AGW +2C? +6C? It has happened before.

[kallend 1,651]

cvfd1399

***>Just as not changing would be bad for some and good for others.

Exactly.

Imagine, for example, if someone shut down your DZ. Maybe a Kim Gibbs type, or maybe someone who wanted to build a Wal-Mart. That might be good for some people, bad for others. Might be bad for the DZO, good for the DZO who replaced him. The new DZ might have better airplanes so skydivers would benefit.

Still, that's a bad reason to be OK with shutting down a DZ. You'd have to have a pretty good idea that the change you were making would be good before you made it. If you were unsure, then not changing things would be a better idea - at least until you knew better.

Wait....isn't that exactly what they are doing? A bunch of shit because they think something is happening, and they think this change might fix it but in reality it's all being fudged and no one really knows for certainty. By your logic we shouldn't be doing anything until we know for sure what the cause is and what we need to do, but that not what you post here.

You have it 100% backwards.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,435]

>Wait....isn't that exactly what they are doing? A bunch of shit because they think
>something is happening

Nope. We are dramatically changing the CO2 content of our atmosphere. No competent person thinks otherwise. That will cause other changes. We are taking the attitude "who gives a shit about the changes? Who cares who gets hurt and who loses what, as long as the gas for my SUV is cheap?"

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>Wait....isn't that exactly what they are doing? A bunch of shit because they think
>something is happening

Nope. We are dramatically changing the CO2 content of our atmosphere. No competent person thinks otherwise. That will cause other changes. We are taking the attitude "who gives a shit about the changes? Who cares who gets hurt and who loses what, as long as the gas for my SUV is cheap?"

And we are trying to change that to, "Who gives a shit about anything g else? Who cares who gets hurt and who loses what, as long as carbon based fuels are priced out of relevance."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,435]

>And we are trying to change that to

You might be trying to do that. I'd prefer to understand what the effects of both will be, and what changes we can make to mitigate one without causing significant damage to the other.

If the future means freezing in the dark with candles, that would be a bad choice. If the future means your car's engine is a bit different and you have $1000 worth of solar on your roof - but little else changes - then that's not such a bad choice, if it mitigates other problems we might have.

[brenthutch 388]

What if higher energy prices cost us a half a percent of GDP? Would you be ok with that? After all it is just 1/2%.

How about if if only cost a few million dollars yet had zero impact? Would you consider that a wise investment?

[billvon 2,435]

>What if higher energy prices cost us a half a percent of GDP? Would you be ok
>with that?

If it provided a benefit somewhere else that was more valuable than that - yes. If not - no. As an example, pollution restrictions, from catalytic converter requirements to energy-star requirements to requirements for safe disposal of materials to coal power plant scrubbers, have cost us more than that. They have also created new industries that have made a lot of that money back for us, and in the process greatly reduced sickness and death in the US. That's a case of it being worth it.

[brenthutch 388]

What about the billion dollars of loss from defaulted "green energy" loans backed by tax payers?

[cvfd1399 0]

Its for the greater good.

[billvon 2,435]

>What about the billion dollars of loss from defaulted "green energy" loans backed by
>tax payers?

If that gets a few billion dollars worth of American businesses off the ground? And creates thousands of American jobs? I'd consider it a pretty good deal. (97% successes, 3% failures.)

[brenthutch 388]

billvon

>What about the billion dollars of loss from defaulted "green energy" loans backed by
>tax payers?

If that gets a few billion dollars worth of American businesses off the ground? And creates thousands of American jobs? I'd consider it a pretty good deal. (97% successes, 3% failures.)

You mean Chinese businesses like A123. Ask all of those Solindra workers how they like their jobs.

[billvon 2,435]

>Ask all of those Solindra workers how they like their jobs.

OK. Then you can ask all the Tesla workers how they like their jobs. Then perhaps ask the workers building the Ivanpah solar tower project, the Agua Caliente solar facility, the California Valley Solar Ranch or the Sempra Mesquite facility.

[cvfd1399 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/we-bailed-you-out-and-now-you-want-what/2015/06/05/95ba1be0-0a27-11e5-95fd-d580f1c5d44e_story.html

Any green energy bailouts want more money too?

