It's called a 'republic', trust me you wouldn't like the alternative democracy (what the majority says, goes) because if I wanted to I could probably convince a majority of the people that we need to shoot you in the head just because you are ugly, and it would be entertaining for the rest of us.
Ah nice, threats of violence. always the hallmark of the high minded and righteous. Republic vs democracy, fine get word smarmy if you like. You know what I meant which is representative governance. The majority does rule, but within certain limits everybody agrees too.
I do NOT agree that some government restrictions on free trade are necessary. 'Child labor', as you call it is not inherently evil. What if a family is poor and they need extra money? Is it evil for a farmer's children to work in the field?
And here the discussion ends. If child labor is ok by you, I don't need to do anything else to shoot your creditability to hell.
We just know that when some truly great technology comes around, it is usually because of some inventor in his basement
And that basement will never be able to compete against entrenched established industry. If anything, they just buy out the inventor and put the 'invention' on a shelf. See the auto industry for legion examples like seat belts that were *forced* on them by the government. The market certainly wasn't clamoring for them.
as if they should be ashamed for trying to make a buck
the ones that *don't* sell out usually are trying to help the people. The ones that do it only for the money, you never hear much about because they are bought off.
The fist one to finds something that, to the end consumer costs 50% less to go a mile, will win
You mean like the first *private* industry that discovered nuclear energy production? oh yeah that was the federal government.
We know exactly what is in hydrofracking fluid. And, before any drilling company moved into our area, we were informed that it would be best if we had our water tested by a 3rd party (our choice). They do this not because they think something will happen, but because people's water supplies already have contaminants, and they don't want them coming with a pack of lawyers later on to blame them.
Do you see your straw man argument here? If we *knew* what was in the fluid we wouldn't be able to claim that something wasn't in the fluid is now contaminating my water. The legal argument is fair and probably a standard issue, but it also admits they know that fracking is capable of causing just such types of contamination. this seems to indicate fluid contents are *not* known. Haliburton fights disclosing it's fracking fluid contents
we've vilified nuclear energy as Chernobyl waiting to happen when it is in reality a very clean alternative to coal (save for waste disposal, which presents other issues but doesn't have to be a problem if stored properly - we will eventually find a way for conversion to something safer).
You are one of the rare few nuclear proponents that acknowledge the waste issue. Nuclear is as clean CO2 wise as coal is nuclear radiation wise. Each has outputs that have to be dealt with and that has a cost.
You claim that conservatives have only been *painted* in a bad light on environmental issues and renewable energy. Except you don't provide a single example showing what they are in favor of except 'letting the markets' and big business decide.
We can't put every business on the chopping block at the first cry of foul play. We should also be careful to differentiate between hype, hysteria, and the facts. And there is a difference between negligence and honest mistakes - these businesses stand to suffer a great deal for any of their mistakes. It just so happens that a lot rides on these types of businesses
That was exactly the PR spin BP used in the Gulf, while claiming that the flow rate was a measly few thousand barrels a day. Except they knew it was above 50 thousand barrels an hour. Or the faulty blowout preventor they *knew* had problems. Or replacing the drilling mud with water against the engineers advice. Or their 'cleanup' plan to protect the WALRUSES in the Gulf. How many 'honest' mistakes before we decide the industry isn't exactly working in our best interests? BP is a great example. HUNDREDS of violations compared with 10s of violations for the other major companies combined in just a few years.
Established industries are always 'cheap' compared to emerging technologies because of scale. No one is disputing that. The problem is when that established industry is doing things that either cause harm right now, or will likely cause harm in the future. How you do account for that cost?
The reason oil, natural gas, coal, etc. are our chief means of energy production at this time is because... They are inexpensive relative to other means.
One reason they are cheap is because of politics. (see Cheney's exempting of natural gas drilling from *any* environmental oversight) That makes it significantly cheaper than if they had to account for their methods. There are massive tax breaks for existing energy companies, 10s of billions of dollars to oil companies making 10s of billions in profit. That's not exactly a level playing field now is it?
Ultimately, the free market WILL win. Period. No exceptions.
Sort like the 'free' market 'won' during 2008 stock market collapse? Unfettered capitalism isn't pretty. It means child and slave labor; you're in favor of child labor? I didn't think so. So you agree that *some* restrictions on a free market are acceptable. Now we're just talking about what is the best way to restrict the market so that we balance risks and gains.
Use your own damn money or convince investors to invest!
