Slashdot Mirror
UN Backs Fossil Fuel Divestment Campaign
mdsolar sends this report from The Guardian:
The UN organization in charge of global climate change negotiations is backing the fast-growing campaign persuading investors to sell off their fossil fuel assets. It said it was lending its "moral authority" to the divestment campaign because it shared the ambition to get a strong deal to tackle global warming at a crunch UN summit in Paris in December.
The move is likely to be controversial as the economies of many nations at the negotiating table heavily rely on coal, oil and gas. In 2013, coal-reliant Poland hosted the UNFCCC summit and was castigated for arranging a global coal industry summit alongside. Now, the World Coal Association has criticized the UNFCCC's decision to back divestment, saying it threatened investment in cleaner coal technologies.
The move is likely to be controversial as the economies of many nations at the negotiating table heavily rely on coal, oil and gas. In 2013, coal-reliant Poland hosted the UNFCCC summit and was castigated for arranging a global coal industry summit alongside. Now, the World Coal Association has criticized the UNFCCC's decision to back divestment, saying it threatened investment in cleaner coal technologies.
Now there's a textbook oxymoron.
Heheh, that's funny. To them anything less than a billion parts per billion is 'clean'.
No other reason makes sense.
> persuading investors to sell off their fossil fuel assets.
For every sale, there is a buy. The net assets remain the same, just some lucky guy(s) will get to buy them at a discounted price.
If they want to reduce fossil fuels, then they should be developing alternatives.
All thank for your undermarket sale going to the bottom of the market. Sucka. Remember Soylent Green.
How do you sell of an investment if not to another investor?
one, the US.
The Fucktarded USians want to keep using all three: Coal, natural gas, and oil. They don't want to give up their dirty methods because, as a whole, the US firmly stands against not only Global Climate Change but they are against all science as well because an overwhelming majority of USians are fucktarded religionists. Since the Fucktarded USians are against change the nations should turn from the USian dollar to the Euro for further trading then *poof* no more US and then the UN can concentrate on combating AGW.
Sincerely,
Signed : The Rest of the World
TO show their true anger of fossil the UN should sell them at $1 a share. Anything more is just greed. And I will be there gladly buying them up.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
Is this Slashdot, or 'Climatechangedot'? Your bias is becoming sickening.
There is no such thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming', which is why the scammers behind that LIE renamed it 'climate change', which means nothing of the sort, but is MEANT to be taken as meaning "catastrophic man-made global warming'. If that's what they mean, why don't they SAY so?
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
I am for moving away from fossil fuels, but how would this divestment even work? First off how would 'selling off' the assets do anything? Someone else is buying them so there is no net difference. Unless you literally buy the company, break it into pieces, throw some in the trash and sell the rest it will do nothing more than pass the puck. That method would likely incur billions in losses so is unlikely.
discouraging new investment would help some, but the demand is so high for low cost power its likely to have little impact as money talks and BS walks.
perhaps the sanest method would be to research and subsidize cleaner sources of power. Getting the world to agree, like the USA and China, that coal is worth leaving in the ground is simply not plausible.
You are not even close to correct with regards to energy payback for photovoltaics. They recover their energy inputs in 1-4 years
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_energy_gain
Who's buying?
IIRC solar panels have been capable of producing more energy over their lifetime than it takes to produce for a couple of years now
Of course they still don't work at night...
You seem to have made a mistake about solar energy payback times, which are about a year. http://cleantechnica.com/2013/...
They should mandate that all UN organizations stop all live meetings and switch to video conferencing only. The amount of jet fuel currently burned from these meetings and conferences would be immense. If not, then they're a bunch of hypocritical SOBs.
10 myths about fossil fuel divestment are put to the sword here: http://www.theguardian.com/env... Yours is #5. "To sell a stock you have to have a buyer. But the amounts being divested are too small to flood the market and cut share prices, so they won’t be going cheap. Also, the buyers of the stock are taking on the risk that the fossil fuel stocks may tank in the future, if the world’s nations fulfil their pledge to keep global warming below 2C by sharply cutting carbon emissions. If these stocks are risky, then the public and value-based institutions primarily targeted by the divestment movement should not be holding them. The argument that owning a stock gives you influence over a company leads us neatly into the next divestment myth."
No.
And the UN is a costly joke.
