms get replaced? Thanks for the laughs though...
**) Pointing out the facts as they are presented in your own link, using point of view neutral sources and calling to end (fossil fuel industry) subsidies gets thumbs down.
So just over $11,570 per SECOND!
Wow, good work if you can get it! LOL
Follow the money. Follow the money...
http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/1-billion-a-day-spent-to-fight-global-warming/?cat_orig=politics
Plenty of benefits. By spending this money, it serves to keep poor countries from developing fossil fuel energy. In other words, they stay poor. This is good for rich countries that can stay at the top.
Plus, the planet has stopped warming.
I guess that depends what "we" you are asking about. For me, they tell me my benefit is that my grandkids won't have to move to the Arctic. All I need to do is pay for these guys to fly around the world and attend meeting in posh hotels where they discuss how they are going to spend my money.
And one pot for my money to go is into their technologies which are not yet market-ready but are needed now so my grandkids won't have to move to the Arctic. And I'm sure there's some sort of administrative fee to implement this grand plan. Gotta build some buildings and hire some staff you know.
The future is going to get interesting when Joe Public wakes up from his slumber.
Anyone interested in this question should go straight to the source:
http://climatepolicyinitiative.org/publi...
The methodology behind the numbers is murky, but anyone who accepts them uncritically, as you do Sagebrush, is being inconsistent if their much larger (but probably too low) numbers for fossil fuel subsidies are ignored.
In any case, -again, if the methodology here is CONSISTENTLY accepted- investment in alternatives to fossil fuels does at least provide benefits to offset the cost of investing in them. Subsidies for fossil fuels produce a significant net ADDITION to the costs of those subsidies, not an offset to them.
Interesting article it compares the INVESTMENT of $359 Billion into renewable energy sources with the $523 Billion a year in SUBSIDIES to oil and other fossil fuel industries.
One economic benefit to the consumer would be that the investments into wind farms results in cheaper electricity prices when compared to coal plants. [1] Surely you'd agree that this is a good thing?
The irony is of course that subsidies to big oil is perfectly acceptable to the deniers, but subsidies to clean energy is not...
Hilarious, misleadingly claiming that an 1987 wind farm was abandoned, while it was replaced by a newer and more efficient one [2] is "eloquent" in your opinion? The wikipedia (point of view neutral) article shows wind on average is cheaper then coal, then again, we already established that you guys don't play nice with facts. And the average life expectancy of a coal plant is 30 years. [3]
Off topic; The Obamacare website is a gigantic screw up, not surprising with over 50 private contractors building it and one could easily ask the question if that shows that private contractors and competition are bad. It is stupid to have 50+ companies work on a project. I have worked as a contractor in both the private and public sector and the bureaucracy and incompetency is rife everywhere. (Banks and insurance companies being the worst and department of transport being the least bad, of the large institutions)
On the subject of health care, as any one with at least half a brain can see that a single payer system is not only far more cost effective, it also provides for better outcomes in general. Just like the Obamacare website fiasco it shows that competition is not always more efficient and better. Sadly "Christians" like yourself (*) , are opposed to this. I guess you prefer Americans paying more and getting less all in the name of profit. [4] Even more ironic is that Obamcare was modeled after Romneycare [5], who was the Republican candidate for president...
*) Quote by Sagebrush "execute all those who voted for Obama", "Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch", "Justice and equality are codewords for communism"
Back on topic; Not once have I seen the hypocrites (**) who oppose subsidies for "clean" energy call to end the subsidies for "dirty" energy. Even when those subsidies for "dirty" energy are MORE THEN THE TOTAL INVESTMENT in "clean" energy. And the best deniers can come up with is that old wind farms get replaced? Thanks for the laughs though...
**) Pointing out the facts as they are presented in your own link, using point of view neutral sources and calling to end (fossil fuel industry) subsidies gets thumbs down.
So just over $11,570 per SECOND!
Wow, good work if you can get it! LOL
Follow the money. Follow the money...