Who funded the interstate system or the national power grid? It wasn't private industry, it was good old fashioned government investment. Nuclear doesn't happen without government loan guarantees either.
Don't think that because you have some philosophical belief that you have the right to forcibly take my money
But you can forcibly make me suffer the consequences of rampant environmental destruction?
But let people do it of their own free will!
It's called 'democracy', trust me you won't like the available alternatives.
This *particular* area still needs study but the presence of fracking or other pumping into the ground under pressure AND resulting earthquakes doesn't raise *any* red flags for you? It's been documented in numerous other places that there is a relation between the two events.
No we don't disagree. The point being is that we're not increasing the cost simply to increase the cost. There are real and documented costs that will come to fruition if we *don't* get off of fossil fuels.
Those costs will dwarf any minor increase in energy prices today.
You can continue to pay subsidized (cheap) energy prices today and then in the future pay high prices because the fuel is running out (oil) AND pay through the nose for mass conversion of the energy economy in a short period.
OR
you can pay slightly higher prices now and amortize the cost of these changes over time.
Most people don't buy a house outright. They get a mortgage and spread out the cost over time. This the same thing.
Seriously, there's more energy in solar and wind than all the energy in all the coal and oil that has ever existed.
The part that will blow your mind is that solar energy *created* all that coal and oil. The problem is not the use of fossil fuels but in the volume we use in a short duration. Dumping millions of years of CO2 into the atmosphere in just a couple hundred years is going to have effects and likely not good ones.
Conversely to your statement, if we want to sustain our current energy needs, we *have* to go to renewable sources. The part that environmentalists got wrong a few decades ago was that burning wood was bad. It does require quite a bit of land, but in terms of global warming gases it effectively has zero effect. Particulates might be an issue but filters can handle that piece.
. I don't think you'll find a conservative around who doesn't wish that there were cheap, environmentally friendly sources of high-density portable energy available.
Then why are conservatives so against renewable sources and anything that helps to promote them (including cap and trade)? You don't get Mr. Fusion without trying and FUNDING something *new*.
Most of the argument against conservatives is that they see oil/coal/natural gas/nuclear as the *only* options available. You won't ever get the new technology if you don't spend money *now* to invest. Couple that with the fact that, at least for oil, we simply don't have anywhere near enough to even make a dent in our current needs.
Now take into account that even if we have lots of natural gas, Cheney and company completely exempted those companies from having to disclose what it is they are actually pumping into the ground to push out the gas. We literally have no idea what they are pumping into the ground to break up the rock formations that are near peoples wells. Funny how cracked rock tends to allow stuff to seep through. The videos of flaming faucets are hard to assume as just a freak coincidence.
Conservatives have a long long history of supporting the big established companies and taking those companies word for it when they say its 'safe'. Are Democrats somewhat accountable on these issues? Sure, but one party has clearly been the leader in terms of saying the energy companies know best so just let them do what they want.
If you believe that releasing millions of years worth of CO2 into the atmosphere in just a couple centuries (at ever *increasing* rates) has no cost, it's rather hard to have a reasonable debate. Can you show studies that prove it won't be harmful?
I can even give you examples that have counter proved some of the prevailing climate change wisdom. There is an ice sheet in Antarctica that started moving *very* fast recently. Most people believed that it was caused by global warming. Further study showed it may have been partially or even majorly the result of undersea topography. An earth barrier gave way and so the ice was free to move again. We 'science' people actually study when things seem to prove our theories, to make sure they do prove our theories.
Can you point to examples that go against *your* beliefs? The climate is not constant, nor is it warming everywhere which is why you have instances such as the above and places where ice is accumulating. It is, however, warming in aggregate - and fast.
'Too late' is defined by a sea level rise of 30 FEET. You can't just fix that issue you can only prevent it.
I'm not claiming I know more than anyone. I am claiming that there are a plethora of studies that back up what I'm saying. The climate is warming and we've been adding stuff to the environment that is shown to cause warming; i.e. greenhouse effects. Lights won't be a major player, but they will be a part. There is no single fix we can do, but lots of smaller ones will have beneficial effects.
when the true cost of electricity production through coal/nuclear is reflected in your utility price, only then can you make a fair comparison between incandescents and high efficiency bulbs.
Sometimes you need to think longer term, and the individual or the market isn't going to do that unless expressly directed to do that.
If you wait until there is parity between them it will be too late and you'll pay orders of magnitude more to clean up the resulting problems.