Yeah, a couple, like since the 1970's. This old canard is just PURE FUD, it was never true, never even half true, etc.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
"There have been a handful of successful divestment campaigns in recent history, including those targeting violence in Darfur, tobacco advertising, and others, but the largest and most impactful one came to a head around the issue of South African Apartheid. By the mid-1980s, 155 campuses – including some of the most famous in the country – had divested from companies doing business in South Africa. 26 state governments, 22 counties, and 90 cities, including some of the nation’s biggest, took their money from multinationals that did business in the country. The South African divestment campaign helped break the back of the Apartheid government and usher in an era of democracy and equality." http://gofossilfree.org/what-i...
Wow.. If using fucktarded repeatedly didn't show how fucking stupid you are, using USian as if it was an actual word most certainly does.
Here is a hint, the accepted term- even internationally is American. It is because the country is the United States of America and is the only country in north or south America that ends it's country name with America. Other countries have America in their official names, but they do not end it with America in neither their official language or the English version of the name so no other country has claim to the usage.
But it is not just the US who doesn't do anything about AGW concerning coal, natural gas, or oil (which it actually is, per capita GHG emissions in the US was 19.1 metric tons and in 2010, it was 17.6 which is a greater per capita drop than Canada, Japan, China, Italy, Australia, and only 2 tenths of a metric ton less than France). China, India (who both have surpassed the US in raw emissions), almost all third world countries, simply do not give a shit as much as you think they should either. In fact, Most of Europe who put arbitrary limitations on themselves ended up moving production over seas (off shoring) to eliminate accounting of carbon more than eliminating the carbon emissions itself. And Germany, they plateaued and seem to be increasing their emissions now, but they had the added benefit of combining two separate systems (East and West Germany) and doing away with redundant pollution sources with news more efficient sources which explains most of their reductions.
Here is another hint. Perhaps you wouldn't be afraid to post real posts and even use a real moniker if you actually paid attention and knew what was going on rather than jerk your knee so hard that you hit yourself in the head and can only speak from emotion.
Now fossil fuel stocks will be cheaper, but their profits, and thus dividends, will remain the same. That is why the Republicans are pushing for this.
They aren't scientific,they're PR bullshit sites.
The reality is that the smart money is now with those who divest in fossil fuels first and put their earnings in alternative energy stocks will be the big winners and those who are left holding fossil fuel stocks until they finally collapse the big losers, which rather than a complete collapse will be like a leaky tire, loosing its value steadily over time, while production costs continue to climb. State investment funds, universities, and trusts in progressive states are already lightening up on fossil fuels, so their shareholders will come out ahead. When things are going south, as they now are for the fossil fuels industry, its always best to be out the door before the other guy figures out what is happening. By the time the negative outflows reach about 5% it will probably be too late for most to divest.
With the price of crude set to fall, some like CITI Bank say into the $30/barrel range, as current inventories increase to maximum capacity in about 3-6 months forcing excess supply onto the open market, alternative energy stocks will also take a hit, but unlike fossil fuel stocks, it will be an excellent opportunity to buy them as they will increase at a relatively more rapid pace than fossil fuels will recover, if they ever recover. At the current rate of increases in efficiency in production and operation of solar and wind, look for 2017-2019 to be the time when it solar and wind to be be cheaper than fossil fuels, no matter how much crude is on the market.
Get out of fossil fuel stocks while you still have a profit and leave others holding the bag.
Meanwhile i'll fuel my gas guzzler car with gasoline at 50 cents a gallon.
This is a win-win for driving down the EUR to USD and by adding to the global over supply in crude to drive down the price per barrel of oil.
The EU will be dumping their holding at a LOSS. Yeah!
EU will be de-valuing their cash reserves that increases their LOSSES. Yeah!
A Double Trouble Win.
In 12 months the EU could be asking Greece for a LOAN! Hardee Har Har.
Markel could be asking Iceland for a loan to make Germany financially solvent ! WOW!
Bundestag Bundestag, round the bowl, down the hole
Bundestag Bundestag, round the bowl, down the hole.
IT'S MARCH MADNESS!
GO BLUE DEVILS GO!
Ha ha.
One hundred percent of energy generated from solar or wind power has to be backed by a 24/7 reliable energy source, in case the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. Usually, this is natural gas, which is more expensive than coal and easier to monopolize. It's not possible to completely disinvest from fossil fuels when they would still be required to back up renewable energy generation even if 100% of energy was generated from wind and solar.
