What is Climate Denial costing the US?

[freedombecki]

Todd -

It may be that this topic - like so many others - is sinply beyond your understanding.

But let's try:

Private companies in a half dozen countries make money and create jobs in renewable energies. They receive no money from government, no subsidies and no pay offs. They are private companies.

Is that clear?

What's beyond comprehension is people who think spending billions to make a couple of million is sustainable.

They are the same people who think it's okay to spend $278K per job SAVED or created by the stimulus spending binge.

I thought Saigon was Finnish? But yes, Green hustlers can be found in every culture. We'd all like something for nothing, but when one field of scientists sweats blood to countermand the damages done by another field, it's wise to try and get both sides to talk to each other if we serve no other purpose.

 

[Flopper]

Todd -

It may be that this topic - like so many others - is sinply beyond your understanding.

But let's try:

Private companies in a half dozen countries make money and create jobs in renewable energies. They receive no money from government, no subsidies and no pay offs. They are private companies.

Is that clear?

What's beyond comprehension is people who think spending billions to make a couple of million is sustainable.

Although the market for alternative energy is expected to pass 600 billion by 2015, quick profits are not the reason why the US and dozens of other nations are investing in alternative energy. The need for clean air, clean water, reduced C02 in the atmosphere is the driving force, however I doubt that you would understand that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

It may be that this topic - like so many others - is sinply beyond your understanding.

But let's try:

Private companies in a half dozen countries make money and create jobs in renewable energies. They receive no money from government, no subsidies and no pay offs. They are private companies.

Is that clear?

What's beyond comprehension is people who think spending billions to make a couple of million is sustainable.

Although the market for alternative energy is expect to pass 600 billion by 2015, quick profits are not the reason why the US and dozens of other nations are investing in alternative energy. The need for clean air, clean water, reduced C02 in the atmosphere is the driving force, however I doubt that you would understand that.

You should stop emitting CO2, for the children.

 

[freedombecki]

Todd -

It may be that this topic - like so many others - is sinply beyond your understanding.

But let's try:

Private companies in a half dozen countries make money and create jobs in renewable energies. They receive no money from government, no subsidies and no pay offs. They are private companies.

Is that clear?

What's beyond comprehension is people who think spending billions to make a couple of million is sustainable.

Although the market for alternative energy is expected to pass 600 billion by 2015, quick profits are not the reason why the US and dozens of other nations are investing in alternative energy. The need for clean air, clean water, reduced C02 in the atmosphere is the driving force, however I doubt that you would understand that.

Ya thinks? Well, according to my advanced chemistry and pathophysiology courses in college, Mr. Patriot's post could fit you to a "T," if you caught his sense of humor about this new issue you have raised.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

If everyone did everyone else's laundry, we'd have immediate full employment. If Homeland Security hired us all to look out for terrorists, we'd have immediate full employment. You could watch me for 12 hours and when your shift was over, mine would begin and I'd watch you for 12 hours.

Industries that produce nothiing are a drag on the economy, not a panacea.

It doesn't matter if there is climate change or who or what caused it. The plain fact is that there is not a damned thing we can do about it. Do democrats really think we can legislate geological activities?

 

[bripat9643]

Todd -

It may be that this topic - like so many others - is sinply beyond your understanding.

But let's try:

Private companies in a half dozen countries make money and create jobs in renewable energies. They receive no money from government, no subsidies and no pay offs. They are private companies.

Is that clear?

What's beyond comprehension is people who think spending billions to make a couple of million is sustainable.

Although the market for alternative energy is expected to pass 600 billion by 2015, quick profits are not the reason why the US and dozens of other nations are investing in alternative energy. The need for clean air, clean water, reduced C02 in the atmosphere is the driving force, however I doubt that you would understand that.

In other words, it's not a money making proposition for any country. Thanks for admitting that.

BTW, our air and water are already clean. CO2 isn't a pollutant.

 

[bripat9643]

Todd -

Realistically, there are probably around a hundred major manufacturers working in renewables - easily another hundred private companies involved in consulting, research and in peripheral trades.

Worldwide, this amounts to several tends of thousands of jobs, and billions of dollars a year in trade. Most of these are share-listed companies.

I'll just post one here as an example of one of the larger players, which is a subsidiary if Siemens Germany.