You can claim no one has predicted any problems due to global warming, but there are multitudes of just such predictions. Including things happening right now.
Need I point out that there is no reason to care that incandescents are less efficient than CFLs?
yes because that attitude worked so well for the US auto makers in the 60s. Then came the gas spikes and oopsie they weren't prepared for it and Japaneses came in and cleaned their clocks.
Seriously you're arguing that more efficient is bad?
Here's the thing. Even if we grant that global warming will be a significant and somewhat costly problem in several centuries and that it is primarily human-caused, we still have no justification for electricity reduction measures today. If you can't show timely harm, then the behavior isn't worth regulating.
DDT, ozone, lead. these things we waited until they were *bad* before fixing them. They were simply bits of the climate, not the entire thing. CO2 *is* warming the atmosphere, it's clear, the data is sound and no amount of yammering that this year was colder than last holds water against DECADES of actual observations of warming.
even the US military is planning for massive upheavals due to Global Warming and they are decidedly not a liberal group. It's a shame we won't be able to throw this crap back in your and your ilks face when we do have the changes that are predicted.
The problem is that the likely cost associated with reversing the CO2 problem will be astronomical. Much like people who don't like the national debt don't want to make our kids pay for it. I don't much want my kids to have to deal with the problems that are coming. I'd rather try and fix the issue now thank you very much.
Therefore, the only place you'll usually see any significant number of incandescent bulbs is in the home.
So banning the bulbs will only affect the places that use the bulbs. News at 11.
Residential power is only 21% of U.S. consumption, and lighting is only 12% of that.
Here you have a point. It's also why Daylight Savings needs to be abolished. DST actually *increases* power usage in warmer climates as people run the AC longer during the heat of the afternoon since they are home when it is light out.
If you want to get rid of CO2 emissions, ban or tax the damn CO2 emissions.
Funny how the same people bitching about this gov't 'overreach' into bulbs are also against gov't regulation of CO2 emissions. Very convenient for them.
those of us who already get the vast majority of power from non-polluting sources
I'll wager you are *massively* in the minority of the country. Most of us are heavily dependent on the grid and that is by no means green except in a very few areas around dams.
It's actually harmful to the environment because the added disposal costs far exceed the savings in terms of emissions.
This is an argument against CFLs, but not against other highly efficient bulbs. In other words against this particular implementation but not the idea.
I will grant the patent angle as a plausible reason why this is being pushed. It doesn't discount the point that long term CFLs and LEDs are better for us energy usage wise. (yes I know the mercury issue of CFLs I'm ignoring that for the moment)
If the problem is too many people using incandescent bulbs, yes they do solve the same problem. One method is harsher than the other, that's the only difference. My house has had only CFLs for years and I haven't had any issues with reading under their light. I even bought the cheap CFLs from Home Depot/Lowes. Maybe your eyes are just defective;-)
Also, where was this original claim that they're refuting? I don't see it. As I understood (as of yesterday), the issue WAS that PayPal froze their accounts for non-compliance in this respect
"We recently placed a temporary limitation of the Courage to Resist organization’s PayPal account as they had not complied to our stated policy requiring non profits to associate a bank account with their PayPal account (for the vast majority of non-profits, this is not an issue)."
So PayPal is claiming that this was only because they wouldn't 'link' a bank account with their PayPal account. No explanation of why this only happened after 3 years and coincidentally closely followed CTR sponsoring Manning.
Next you have CTR's spokesman saying that after the account suspension, they did provide the bank info, but that PayPal wanted even more - the permission to withdraw funds directly from the bank account. This is the relevant part that PayPal has not addressed. Did they actually request this? If so, they haven't mentioned it in their blog post. They simply cite the 'link an account', not grant us debit authorization on said account.
No one is going to give a 3rd party processor that type of permission and it is not in PayPals User Agreement. They specifically say they will take you to collections if you owe them money but do not remotely mention they will dock your account directly.
"10.3 Reimbursement for Your Liability. In the event that you are liable for any amounts owed to PayPal, PayPal may immediately remove such amounts from your Balance. If you do not have a Balance that is sufficient to cover your liability, your Account will have a negative Balance and you will be required to immediately add funds to your Balance to eliminate the negative Balance. If you do not do so, PayPal may engage in collection efforts to recover such amounts from you."
So even if you OWE THEM MONEY they aren't saying they can go directly into your bank account and take it. Yet they asked for this very permission of CTR.