Unless of course nuclear power and hydroelectricity are used for this purpose. As environmentalists also seem to oppose these, it looks like we're stuck with fossil fuels
Might want to pay your bills first.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
They could save a lot more money by going home and phoning it in which is basically what it appears they do anyways. I mean they sat on their hands watching genocide, they largely didn't raise an eyebrow when Russia invaded the Ukraine. Sure, they have the charters and declarations and public statements like that sound grand, but even in their most recent peace keeping mission, they picked up and left when bullets started flying their way. I guess keeping the peace was not the real objective? And don't get me started on the peace keepers raping and pillaging
Yeah, it doesn't seem like there is much they do well that cannot be done over the phone or in a video conference with modern technology.
Carter blocked building any breeder reactors in America, not uranium fed nuclear reactors
Public opinion, constant lawsuits and rabid opposition from environmental groups has prevented the rapid use of nuclear power in America
The growth of the Green Party in Europe has had a similar effect there
In particular, Greenpeace has become the single biggest proponent of fossil fuels through their complete refusal to recognize the merits of nuclear power
They even tossed out one of their founders when he pointed out that nuclear power would represent a net positive by reducing the use of fossil fuels
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you just pointing out that Carter is not the bogey-man that you made him out to be. His opposition to the spread of breeder reactors was intended to reduce the possibility of non-nuclear countries getting plutonium
Wherever You Go, There You Are
There is every reason to consider the cost of the power inputs that are required to produce green energy.
Overly optimistic calculations made ethanol from corn look like a great thing because they did not consider the energy that is spent creating the farm equipment, sowing and harvesting the corn etc
Anybody coming to the table with a 'new' power source that seems to ignore these costs should be sent packing to do their homework
Wherever You Go, There You Are
So to be fair in comparing fossil fuel you are including all of the drilling/processing/refinery equipment cost and shipping costs? All of those are included in your assessment of the cost of fossil fuels, right?
Whenever an economic or scientific question becomes politicized, a pandora's box of unintended consequences is just waiting to jump out. The only saving grace to the UN pushing for divesting fossil fuel investments is that they are completely incompetent, and even more lacking in 'teeth'.
I'm not a huge fan of coal, but you know what I like even less? Squeezing poor countries (and by extension, poor people) -- the developed world can afford to pay more per KW/h, as well as put money into the R&D for alternatives; but assuming that a poorer country should waste capital on this green-washed lunacy, is akin to kicking the ladder out from underneath the developing world.
My assessment comes from what I pay at the pump, or from my local utility company
If it does not include their costs, then they will go out of business, there are some caveats below:
In the case of fossil fuels, they have been giving a free pass on recognizing the costs of their pollution by the politicians (usually on the right) that they provide donations to. If fossil fuels (coal in particular) had to limit their release of pollutants (including CO2) to a similar level that nuclear power has to demonstrate, they would no longer be the least expensive source of power and would quickly lose their position as the main source of power for the US
If solar attains a rapid acceptance and development while it is heavily subsidized, then it will eventually have to demonstrate its merits to business on a cost basis. This is something that nuclear power has demonstrated, even when faced with extra costs of lawsuits that are placed on them by the environmental and nimby movements
Do I believe that solar can become cost competitive, sure... eventually. My money is on nuclear for the next hundred years, assume we do not decide to choke ourselves out by sticking to fossil fuels
Wherever You Go, There You Are
>. The reality is that the smart money is now with those who divest in fossil fuels first and put their earnings in alternative energy stocks will be the big winners
To be a bit more specific, the journal Nature has called Nanosolar "the poster child for Silicon Valley's interest in solar power". That sounds like an interesting stock. You might want to consider putting some of your money in that company.
Six years after Nature started pumping Nanosolar, in 2012 they announced they planned to actually start making solar panels pretty soon. I understand their stock is _real_ cheap right now.
Also, I heard Obama is backing two other promising companies, Fisker and Solyndra. He says they'll do great, so you might scoop up some of their stock.
It's "American" because that's what Americans use. No-one else on the planet thinks it makes any sense, but we're stuck with it.
We don't need "cleaner coal technologies." We need coal to be GONE. The same goes for pretty much *all* carbon-intensive fossil-fuel industries.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The UN? Is it the same UN who elected Gaddafi's Libya to chair the Human Rights Commission, elected Iran on the Women's Rights Commission, repeatedly praises Cuba as a "victim" and appointed as Exec Secretary of the UNFCCC none other than Christiana Figueres, who is (in)famous for publicly admiring the way how China's totalitarian government can impose decisions on society without having to worry about those pesky checks, balances, freedom and other democratic inconveniences; among other great achievements? That's some moral authority!
