"Drill, baby, drill"

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

To paraphrase a great man; the leftist position is: if it works tax it, if it works very well regulate it and if it does not work subsidies it.

Jesus.

You definitely need to research the history of government support in energy innovation.

And when you find out that none of it happened without subsidy, aid, tax relief, or backroom deals, I am sure you will come back and tell me how wrong history is.

It doesn't really matter though because your way has never existed and never will.

Hardcore conservatives constantly dream of a past that was never actually real.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[quade 3]

brenthutch

To paraphrase a great man; the leftist position is: if it works tax it, if it works very well regulate it and if it does not work subsidies it.

The line was bullshit then and it's bullshit now even without the "paraphrasing."

Tell me again who is mostly benefitting from subsidies?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

quade

Tell me again who is mostly benefitting from subsidies?

Easy - Senators, and Congressmen. Presidents too. But mostly legislators

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[brenthutch 383]

Actually, the whole west vs Persia thing goes back to the Greco-Persian wars and the battles of Marathon and Thermopylae.

[brenthutch 383]

quade

***To paraphrase a great man; the leftist position is: if it works tax it, if it works very well regulate it and if it does not work subsidies it.

The line was bullshit then and it's bullshit now even without the "paraphrasing."

Tell me again who is mostly benefitting from subsidies?

Those residing at the confluence of big government and big business.

[jakee 1,254]

brenthutch

Actually, the whole west vs Persia thing goes back to the Greco-Persian wars and the battles of Marathon and Thermopylae.

Yes, history is old. Congratulations on figuring that out

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[brenthutch 383]

GTAVercetti

***No, it is exactly the same thing. We did not switch from coal to natural gas because we ran out of coal, we switched because natural gas is more economical. The same thing, THE EXACT SAME THING, will happen with petroleum. As nascent technologies mature they will become more competitive, just have the courage to let it happen.

With government aid. Nearly every energy innovation has had subsidy and government aid help.

Yeah, like the 1.2 billion dollars of help, GWB invested to develop the new hydrogen economy. Without this help, we would not be powering our houses and cars with clean renewable hydrogen. Thanks to a $250 million loan guarantee (turned grant) from the Obama administration to A123, thousands of Americans have high paying tech jobs making the battery of the future. I see your point.

[normiss 622]

Good thing the Internets actually succeeded though.

[quade 3]

brenthutch

Yeah, like the 1.2 billion dollars of help, GWB invested to ...

Wait a minute, just a few hours ago you posted subsidies were the fault of the "liberals."

Have you now come to your senses and seen this is not simply a case of RvD?

If so, congratulations! If not, more is the pity.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

quade

***Yeah, like the 1.2 billion dollars of help, GWB invested to ...

Wait a minute, just a few hours ago you posted subsidies were the fault of the "liberals."

Have you now come to your senses and seen this is not simply a case of RvD?

If so, congratulations! If not, more is the pity.

to be honest, I don't think brenthuch has been an R vs D guy on global warming, he's just been an anti-GW guy first, anti-D leaning guy 2nd - so those color each other but aren't defined by them. the line you quote seems to be evidence of that (when it comes to not liking subsidies he's consistent regardless of party leadership - he even goes out of his way to give examples from both parties), not really proof of your assumption on the poster.

It seems that 'all or nothing party line' caricature on the subject is really more a bias by the usuals.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 3]

rehmwa

******Yeah, like the 1.2 billion dollars of help, GWB invested to ...

Wait a minute, just a few hours ago you posted subsidies were the fault of the "liberals."

Have you now come to your senses and seen this is not simply a case of RvD?

If so, congratulations! If not, more is the pity.

to be honest, I don't think brenthuch has been an R vs D guy on global warming, he's just been an anti-GW guy first, anti-D leaning guy 2nd - so those color each other but aren't defined by them. the line you quote seems to be evidence of that (when it comes to not liking subsidies he's consistent regardless of party leadership - he even goes out of his way to give examples from both parties), not really proof of your assumption on the poster.