The 'market' is patently *lousy* at making long term decisions. It works solely for right now and next year, not 40 or 50 years down the road. This is why if you know what the situation will be in even a few years, you can completely smoke the market.
The CFL decision was to reduce energy usage. That reduction in usage isn't tied to any currently enforced costs. If there aren't costs associated with using old incandescents vs CFLs, no market force is going to pay the higher cost of the CFLs.
You could simply tax the incandescents more to make the CFLs competitive and let the market decide, or you can just ban the incandescents outright. Both solve the same problem. Another avenue would be to just massively increase the cost of electricity which is effectively the same as a tax on bulb purchase but broader.
That problem is related to green house gases and global warming. By reducing power consumption we reduce the output from power plants which are mostly coal fired. There is currently no cost associated with the release of CO2 so no incentive to save energy that produces CO2. The 'market' won't do anything until there is an actual value associated with that release.
"10.3 Reimbursement for Your Liability. In the event that you are liable for any amounts owed to PayPal, PayPal may immediately remove such amounts from your Balance. If you do not have a Balance that is sufficient to cover your liability, your Account will have a negative Balance and you will be required to immediately add funds to your Balance to eliminate the negative Balance. If you do not do so, PayPal may engage in collection efforts to recover such amounts from you."
So even if you OWE THEM MONEY they aren't saying they can go directly into your bank account and take it. Yet they asked for this very permission of CTR.
PayPal refuted that they intended to withdraw funds without authorization. But CTR made no such claim. They claimed it was requested PayPal be able to withdraw funds by default. They are different statements.
CTR also claimed that the request for permission to withdraw funds was made as a condition of reinstating their account. PayPal still has not said whether this requirement is part of the standard agreement; my guess is if it were they would have said so. The wordsmithing being done doesn't look good for PayPal.
If PayPal can just willynilly debit *your* bank account, I don't see them being in business very long...
well CTR claimed that PayPal requested permission to withdraw cash from their bank account. PayPal did not refute this in their post. This by indications is not part of their standard requirements, only that an account be associated with the PayPal account. Not that PayPal gets withdrawal rights to the account.
The only defense for the block PayPal offered was that they would never remove money from a bank account without permission. Which they had previously requested. So what exactly is PayPal denying again?
In a press release issued today, the Courage to Resist organization claimed that their resistance to follow our policy is because PayPal sought to withdraw funds from their checking account. To be clear: PayPal cannot take such action without the authorization of an account holder
from the statement by Jeff Paterson of Support Network.
They said they would not unrestrict our account unless we authorized PayPal to withdraw funds from our organization's checking account by default.
So Paypal, first doesn't call him a liar with that statement, and secondly claims they would never take money from Support Networks bank account without authorization in order to refute the claim that they requested specific authorization to remove money from Support Networks bank account.
That's why I added the 'from independent decks' part to my response:) Its also why the casinos use 6 deck shuffles to minimize the ability to count into the cards.
As others pointed out, the issue isn't the tents cost. It's the additional amortization costs associated with having the vehicles outside exposed to more of the weather than if they were inside.
Still seems like something that would make a reasonable cost-benefit comparison:)
My question was comparing the risk of having the trucks indoors to the added costs of keeping them outside. Sort of like insurance. You pay money hoping you don't ever need it, but peace of mind knowing that if you do it's there.
If they consider the risk of having the trucks indoors significant enough, it would be worth a cost benefit analysis comparing keeping them outside or in structures where collapse is not a serious concern.
Your argument is flawed, but I understand your confusion:)
Events that are unrelated to one another, such as games of Blackjack from independent decks of cards, correctly do not influence the other events.
However, the CA quakes are not unrelated events. They occur because one tectonic plate is slipping past another. The longer that slip does not happen, the greater likelihood that it will happen in the future. The slip *will* happen. When it does, it will depend on how much force is built up.
Considering the force behind a moving tectonic plate is massive, the longer it is pent up without slippage means that energy is being stored up until a failure at some point along the fault and it breaks free. It is possible that we will see a series of smaller quakes rather than a big one, but simple physics dictate that once the object (plate) starts moving it's going to keep on moving unless equivalent force is applied to stop it.
(This new formatting system is sucky sucky. I'm using HTML formatting but it's still making the lines massively separated:( )
Slashdot Mirror
It's called a 'republic', trust me you wouldn't like the alternative democracy (what the majority says, goes) because if I wanted to I could probably convince a majority of the people that we need to shoot you in the head just because you are ugly, and it would be entertaining for the rest of us.