Isn't somebody else buying them?
All of the fossil fuels run on science. There is geology and chemistry and pollution control and how to make oil flow in a pipeline. If you school won't invest in fossil fuels, there is a chance you won't consider working for them either. The engineering and science may not get done as quickly and the industry may slow as a result of moral objections.
whale oil and baby seals. Flights are powered by biofuels derived from depolymerized carcasses of endangered animals.
Wow.. If using fucktarded repeatedly didn't show how fucking stupid you are, using USian as if it was an actual word most certainly does.
Here is a hint, the accepted term- even internationally is American. It is because the country is the United States of America and is the only country in north or south America that ends it's country name with America. Other countries have America in their official names, but they do not end it with America in neither their official language or the English version of the name so no other country has claim to the usage.
Would you prefer 'Yank'?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
", just some lucky guy(s) will get to buy them at a discounted price."
This, of course, assumes that fossil fuels stocks will continue to rise even as competition from alternative sources intensified, and as costs of production increase.
The problem for this scenario is that it is becoming less and less likely that this will happen, so if one gets out of old energy and into new energy, one's rate of return will be far greater over time, particular as the planetary global mean temperature moves from +2 deg C, at which we are nearly at to +4 deg C over the next 100-150 years. Coal is already declining as a percentage of the total energy mix, oil will be soon to follow. That light at the end of the tunnel the coal investor may see will be that of an oncoming electric train. Better to get out now and let the suckers hold the bag.
One has to keep in mind that rate of planetary warming is accelerating with increased CO2 accumulation and the rate is exponential (its already now 36 times faster than the warming that occurred during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, that brought palm trees to Northern Wyoming). Folks in place like Phoenix will soon (next 10-25 years) start to see more than 50 days out of the year with temperatures over 110 F. In 50 years time that will jump to 100 days out of the year.
The same driving forces also will soon profoundly affect the availability of another highly sought resource, freshwater.
Wikipedia cite FAIL.
If you did this in a paper, you'd fail the class.
If you wrote that in an English class you'd fail it.
Wikipedia articles have this little section called "References".
"net assets remain the same,"
The assets remain the same, but their value does not. In a way, as the value changes, so does how people regard the assets.
It all really comes down to a question of values. Those who think something is valuable will want more, particularly if they perceive that its value will rise in the future. The reverse is also true and those who think leaving the fossil fuels in the ground so humans have a planet that still supports human life will also value fossil fuels, but in an entirely different way.
That is one of the reasons a divestment strategy in fossil fuels is a good idea. It reduces the profits for those who think they earn an easy profit by producing and burning it and that money can instead, as you suggest, be invested in developing human friendlier alternatives.
Whatever word you want to use. We have people here in the USA who namecall that way. They use terms like 'Commie' to refer to those foreign people they don't like. Welcome to the same league, dude.
Yes, but the cost of pollution is practically free to those who produce it. Just look at New Jersey. It just takes a little persuading of those with potential campaign contributions to launder.
Of course, as all these firms divest themselves of the oil industry and demand drops, the price for oil will drop as well, making it even more attractive to those needing to save a buck.
-Styopa
I think now that we may be on the verge of major breakthroughs in battery technology, we could soon see the beginning of the end of using gasoline and diesel fuel for motor vehicles anyway.
Around 2010, Volkswagen Chairman Martin Winterkorn predicted that by 2020, a vehicle about the size of today's VW Golf model--with similar carrying capacity in terms of passengers and cargo--could travel 800 km (497 miles) on a single full charge of the car's electric battery pack. Thanks to new forms of lithium-ion batteries that use dry electrodes and graphene sheets and carbon nanotube supercapacitors, such a goal may not be such a far-fetched idea; if Winterkorn's prediction proves true, that will truly start the transition from away from using internal combustion engines fueled by gasoline or diesel fuel for personal vehicles.
However, gasoline and diesel fuel will be around longer until the change I mention above is complete, thanks to new industrial catalysts ("cat crackers") that can convert natural gas into very clean-burning forms of gasoline and diesel fuel--and it will be cheap to make, too. This will provide a "bridge" of fuel technology until long-range electric cars I described earlier become common.