It seems that 'all or nothing party line' caricature on the subject is really more a bias by the usuals.....

I was talking about his statement here;

Quote

To paraphrase a great man; the leftist position is: if it works tax it, if it works very well regulate it and if it does not work subsidies it.

Emphasis mine.

Which is pure bullshit. As he just demonstrated, it's a much larger issue than simply RvD.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Bolas 5]

billvon

>No, let the free market work.

Agreed! Stop government subsidies and supports for all forms of energy. Set a standard for emissions and then hold everyone to the same standard. Then let the market decide.

Sort of. By setting an emissions standard you're not letting the market decide, depending on how that standard was enforced.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[brenthutch 383]

Unfunded Medicare part D, the war in Iraq, spending that would embarrass drunk sailors. Yeah put me down as not a fan of W.

[DJL 232]

Bolas

***>No, let the free market work.

Agreed! Stop government subsidies and supports for all forms of energy. Set a standard for emissions and then hold everyone to the same standard. Then let the market decide.

Sort of. By setting an emissions standard you're not letting the market decide, depending on how that standard was enforced.

Unfortunately, the market has a poor record of deciding what's good for the health of humanity.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

DJL

******>No, let the free market work.

Agreed! Stop government subsidies and supports for all forms of energy. Set a standard for emissions and then hold everyone to the same standard. Then let the market decide.

Sort of. By setting an emissions standard you're not letting the market decide, depending on how that standard was enforced.

Unfortunately, the market has a poor record of deciding what's good for the health of humanity.

And pollution has costs. Making the "high pollution" energy sources pay those costs is only fair. Letting low pollution sources not have to pay those costs is also fair.

Edit to add:

Allowing the high pollution sources to skate on their messes and making the taxpayers clean them up is a subsidy. Not a direct one, but a subsidy nonetheless.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

******No, it is exactly the same thing. We did not switch from coal to natural gas because we ran out of coal, we switched because natural gas is more economical. The same thing, THE EXACT SAME THING, will happen with petroleum. As nascent technologies mature they will become more competitive, just have the courage to let it happen.

With government aid. Nearly every energy innovation has had subsidy and government aid help.

Yeah, like the 1.2 billion dollars of help, GWB invested to develop the new hydrogen economy. Without this help, we would not be powering our houses and cars with clean renewable hydrogen. Thanks to a $250 million loan guarantee (turned grant) from the Obama administration to A123, thousands of Americans have high paying tech jobs making the battery of the future. I see your point.

It is very easy to pick the ones you don't like and ignore the hundreds of other examples where government grants and funds helped push research and innovation forward.

It is the best part about blinders.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[brenthutch 383]

GTAVercetti

*********No, it is exactly the same thing. We did not switch from coal to natural gas because we ran out of coal, we switched because natural gas is more economical. The same thing, THE EXACT SAME THING, will happen with petroleum. As nascent technologies mature they will become more competitive, just have the courage to let it happen.

With government aid. Nearly every energy innovation has had subsidy and government aid help.

Yeah, like the 1.2 billion dollars of help, GWB invested to develop the new hydrogen economy. Without this help, we would not be powering our houses and cars with clean renewable hydrogen. Thanks to a $250 million loan guarantee (turned grant) from the Obama administration to A123, thousands of Americans have high paying tech jobs making the battery of the future. I see your point.

It is very easy to pick the ones you don't like and ignore the hundreds of other examples where government grants and funds helped push research and innovation forward.

It is the best part about blinders.

You must mean the billions of government dollars spent to help develop fracking technology? Oh wait, no the millions, uh no the thousands, mmmm no, the zero dollars?!?! How can that be? A game changing energy development that has made the US the number one petroleum producer in the world and has unlocked a centuries worth of natural gas all without a dime of government investment?!?!

[jakee 1,254]

Way to counter an accusation of cherry picking by, uh, picking one example. Again.