MCT:

Marine Current Turbines Ltd (MCT) has a demonstrated pedigree of pioneering the development of tidal stream generation technology for over 20 years. Now wholly owned by Siemens, forming part of the Ocean & Hydro Business, MCT is poised to become the World’s leading OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) of commercial scale tidal stream technology, dedicated to research, design, manufacture and support of tidal stream energy generating systems.

MCT has proven that the technology is scalable, commercially viable and an environmentally sustainable solution to zero carbon energy generation. The technology is now ready for deployment in commercial scale tidal energy projects.

MCT is now focused on the development of the first tidal array projects in the UK on carefully selected sites that will deliver a good commercial return for investors.

Welcome to MCT | Marine Current Turbines


When we look back on this thread we see a half dozen posters bitterly opposed to this kind of free trade and capitalism in action, and that is obviously why the jobs and export dollars don't go to the US.

Korea, Germany, Scotland and Japan must love the fact that so many Americans don't support capitalism anymore.

Virtually none of these companies would exist if governments around the world weren't shelling out hundreds of billions in subsidies for so-called "green energy." It's not a profitable investment for any country.

 

[bripat9643]

The US has a long history of goofy subsidies, telegraphs, telephones, railroads, oil and gas, atomic energy, space exploration, etc. A lot of companies in new industries fail, in fact, most do, but that doesn't mean we should't invest in that industry.

Often government provides subsidies for new industries that private investors shun because of the lack of established markets or high risk reward ratios. In the 1960's, no one in their right mind would invest in operating satellites, at least not until the government created Comsat. Comsat corporation, the first commercial operator of satellites was created in 1963 with private investments, government guaranteed loans and contracts. Today there are over 500 US satellites. 350 are commercially operated.

You're comparing communication satellites that make scads of money to stupid-assed, bankrupt, money pit "green energy" scams?

Srsly?

Communication satellites didn't always make money.

Uhm . . . yes they did. The very first one made money.

Only after government funding of space exploration that developed the technology and government backed commercial satellite operation, did private industry develop and operate communication satellites.

You mean space exploration didn't make money. Yes, we know that. However, our government never subsidized a single communication satellite.

The private sector is rarely interested in committing large sums of money without a return on investment within 5 years.

That's true. That's because investments that don't pay off in 5 years are almost always a waste of money.

The building of the transcontinental railroad relied on government land grants and bonds.

Those railroads were boondoggles. Both of the companies involved went bankrupt after a few years. The railroads they built were too expensive to maintain and didn't go anyplace where the railroads could make a profit. They were involved in massive scandals like the Credit Mobilier scandal.

That's the history of government "investments" in the railroads.

Government established the first commercial satellite operation.

If it was "commercial" then it wasn't run by the government.

Government funding in bio-medical research laid the foundation for many privately funded commercial enterprises.

That claim is quite a stretch.

 

[bripat9643]

Railroads ended up in the hands of the Robber Barons that leftbats like you hate so much...Now that same model is being used for idiotic money-sucking "green energy" scams and you rubes lap it up!

Amazing.

You mean money sucking republican robbery barons. Irregardless, the transcontinental railroad was a huge asset to the nation as will be alternative energy sources.

ROFL! You don't know squat about the transcontinental railroads, do you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'll take AGW seriously when the warming cult shows us how serious they are by never posting about it again.

Those posts burn "fossil fuels" that pollute the atmosphere with glacier eating CO2

Show me you're serious and STFU

 

[westwall]

Frank, Skooks, TJVH -

The people of Germany, Korea and Japan are very grateful that you don't care about jobs, competition and capitalism anymore.

AC -

Please take your spam elsewhere.

You first.

 

[westwall]

What's beyond comprehension is people who think spending billions to make a couple of million is sustainable.

They are the same people who think it's okay to spend $278K per job SAVED or created by the stimulus spending binge.

I thought Saigon was Finnish? But yes, Green hustlers can be found in every culture. We'd all like something for nothing, but when one field of scientists sweats blood to countermand the damages done by another field, it's wise to try and get both sides to talk to each other if we serve no other purpose.

Nope, Saigon is a 'Merican....My guess is an east coaster.

 

[Flopper]

You're comparing communication satellites that make scads of money to stupid-assed, bankrupt, money pit "green energy" scams?

Srsly?

Communication satellites didn't always make money.

Uhm . . . yes they did. The very first one made money.




You mean space exploration didn't make money. Yes, we know that. However, our government never subsidized a single communication satellite.