Wikipedia cite FAIL. If you did this in a paper, you'd fail the class.
This isn't academia. This is Slashdot. Wikipedia is an acceptable citation here. If you think there is inaccurate information on the cited page, then point it out. But whining about other people's citations, while presenting none of your own, is childish.
Whatever word you want to use. We have people here in the USA who namecall that way. They use terms like 'Commie' to refer to those foreign people they don't like. Welcome to the same league, dude.
Funnily enough, the original 'USAian' is a term I use myself when wanting to distinguish between eg people from Canada and people from the USA (and I'm not the AC who used it above).
It just feels wrong to refer to 'people from the usa' as 'Americans' when there are Canadians present. It would be like referring to Germans as 'Europeans' in the same context as referring to French people as 'French'.
I don't think its got anything to do with the name of the country ending in 'America'; 'America' is the continent not the country (until they annex Canada and Mexico).
Referring to them as 'Americans' degrades the American-ness of the entire rest of the continent.
As it is, people from the USA are mostly outside my monkeysphere anyway, its like they are all just instances of the same domesticated primate.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
"Climate change" is a red herring. I'm not even saying it's not a real problem, I AM saying it isn't the problem which should be front and center for anyone with half a brain right now. A couple hints: (1) The US is warring all over the world right now and most of the wars are clearly for control of oil resources. Notably, under pretext of fighting a war on Islamic 'terrorists' (almost all coming from countries where we are or were at war .... for reasons related to oil) the US is clearly ACTING as though it is preparing to war against its own citizens. (2) The fiat system of debt money would be flagged as a huge Ponzi scheme if it weren't for the fact that the governments of the world are the instigators and perpetrators of the continued Ponzi.
On the other hand we have this "climate change" thingie which the government and media is working overtime to give us the shivers. Working, working, propagandizing, propagandizing. Notably ALL the "solutions" for "climate change" being bandied about have, as step one, that the same governments which are warring around the world for oil and, domestically be given MORE money and MORE rights and MORE power.
So, as I said, climate change may be real and it may be a problem, but you've got to be short a few brain cells not to notice that the government clearly has its sights on things it regards as much much bigger problems. Notice that the human population has exploded from about 1.5 billion to over 7 billion and climbing in about 100 years on the back of peak oil. Notice that the debt and centralized government has grown even faster than the human population in approximately the same span of time. Connect the dots. When the fiat Ponzi system ends, which it will, as trees don't grow to the sky. Or as the global oil supply really starts to get notably tight, CO2 will be self correcting. It may take us through some bumps and troubles, but climate change is clearly no better than #3 (and arguably not even that) in terms of imminent real civilization threatening concerns.
Just sayin'
Here's a question. You put up a solar array or wind farm and after the investment pays off, you've got a magical infinite free money-making machine. You burn coal, oil, or gas and you have to spend billions on drilling like 10 freakin miles under ground and keep moving the rig then ship it and refine it. WHY THE HELL IS ANYONE STILL INVESTING IN FOSSIL FUELS?! It's the stupidest investment in the world. It's not like OPEC companies don't have the money to invest in green technologies.
Canadians generally refer to people from the US as American. So don't worry about it so much.
One has to keep in mind that rate of planetary warming is accelerating with increased CO2 accumulation and the rate is exponential
While I agree that the earth is warming, the curve is not "exponential". It's fairly linear right now. Ultimately, temperature goes up with log(CO2), so a constant increase in temperature (estimated to be about +3 deg C) for every doubling of CO2.
Just like your insistence on "I could care less" or hacker instead of cracker or theft instead of copyright infringement, we use USian, and you know we mean people from the USA. Indeed it's in the bloody term!
So you don't like USian? Why the hell should I care? Language is what we use and if you don't like it, you are free not to use the term, but in no way does this allow you to control the words of others, you stalinist pig.
This, of course, assumes that fossil fuels stocks will continue to rise even as competition from alternative sources intensified, and as costs of production increase.
Yes, and you also assume that there is something actually called a "fossil fuel stock", which there isn't.
Exxon, BP, Shell, etc. have for years been investing in things other than oil, this isn't new for them.
50 years from now, it is quite possible BP really will stand for "beyond petroleum", which is what they already say in their marketing materials, even if it isn't quite true yet.
The value of BP stock may will be 20 times what it is today, even if all oil use stopped in 50 years. BP is a company, not a "fossil fuel stock".