Ah nice, threats of violence. always the hallmark of the high minded and righteous. Republic vs democracy, fine get word smarmy if you like. You know what I meant which is representative governance. The majority does rule, but within certain limits everybody agrees too.
I do NOT agree that some government restrictions on free trade are necessary. 'Child labor', as you call it is not inherently evil. What if a family is poor and they need extra money? Is it evil for a farmer's children to work in the field?
And here the discussion ends. If child labor is ok by you, I don't need to do anything else to shoot your creditability to hell.
We just know that when some truly great technology comes around, it is usually because of some inventor in his basement
And that basement will never be able to compete against entrenched established industry. If anything, they just buy out the inventor and put the 'invention' on a shelf. See the auto industry for legion examples like seat belts that were *forced* on them by the government. The market certainly wasn't clamoring for them.
as if they should be ashamed for trying to make a buck
the ones that *don't* sell out usually are trying to help the people. The ones that do it only for the money, you never hear much about because they are bought off.
The fist one to finds something that, to the end consumer costs 50% less to go a mile, will win
You mean like the first *private* industry that discovered nuclear energy production? oh yeah that was the federal government.
We know exactly what is in hydrofracking fluid. And, before any drilling company moved into our area, we were informed that it would be best if we had our water tested by a 3rd party (our choice). They do this not because they think something will happen, but because people's water supplies already have contaminants, and they don't want them coming with a pack of lawyers later on to blame them.
Do you see your straw man argument here? If we *knew* what was in the fluid we wouldn't be able to claim that something wasn't in the fluid is now contaminating my water. The legal argument is fair and probably a standard issue, but it also admits they know that fracking is capable of causing just such types of contamination. this seems to indicate fluid contents are *not* known. Haliburton fights disclosing it's fracking fluid contents
we've vilified nuclear energy as Chernobyl waiting to happen when it is in reality a very clean alternative to coal (save for waste disposal, which presents other issues but doesn't have to be a problem if stored properly - we will eventually find a way for conversion to something safer).
You are one of the rare few nuclear proponents that acknowledge the waste issue. Nuclear is as clean CO2 wise as coal is nuclear radiation wise. Each has outputs that have to be dealt with and that has a cost.
You claim that conservatives have only been *painted* in a bad light on environmental issues and renewable energy. Except you don't provide a single example showing what they are in favor of except 'letting the markets' and big business decide.
We can't put every business on the chopping block at the first cry of foul play. We should also be careful to differentiate between hype, hysteria, and the facts. And there is a difference between negligence and honest mistakes - these businesses stand to suffer a great deal for any of their mistakes. It just so happens that a lot rides on these types of businesses
That was exactly the PR spin BP used in the Gulf, while claiming that the flow rate was a measly few thousand barrels a day. Except they knew it was above 50 thousand barrels an hour. Or the faulty blowout preventor they *knew* had problems. Or replacing the drilling mud with water against the engineers advice. Or their 'cleanup' plan to protect the WALRUSES in the Gulf. How many 'honest' mistakes before we decide the industry isn't exactly working in our best interests? BP is a great example. HUNDREDS of violations compared with 10s of violations for the other major companies combined in just a few years.
Established industries are always 'cheap' compared to emerging technologies because of scale. No one is disputing that. The problem is when that established industry is doing things that either cause harm right now, or will likely cause harm in the future. How you do account for that cost?
The reason oil, natural gas, coal, etc. are our chief means of energy production at this time is because... They are inexpensive relative to other means.
One reason they are cheap is because of politics. (see Cheney's exempting of natural gas drilling from *any* environmental oversight) That makes it significantly cheaper than if they had to account for their methods. There are massive tax breaks for existing energy companies, 10s of billions of dollars to oil companies making 10s of billions in profit. That's not exactly a level playing field now is it?
Ultimately, the free market WILL win. Period. No exceptions.
Sort like the 'free' market 'won' during 2008 stock market collapse? Unfettered capitalism isn't pretty. It means child and slave labor; you're in favor of child labor? I didn't think so. So you agree that *some* restrictions on a free market are acceptable. Now we're just talking about what is the best way to restrict the market so that we balance risks and gains.
Use your own damn money or convince investors to invest!
Who funded the interstate system or the national power grid? It wasn't private industry, it was good old fashioned government investment. Nuclear doesn't happen without government loan guarantees either.