[DanG 1]

Quote

Any green energy bailouts want more money too?

Are you under the impression that your story is relevant to green energy loans?

- Dan G

[brenthutch 388]

California Valley Solar Ranch: $1,237,000,000 of subsidies and 15 permanent jobs.
$82,000,000 per job is not a great ROI if you ask me.

With regard to Tesla:

"The Silicon Valley Business Journal is reporting that “Elon Musk’s Tesla Motors is on track to win $15 million in new tax breaks as part of the final round of this year’s California Competes tax credit.” According to Governor Brown’s GO-Biz website, tax credits are awarded to businesses that come or stay and grow in California. With much of his $13.3 billion net worth coming from tax subsidies, Musk may celebrate his latest gift of “government cheese” from Reno, where Tesla’s highly-subsidized $5 billion giga-factory is being built."

[DanG 1]

Quote

$1,237,000,000 of subsidies

I think you mean "loan". A loan is not a subsidy.

- Dan G

[cvfd1399 0]

No that's why I asked what I asked, and diddnt say "look here are some doing it".

It's a simple case of some bailouts doing it. My question is are any green energy companies who recieved them also pulling this bullshit.

[brenthutch 388]

DanG

Quote

$1,237,000,000 of subsidies

I think you mean "loan". A loan is not a subsidy.

"A subsidy is a form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy."

[kallend 1,651]

brenthutch

California Valley Solar Ranch: $1,237,000,000 of subsidies and 15 permanent jobs.
$82,000,000 per job is not a great ROI if you ask me.

With regard to Tesla:

"The Silicon Valley Business Journal is reporting that “Elon Musk’s Tesla Motors is on track to win $15 million in new tax breaks as part of the final round of this year’s California Competes tax credit.” According to Governor Brown’s GO-Biz website, tax credits are awarded to businesses that come or stay and grow in California. With much of his $13.3 billion net worth coming from tax subsidies, Musk may celebrate his latest gift of “government cheese” from Reno, where Tesla’s highly-subsidized $5 billion giga-factory is being built."

With regard to the oil industry:

The oil and gas industry has been the largest beneficiary of federal financial support in the energy sector. An analysis by the Nuclear Energy Institute found that it benefited from nearly 60 percent of all federal energy support between 1950 and 2010, including receiving half of the money from energy tax breaks. Meanwhile, the wind and solar energy industries received only 9 percent of total federal benefits.

The big five oil companies receive $2,400,000,000 in annual tax breaks.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DanG 1]

Nice, Webster.

You know what you're trying to imply when you say "subsidy". You're trying to imply that money is gone from the Federal budget, wasted on green energy. When the loan gets repaid you can't bitch about wasting tax dollars.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

kallend

***California Valley Solar Ranch: $1,237,000,000 of subsidies and 15 permanent jobs.
$82,000,000 per job is not a great ROI if you ask me.

With regard to Tesla:

"The Silicon Valley Business Journal is reporting that “Elon Musk’s Tesla Motors is on track to win $15 million in new tax breaks as part of the final round of this year’s California Competes tax credit.” According to Governor Brown’s GO-Biz website, tax credits are awarded to businesses that come or stay and grow in California. With much of his $13.3 billion net worth coming from tax subsidies, Musk may celebrate his latest gift of “government cheese” from Reno, where Tesla’s highly-subsidized $5 billion giga-factory is being built."

With regard to the oil industry:

The oil and gas industry has been the largest beneficiary of federal financial support in the energy sector. An analysis by the Nuclear Energy Institute found that it benefited from nearly 60 percent of all federal energy support between 1950 and 2010, including receiving half of the money from energy tax breaks. Meanwhile, the wind and solar energy industries received only 9 percent of total federal benefits.

The big five oil companies receive $2,400,000,000 in annual tax breaks.

What do they pay?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,651]

rushmc

******California Valley Solar Ranch: $1,237,000,000 of subsidies and 15 permanent jobs.
$82,000,000 per job is not a great ROI if you ask me.