This is something that nuclear power has demonstrated, even when faced with extra costs of lawsuits that are placed on them by the environmental and nimby movements
The 2005 Energy act specifically put measures in place that prevents ordinary people from intefering with the placement of a nuclear reactor. It is impossible for a normal person, or a local community, under the law, to prevent the placement of a nuclear reactor in their community.
Nuclear power has too many establishment, operational and ongoing costs to be an attractive investment anymore. The existence of the Price-Anderson act shows investors that Nuclear power is an investment oxymoron. If it waa safe and profitable, then there would be no need for the P-A act.
Do I believe that solar can become cost competitive, sure... eventually. My money is on nuclear for the next hundred years, assume we do not decide to choke ourselves out by sticking to fossil fuels
I think it should be the other way around. We haven't invested enough in solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power sources yet and we should develop them to derive maximum energy yeild from them.
Nuclear was scaled to quickly in the first place - jumping from 100Mw to 1Gw too quickly to understand the proper safety systems required and coming to terms with the surrounding factors that were not well understood when the plants were first conceptualized. Simply put like coal, nuclear power has consequences that weren't well understood.
I think there is a place for Nuclear power, just not in our generation. If you really support nuclear power and want to see it done properly stepping back now and building the foundational infrastructure whilst developing reactor technology means designing and building for 100 years to support a proper nuclear infrastructure that can last 1000-5000 years.
It is an ambitious long term goal that would change the very nature of the world economy to achieve that could guarantee the future of humanity instead of condeming it to reduced birth rates and transgenic disease the way the shortsighted vision the current nuclear industry does. People talk about Nuclear power, but if you engage in the cognitive effort of what is *really* required to make it work you find it is nothing like the nuclear industry we have now.
All of the current accidents show that humans are not mature enough to have the long terms vision required to deal with nuclear power right now.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Cracking converts higher molecular weight hydrocarbons to lower molecular weight hydrocarbons, Upgrading is the term for the other direction. Maybe this is what you are thinking of? http://www.technologyreview.co...
it's all a 'feel good' marketing gimmick only. not a sound investment strategy. stupid as fuck to get rid of these shares
It's a sucker game, that is all it is
My suspicions is that this current push of 'divestment from fossil fuel' is being headed by neo-liberals who think that they are very wise
Unfortunately they themselves have been on-upped by even wiser folks who are profiting from it
It only feels funny to you because you're a pedantic idiot. Canadians refer to Americans as Americans. I've never heard anyone have an issue with this except assholes on Slashdot.
Military Intelligence, Virgin Birth...
The truth can be determined with FIVE MINUTES of looking, and invariably the people who are trotting out this "solar panels use more energy than you get" BULLSHIT aren't interested in facts. Its an outright lie that someone has perpetrated on the public and the people who continue to circulate it are either VERY ignorant, like they haven't read Wikipedia, or they're actively dishonest. There's no legitimate skepticism involved at this point. If someone had brought this up 20 years ago we'd have all scratched our heads and thought "well, that's a good question, sounds wrong, but we'll get back to you." Today, in 2015? Its just a scurrilous lie.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
I'm not sure why you would need to distinguish like that. Canadians are not american, they are north american just like the mexicans even though there is the artificial central america designation for the area. Or do south americans somehow fail to qualify for your quirk in reasoning? America is not the continent, its North America. There is also a South America, and an invented Central America if you want to jump from continental designation to a useful geographic distinction.
What you essentially are doing is trying say that heard looks like a flock so you will create a term like dogian to distinguish a pack of dogs. The problem is, theee are already valid names and terms that achieve the goal and it is pure ignorance when other terms are invented and substituted.
http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Leve...
Clearly the LCOE for SPV and ST (even with storage) is NOW competitive with nuclear power. Its probably not yet competitive with NG, but again NG is getting a free pass on CO2 and other issues. Given that recent research suggests that the actual social cost of carbon may be as high as $1000/ton we're pretty sure at this point that SPV is a huge good deal. Why do you think it is growing by leaps and bounds?