Don't think that because you have some philosophical belief that you have the right to forcibly take my money
But you can forcibly make me suffer the consequences of rampant environmental destruction?
But let people do it of their own free will!
It's called 'democracy', trust me you won't like the available alternatives.
This *particular* area still needs study but the presence of fracking or other pumping into the ground under pressure AND resulting earthquakes doesn't raise *any* red flags for you? It's been documented in numerous other places that there is a relation between the two events.
here's proof
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean the threats aren't real.
No we don't disagree. The point being is that we're not increasing the cost simply to increase the cost. There are real and documented costs that will come to fruition if we *don't* get off of fossil fuels.
Those costs will dwarf any minor increase in energy prices today.
You can continue to pay subsidized (cheap) energy prices today and then in the future pay high prices because the fuel is running out (oil) AND pay through the nose for mass conversion of the energy economy in a short period.
OR
you can pay slightly higher prices now and amortize the cost of these changes over time.
Most people don't buy a house outright. They get a mortgage and spread out the cost over time. This the same thing.
Seriously, there's more energy in solar and wind than all the energy in all the coal and oil that has ever existed.
The part that will blow your mind is that solar energy *created* all that coal and oil. The problem is not the use of fossil fuels but in the volume we use in a short duration. Dumping millions of years of CO2 into the atmosphere in just a couple hundred years is going to have effects and likely not good ones.
Conversely to your statement, if we want to sustain our current energy needs, we *have* to go to renewable sources. The part that environmentalists got wrong a few decades ago was that burning wood was bad. It does require quite a bit of land, but in terms of global warming gases it effectively has zero effect. Particulates might be an issue but filters can handle that piece.
. I don't think you'll find a conservative around who doesn't wish that there were cheap, environmentally friendly sources of high-density portable energy available.
Then why are conservatives so against renewable sources and anything that helps to promote them (including cap and trade)? You don't get Mr. Fusion without trying and FUNDING something *new*.
Most of the argument against conservatives is that they see oil/coal/natural gas/nuclear as the *only* options available. You won't ever get the new technology if you don't spend money *now* to invest. Couple that with the fact that, at least for oil, we simply don't have anywhere near enough to even make a dent in our current needs.
Now take into account that even if we have lots of natural gas, Cheney and company completely exempted those companies from having to disclose what it is they are actually pumping into the ground to push out the gas. We literally have no idea what they are pumping into the ground to break up the rock formations that are near peoples wells. Funny how cracked rock tends to allow stuff to seep through. The videos of flaming faucets are hard to assume as just a freak coincidence.
Conservatives have a long long history of supporting the big established companies and taking those companies word for it when they say its 'safe'. Are Democrats somewhat accountable on these issues? Sure, but one party has clearly been the leader in terms of saying the energy companies know best so just let them do what they want.
If you believe that releasing millions of years worth of CO2 into the atmosphere in just a couple centuries (at ever *increasing* rates) has no cost, it's rather hard to have a reasonable debate. Can you show studies that prove it won't be harmful?
I can even give you examples that have counter proved some of the prevailing climate change wisdom. There is an ice sheet in Antarctica that started moving *very* fast recently. Most people believed that it was caused by global warming. Further study showed it may have been partially or even majorly the result of undersea topography. An earth barrier gave way and so the ice was free to move again. We 'science' people actually study when things seem to prove our theories, to make sure they do prove our theories.
Can you point to examples that go against *your* beliefs? The climate is not constant, nor is it warming everywhere which is why you have instances such as the above and places where ice is accumulating. It is, however, warming in aggregate - and fast.
'Too late' is defined by a sea level rise of 30 FEET. You can't just fix that issue you can only prevent it.
I'm not claiming I know more than anyone. I am claiming that there are a plethora of studies that back up what I'm saying. The climate is warming and we've been adding stuff to the environment that is shown to cause warming; i.e. greenhouse effects. Lights won't be a major player, but they will be a part. There is no single fix we can do, but lots of smaller ones will have beneficial effects.
China, India, and another 1billion people in other counties will not control themselves in the short term
And why then, is China the leading manufacturer of wind turbines and solar panels? linky
:)
You're an idiot of the finest order though
if we have strong CO2 regulations, coal won't be cheap so your argument fails yet again.
when the true cost of electricity production through coal/nuclear is reflected in your utility price, only then can you make a fair comparison between incandescents and high efficiency bulbs.
Sometimes you need to think longer term, and the individual or the market isn't going to do that unless expressly directed to do that.