Kinda slow on the uptake, ain't ya?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[quade 3]

brenthutch

You must mean the billions of government dollars spent to help develop fracking technology? Oh wait, no the millions, uh no the thousands, mmmm no, the zero dollars?!?! How can that be? A game changing energy development that has made the US the number one petroleum producer in the world and has unlocked a centuries worth of natural gas all without a dime of government investment?!?!

Emphasis mine.

Come again?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/oil-subsidies-energy-timeline

So what you're saying is, when the government gives BILLIONS of dollars to an industry, it all stays in one particular pocket and is never used for anything like, I dunno, developing fracking technology.

That's like saying nobody on food stamps has ever bought a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 383]

jakee

Way to counter an accusation of cherry picking by, uh, picking one example. Again.

Kinda slow on the uptake, ain't ya?

It is not one example, it is THE example. The impact of the tens of billions squandered on geo-thermal, solar, wind, bio-fuels, cold fusion and hydrogen COMBINED! are less than one percent of the impact of private sector R&D funded by the private sector. As I often remind BillV; don't hate me, hate math.

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

quade

***You must mean the billions of government dollars spent to help develop fracking technology? Oh wait, no the millions, uh no the thousands, mmmm no, the zero dollars?!?! How can that be? A game changing energy development that has made the US the number one petroleum producer in the world and has unlocked a centuries worth of natural gas all without a dime of government investment?!?!

Emphasis mine.

Come again?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/oil-subsidies-energy-timeline

So what you're saying is, when the government gives BILLIONS of dollars to an industry, it all stays in one particular pocket and is never used for anything like, I dunno, developing fracking technology.

That's like saying nobody on food stamps has ever bought a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20.

Big Oil pays billions of dollars more than in to the system than it gets in benefits. To use your MD20/20 referance, it would be akin to someone who was making $500k a year and paying taxes on that income getting an ETB card. Net net, they are more makers than takers.

• Quote

[brenthutch 383]

Just to be clear, I do believe government has a role to play, in infrastructure and basic research. However I don't belive a bureaucrat should decide what I drive, what kind of light bulbs I should use and what I feed my family.

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

Just to be clear, I do believe government has a role to play, in infrastructure and basic research. However I don't belive a bureaucrat should decide what I drive, what kind of light bulbs I should use and what I feed my family.

You may want them to have a smaller role but they don't. Never have, never will. You have no basis of real data to give as example to your ideal society because it has never existed. Kinda like pure communism.

You can look at the EIA site for a breakdown on subsidies. They all get it. Of course, I don't think that includes cheap land, greased-palms, and other nice "government" help.

Here is a question: Do you want to get rid of all regulations for cars, energy, and food?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[brenthutch 383]

GTAVercetti

***Just to be clear, I do believe government has a role to play, in infrastructure and basic research. However I don't belive a bureaucrat should decide what I drive, what kind of light bulbs I should use and what I feed my family.

You may want them to have a smaller role but they don't. Never have, never will. You have no basis of real data to give as example to your ideal society because it has never existed. Kinda like pure communism.

You can look at the EIA site for a breakdown on subsidies. They all get it. Of course, I don't think that includes cheap land, greased-palms, and other nice "government" help.

Here is a question: Do you want to get rid of all regulations for cars, energy, and food?

No. Next question.

[Bolas 5]

wolfriverjoe

*********>No, let the free market work.

Agreed! Stop government subsidies and supports for all forms of energy. Set a standard for emissions and then hold everyone to the same standard. Then let the market decide.

Sort of. By setting an emissions standard you're not letting the market decide, depending on how that standard was enforced.

Unfortunately, the market has a poor record of deciding what's good for the health of humanity.

And pollution has costs. Making the "high pollution" energy sources pay those costs is only fair. Letting low pollution sources not have to pay those costs is also fair.

Edit to add:

Allowing the high pollution sources to skate on their messes and making the taxpayers clean them up is a subsidy. Not a direct one, but a subsidy nonetheless.

Stated that way if applied to all equally makes sense that the company making or harnessing the energy is also responsible for it's by-products/impacts.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.