With regard to Tesla:

"The Silicon Valley Business Journal is reporting that “Elon Musk’s Tesla Motors is on track to win $15 million in new tax breaks as part of the final round of this year’s California Competes tax credit.” According to Governor Brown’s GO-Biz website, tax credits are awarded to businesses that come or stay and grow in California. With much of his $13.3 billion net worth coming from tax subsidies, Musk may celebrate his latest gift of “government cheese” from Reno, where Tesla’s highly-subsidized $5 billion giga-factory is being built."

With regard to the oil industry:

The oil and gas industry has been the largest beneficiary of federal financial support in the energy sector. An analysis by the Nuclear Energy Institute found that it benefited from nearly 60 percent of all federal energy support between 1950 and 2010, including receiving half of the money from energy tax breaks. Meanwhile, the wind and solar energy industries received only 9 percent of total federal benefits.

The big five oil companies receive $2,400,000,000 in annual tax breaks.

What do they pay?

A lower rate than I do.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 388]

kallend

***California Valley Solar Ranch: $1,237,000,000 of subsidies and 15 permanent jobs.
$82,000,000 per job is not a great ROI if you ask me.

With regard to Tesla:

"The Silicon Valley Business Journal is reporting that “Elon Musk’s Tesla Motors is on track to win $15 million in new tax breaks as part of the final round of this year’s California Competes tax credit.” According to Governor Brown’s GO-Biz website, tax credits are awarded to businesses that come or stay and grow in California. With much of his $13.3 billion net worth coming from tax subsidies, Musk may celebrate his latest gift of “government cheese” from Reno, where Tesla’s highly-subsidized $5 billion giga-factory is being built."

With regard to the oil industry:

The oil and gas industry has been the largest beneficiary of federal financial support in the energy sector. An analysis by the Nuclear Energy Institute found that it benefited from nearly 60 percent of all federal energy support between 1950 and 2010, including receiving half of the money from energy tax breaks. Meanwhile, the wind and solar energy industries received only 9 percent of total federal benefits.

The big five oil companies receive $2,400,000,000 in annual tax breaks.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently categorized financial support for fossil fuel and renewable energy tax preferences by fuel area for fiscal year 2013. From the CBO analysis, in 2013:

-Renewable energy financial support from tax preferences is expected to be 17 times greater than those for fossil fuels when evaluated on a Btu (British thermal unit) basis of production. In other words, when making a comparison based on the amount of energy produced, financial support based on renewable tax preferences is expected to be 17 times greater than those for fossil fuels.

[DanG 1]

Quote

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently categorized financial support for fossil fuel and renewable energy tax preferences by fuel area for fiscal year 2013. From the CBO analysis, in 2013:

-Renewable energy financial support from tax preferences is expected to be 17 times greater than those for fossil fuels when evaluated on a Btu (British thermal unit) basis of production. In other words, when making a comparison based on the amount of energy produced, financial support based on renewable tax preferences is expected to be 17 times greater than those for fossil fuels.

So what? That's a pretty weird metric.

The fossil fuel indistry is huge and well established. Why do they need "subsidies" at all?

- Dan G

[brenthutch 388]

DanG

Quote

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently categorized financial support for fossil fuel and renewable energy tax preferences by fuel area for fiscal year 2013. From the CBO analysis, in 2013:

-Renewable energy financial support from tax preferences is expected to be 17 times greater than those for fossil fuels when evaluated on a Btu (British thermal unit) basis of production. In other words, when making a comparison based on the amount of energy produced, financial support based on renewable tax preferences is expected to be 17 times greater than those for fossil fuels.

So what? That's a pretty weird metric.

The fossil fuel indistry is huge and well established. Why do they need "subsidies" at all?

Return on investment is a "weird" metric?????

[kallend 1,651]

DanG

Quote

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently categorized financial support for fossil fuel and renewable energy tax preferences by fuel area for fiscal year 2013. From the CBO analysis, in 2013:

-Renewable energy financial support from tax preferences is expected to be 17 times greater than those for fossil fuels when evaluated on a Btu (British thermal unit) basis of production. In other words, when making a comparison based on the amount of energy produced, financial support based on renewable tax preferences is expected to be 17 times greater than those for fossil fuels.

So what? That's a pretty weird metric.

The fossil fuel indistry is huge and well established. Why do they need "subsidies" at all?

Since the GOP tells us that corporations are people, I fail to see why corporations get special tax treatment at all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.