If you wait until there is parity between them it will be too late and you'll pay orders of magnitude more to clean up the resulting problems.
Need I point out that there is no reason to care that incandescents are less efficient than CFLs?
yes because that attitude worked so well for the US auto makers in the 60s. Then came the gas spikes and oopsie they weren't prepared for it and Japaneses came in and cleaned their clocks.
Seriously you're arguing that more efficient is bad?
Here's the thing. Even if we grant that global warming will be a significant and somewhat costly problem in several centuries and that it is primarily human-caused, we still have no justification for electricity reduction measures today. If you can't show timely harm, then the behavior isn't worth regulating.
DDT, ozone, lead. these things we waited until they were *bad* before fixing them. They were simply bits of the climate, not the entire thing. CO2 *is* warming the atmosphere, it's clear, the data is sound and no amount of yammering that this year was colder than last holds water against DECADES of actual observations of warming.
even the US military is planning for massive upheavals due to Global Warming and they are decidedly not a liberal group. It's a shame we won't be able to throw this crap back in your and your ilks face when we do have the changes that are predicted.
The problem is that the likely cost associated with reversing the CO2 problem will be astronomical. Much like people who don't like the national debt don't want to make our kids pay for it. I don't much want my kids to have to deal with the problems that are coming. I'd rather try and fix the issue now thank you very much.
Therefore, the only place you'll usually see any significant number of incandescent bulbs is in the home.
So banning the bulbs will only affect the places that use the bulbs. News at 11.
Residential power is only 21% of U.S. consumption, and lighting is only 12% of that.
Here you have a point. It's also why Daylight Savings needs to be abolished. DST actually *increases* power usage in warmer climates as people run the AC longer during the heat of the afternoon since they are home when it is light out.
If you want to get rid of CO2 emissions, ban or tax the damn CO2 emissions.
Funny how the same people bitching about this gov't 'overreach' into bulbs are also against gov't regulation of CO2 emissions. Very convenient for them.
those of us who already get the vast majority of power from non-polluting sources
I'll wager you are *massively* in the minority of the country. Most of us are heavily dependent on the grid and that is by no means green except in a very few areas around dams.
It's actually harmful to the environment because the added disposal costs far exceed the savings in terms of emissions.
This is an argument against CFLs, but not against other highly efficient bulbs. In other words against this particular implementation but not the idea.
I will grant the patent angle as a plausible reason why this is being pushed. It doesn't discount the point that long term CFLs and LEDs are better for us energy usage wise. (yes I know the mercury issue of CFLs I'm ignoring that for the moment)
If the problem is too many people using incandescent bulbs, yes they do solve the same problem. One method is harsher than the other, that's the only difference. My house has had only CFLs for years and I haven't had any issues with reading under their light. I even bought the cheap CFLs from Home Depot/Lowes. Maybe your eyes are just defective ;-)
Also, where was this original claim that they're refuting? I don't see it. As I understood (as of yesterday), the issue WAS that PayPal froze their accounts for non-compliance in this respect
from PayPal's blog:
"We recently placed a temporary limitation of the Courage to Resist organization’s PayPal account as they had not complied to our stated policy requiring non profits to associate a bank account with their PayPal account (for the vast majority of non-profits, this is not an issue)."
So PayPal is claiming that this was only because they wouldn't 'link' a bank account with their PayPal account. No explanation of why this only happened after 3 years and coincidentally closely followed CTR sponsoring Manning.
Next you have CTR's spokesman saying that after the account suspension, they did provide the bank info, but that PayPal wanted even more - the permission to withdraw funds directly from the bank account. This is the relevant part that PayPal has not addressed. Did they actually request this? If so, they haven't mentioned it in their blog post. They simply cite the 'link an account', not grant us debit authorization on said account.
No one is going to give a 3rd party processor that type of permission and it is not in PayPals User Agreement. They specifically say they will take you to collections if you owe them money but do not remotely mention they will dock your account directly.
From the PayPal User Agreement Actions They May Take
"10.3 Reimbursement for Your Liability. In the event that you are liable for any amounts owed to PayPal, PayPal may immediately remove such amounts from your Balance. If you do not have a Balance that is sufficient to cover your liability, your Account will have a negative Balance and you will be required to immediately add funds to your Balance to eliminate the negative Balance. If you do not do so, PayPal may engage in collection efforts to recover such amounts from you."
So even if you OWE THEM MONEY they aren't saying they can go directly into your bank account and take it. Yet they asked for this very permission of CTR.