That's true. That's because investments that don't pay off in 5 years are almost always a waste of money.




Those railroads were boondoggles. Both of the companies involved went bankrupt after a few years. The railroads they built were too expensive to maintain and didn't go anyplace where the railroads could make a profit. They were involved in massive scandals like the Credit Mobilier scandal.

That's the history of government "investments" in the railroads.

Government established the first commercial satellite operation.

If it was "commercial" then it wasn't run by the government.

Government funding in bio-medical research laid the foundation for many privately funded commercial enterprises.

That claim is quite a stretch.

Read about Comsat, the first the operator of commercial satellites. The COMSAT Corporation was created by the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 and incorporated as a publicly traded company in 1963. It was both federally and privately funded. COMSAT was responsible for the launching of the Early Bird communications satellite, on April 6, 1965, and has been instrumental in the expansion of communications throughout the world through its various international subsidiaries. Their first profits were not until 1968, 6 years after incorporation. The Early Bird communication satellite was never really profitable. It was deactivated in 1969.

COMSAT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Saigon]

Nope, Saigon is a 'Merican....My guess is an east coaster.

Right.

The fear, the desperation....you couldn't make this stuff up, could you?

btw, Wailing Wall, anytime you want to swtich to posting in Finnish - ole hyvää!

 

[Saigon]

Virtually none of these companies would exist if governments around the world weren't shelling out hundreds of billions in subsidies for so-called "green energy." It's not a profitable investment for any country.

And yet we have just seen that exactly the opposite is true. You are wrong.

 

[Saigon]

Freedmbecki -

Saigon, my alma mater, Oregon State University, is showing a concern about both ocean current-generated electricity and wind turbines on marine mammals. (The wind turbines have made migrations confusing and deadly to certain species of water mammals in the Baltic region by EU zoologists), plus in Oregon, they are concerned about the Eastern gray whale, the Harbor porpoise, and the local pinniped populations.

I am happy to see a valid point posted after 4 pages of gibberish!!

This is an issue with tidal, and one that demands a solution. I think experts will find one, as it seems to be largely an issue of where in the water the turbines are positioned relative to the surface, but I agree it is a serious concern. No form of energy production will ever be perfect, so it is generally a case of choosing maximum gain against minium environmental impact and at the best price. Tidal absolutely passes that test.


And yes, I am Finnish! I don't know why the Wailing Wall makes up this shit. I should start insisting that he's Canadian.

 

[Saigon]

What is Climate Denial costing the US?

Who in the U.S. are denying we have a climate?

Look through this thread....maybe a dozen posters are lining up to insist that capitalism, private enterprise and fair trade are not acceptable means of improving the US economy.

That's what it has come down to for some right-wing extremists, apparently.

You have to think - are those really the people you want to rely on for information about climate, or are they simply so blinkered, so partisan and so boxed in on this issue that they would say pretty much anything?

 

[bripat9643]

What is Climate Denial costing the US?

Who in the U.S. are denying we have a climate?

Look through this thread....maybe a dozen posters are lining up to insist that capitalism, private enterprise and fair trade are not acceptable means of improving the US economy.

That's what it has come down to for some right-wing extremists, apparently.

You have to think - are those really the people you want to rely on for information about climate, or are they simply so blinkered, so partisan and so boxed in on this issue that they would say pretty much anything?

The concept of "fair trade" is left-wing abracadabra. It has nothing to do with capitalism. Since you're so big on capitalism, then lets put an end to massive government subsidies for so-called "green energy. You see, under capitalism, the market decides which ideas get funded, not the government.

 

[bripat9643]

Virtually none of these companies would exist if governments around the world weren't shelling out hundreds of billions in subsidies for so-called "green energy." It's not a profitable investment for any country.

And yet we have just seen that exactly the opposite is true. You are wrong.

Wrong. We haven't seen any such thing. Anyone purchasing any so-called "green energy" products does so only because they are receiving government subsidies.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

Anyone purchasing any so-called "green energy" products does so only because they are receiving government subsidies.

Nonsense. That simply is not true, and I guess you know that too.

I have just presented three private companies which all make huge profits and which do not receive any subsidies. They sell turbines and equipment to private and public sector clients just like any other company.

Those companies are investing in tidal because it is a better business model - not because they are being secretly paid to do so.

Of course some countries offer subsidies to start-ups, but no more so for renewable energy than for other forms of energy production.