Yes, of course subsidies help, but they don't even cancel out 10% of the subsidy that coal/gas/oil get. Just the EXPLICIT subsidies on fossil fuel use are on a par with ALL the subsidies for renewables, so it isn't even clear to me that in terms of incentive we wouldn't be best off just getting rid of everyone's subsidy, not even counting carbon costs.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
We use natural gas in home heating and in ethanol production and in generating electricity, And, with CAFE standards increasing and oil production rising, we are within spitting distance of energy independence. It is hard to see how we could use anything close to half our natural gas production to produce gasoline when it supplies so much in other areas and there is such a small way to go to eliminate oil imports. But, the ability to do gas-to-liquid easily makes an even stronger case for restricting exports of natural gas just as we do with oil and recognizing natural gas as a strategic resource.
As a strategic resource, we should build enough LNG export capacity in the US and enough import capacity in NATO to displace Russian gas supplies, and then let that sit idle. This would be similar to Israel having dibs on our strategic petroleum reserve. Russia would treat our allies much better as natural gas customers if we could take away their market at any time they put the squeeze on.
It is hard to find a prediction that coal use will increase for the next 30 years. Predictions that it will soon peak are common. http://e360.yale.edu/feature/p...
n/t
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
I'm not sure why you would need to distinguish like that. Canadians are not american, they are north american just like the mexicans even though there is the artificial central america designation for the area. Or do south americans somehow fail to qualify for your quirk in reasoning? America is not the continent, its North America. There is also a South America, and an invented Central America if you want to jump from continental designation to a useful geographic distinction.
What you essentially are doing is trying say that heard looks like a flock so you will create a term like dogian to distinguish a pack of dogs. The problem is, theee are already valid names and terms that achieve the goal and it is pure ignorance when other terms are invented and substituted.
Canadians and people from the USA are in a matching category to French and people from Germany.
To refer to people from Germany as 'Europeans' while, in the same context, referring to people from France as 'French' makes no sense.
And actually, thinking about it, someone from Chile is also an American just as much as someone from Monaco is European.
Someone from Canada is Canadian. Someone from the USA is USAian. Get used to it, it'll become common usage soon enough.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
You bring up this European and french thing like it means something. It does not. America is not a continent. The Americas aee two separate continent denoted by the words North and South. Further, there are geographoc distinctions like central america. If you are attemting to address an entire continant or region, you need to use the names corisponding like north american or south american.
Its not the rest of the world's problem if you local language is so backwards or restricted to make that aware. You are conversing in English and failing to use defined english terms in doing so. It is your problem not mine. You government does not have your problem, nowhere else in the world has your problem. Its just people like you who want to look ignorant on purpose who have the problem. It is no different than the difference between tom or jerry, it is a given name and defined before you ever got confused and decided to stand behind your ignorance is such a proud and public fashion.
I'm from the US, fairly well traveled, and unlike you I do not live in my mother's basement. I lived in Europe for awhile (Turkey, Germany, UK).. they call us Americans.. I've screwed a couple of women from Chile and Argentina down in South America.. they call us Americans.
The only, and I mean ONLY fucking place I've heard the idiotic term USian is here, so fuck your 'it'll be common usage soon enough' remark. You're just another term of SJW... (oh no mommy, it's the big bad cultural imperialists!)
When people want to refer to Canadians, they just say "Canadians", there's really no confusion. If they want to refer to people of the whole north continent (both US and Canada), they can say "North Americans".. there are also Central Americans and South Americans, but the continents are collectively referred to as "The Americas".. there is no *single continent* called simply, "America"; it's understood by everyone but pendants that "America" means the USA.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
I'm from the US, fairly well traveled, and unlike you I do not live in my mother's basement. I lived in Europe for awhile (Turkey, Germany, UK).. they call us Americans.. I've screwed a couple of women from Chile and Argentina down in South America.. they call us Americans.
The only, and I mean ONLY fucking place I've heard the idiotic term USian is here, so fuck your 'it'll be common usage soon enough' remark. You're just another term of SJW... (oh no mommy, it's the big bad cultural imperialists!)
FYI I've lived in 5 different countries on 4 different continents, first second and third world countries among them, and am about as far from my parents basement as its possible to get.
I'm hoping that 'Americans' will stop being used for people from the USA. Its just a dream I have. USAian is great suck it up, it'll become a meme real soon now.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
... i think you should call canadians, mexicans, brazilians, paraguayans peruvians argentinians... all Americans, and see if any of them agree with that name.
no? no? literally nobody else in the world would know what you're talking about if you were to refer to just anybody from the americas as "americans"
Regardless, you're basically arguing over the common usage of a colloquialism.
I am not an "American" officially, i'm a "Natural-born citizen of the United States of America."