The 'market' is patently *lousy* at making long term decisions. It works solely for right now and next year, not 40 or 50 years down the road. This is why if you know what the situation will be in even a few years, you can completely smoke the market.
The CFL decision was to reduce energy usage. That reduction in usage isn't tied to any currently enforced costs. If there aren't costs associated with using old incandescents vs CFLs, no market force is going to pay the higher cost of the CFLs.
You could simply tax the incandescents more to make the CFLs competitive and let the market decide, or you can just ban the incandescents outright. Both solve the same problem. Another avenue would be to just massively increase the cost of electricity which is effectively the same as a tax on bulb purchase but broader.
That problem is related to green house gases and global warming. By reducing power consumption we reduce the output from power plants which are mostly coal fired. There is currently no cost associated with the release of CO2 so no incentive to save energy that produces CO2. The 'market' won't do anything until there is an actual value associated with that release.
It is, and they did say so
please cite where they said this.
From the PayPal User Agreement Actions they may take
"10.3 Reimbursement for Your Liability. In the event that you are liable for any amounts owed to PayPal, PayPal may immediately remove such amounts from your Balance. If you do not have a Balance that is sufficient to cover your liability, your Account will have a negative Balance and you will be required to immediately add funds to your Balance to eliminate the negative Balance. If you do not do so, PayPal may engage in collection efforts to recover such amounts from you."
So even if you OWE THEM MONEY they aren't saying they can go directly into your bank account and take it. Yet they asked for this very permission of CTR.
PayPal refuted that they intended to withdraw funds without authorization. But CTR made no such claim. They claimed it was requested PayPal be able to withdraw funds by default. They are different statements.
CTR also claimed that the request for permission to withdraw funds was made as a condition of reinstating their account. PayPal still has not said whether this requirement is part of the standard agreement; my guess is if it were they would have said so. The wordsmithing being done doesn't look good for PayPal.
If PayPal can just willynilly debit *your* bank account, I don't see them being in business very long...
well CTR claimed that PayPal requested permission to withdraw cash from their bank account. PayPal did not refute this in their post. This by indications is not part of their standard requirements, only that an account be associated with the PayPal account. Not that PayPal gets withdrawal rights to the account.
The only defense for the block PayPal offered was that they would never remove money from a bank account without permission. Which they had previously requested. So what exactly is PayPal denying again?
In a press release issued today, the Courage to Resist organization claimed that their resistance to follow our policy is because PayPal sought to withdraw funds from their checking account. To be clear: PayPal cannot take such action without the authorization of an account holder
from the statement by Jeff Paterson of Support Network.
They said they would not unrestrict our account unless we authorized PayPal to withdraw funds from our organization's checking account by default.
So Paypal, first doesn't call him a liar with that statement, and secondly claims they would never take money from Support Networks bank account without authorization in order to refute the claim that they requested specific authorization to remove money from Support Networks bank account.
Simply priceless.
That's why I added the 'from independent decks' part to my response :) Its also why the casinos use 6 deck shuffles to minimize the ability to count into the cards.
As others pointed out, the issue isn't the tents cost. It's the additional amortization costs associated with having the vehicles outside exposed to more of the weather than if they were inside.
:)
Still seems like something that would make a reasonable cost-benefit comparison
My question was comparing the risk of having the trucks indoors to the added costs of keeping them outside. Sort of like insurance. You pay money hoping you don't ever need it, but peace of mind knowing that if you do it's there.
If they consider the risk of having the trucks indoors significant enough, it would be worth a cost benefit analysis comparing keeping them outside or in structures where collapse is not a serious concern.
Your argument is flawed, but I understand your confusion :)
:( )
Events that are unrelated to one another, such as games of Blackjack from independent decks of cards, correctly do not influence the other events.
However, the CA quakes are not unrelated events. They occur because one tectonic plate is slipping past another. The longer that slip does not happen, the greater likelihood that it will happen in the future. The slip *will* happen. When it does, it will depend on how much force is built up.
Considering the force behind a moving tectonic plate is massive, the longer it is pent up without slippage means that energy is being stored up until a failure at some point along the fault and it breaks free. It is possible that we will see a series of smaller quakes rather than a big one, but simple physics dictate that once the object (plate) starts moving it's going to keep on moving unless equivalent force is applied to stop it.
(This new formatting system is sucky sucky. I'm using HTML formatting but it's still making the lines massively separated