Learn some physics. The vast majority of ice is near the poles. When that melts now the weight is now more evenly distributed through the oceans. That's a large change in the position of mass.
Also temps are risng faster at the poles than the rest of the planet.
Voting against their own interests is the current thought about what's going on. This site though says perhaps it isn't. They just aren't voting at all and so only the wealthy/middle class in red States end up voting.
http://crooksandliars.com/2015...
Since when is not taxing something subsidizing it?
If I'm allowed to pollute a river...that you depend on for drinking, yes I'm not paying a cost that is being spread to others. The cost of not polluting in the first place or the cost of cleaning up my mess.
The costs associated with fossil fuel CO2 release will be massive unless you're denying climate change and it's already happening effects. Yet we aren't requiring the companies producing that CO2 to pay that cost. That's a massive subsidy. How much would a coal plant cost to run (and the electricity produced) if they had to sequester all the CO2 they were releasing? How much would cars cost if they had to capture all the CO2 they are producing rolling around?
Last I checked the companies the produce fossil fuels don't really release CO2
So we're into being pedantic about who we're talking about? Whether you tax the coal/oil at the miner/producer or at the supplier it's the same difference. Yes the end user will end up paying the costs...which makes renewables MUCH more afforadable...that's the point - when the full costs are included, renewables are much cheaper than the full cost of fossil fuels.
Perhaps things are improving then. However, the question remains why fossil fuels...one of the most profitable industries...is getting *any* subsidies. At what point do they no longer need help to make billions annually?
I found this which finds a number of 2.4 billion in subsidies annually which I've seen in a number of places. One phrased it as 24 billion over a decade and I had misread that as they annual figure.
The point of a subsidy is to give a company help. The Oil companies do not need this help. Renewables still do as until CO2 release is priced in, Oil/coal is still fundamentally an unfair comparison.
Construction/end of life costs and emissions exist in all industries. Feel free to show that building solar panels is worse than building an entire coal plant.
Solar has zero operational costs...can coal say that?
Now you have to show that solar panel construction is worse than both the construction of the coal plant AND it's entire operational life emissions.
So, um, that's a no on evidence? You're conflating normal accounting rules with special tax breaks given to a business - almost as if you're trying to be obtuse on purpose...hmmmm
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell -- earned more than $1 trillion during this time. In the first nine months of 2013, these five companies realized a combined $71 billion in profits. Certainly, these companies can prosper without $2.4 billion in annual special tax breaks.
The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that three tax preferences provide $24 billion per decade in annual benefits to these five companies. The “limitation on Section 199 deduction,” designed to encourage domestic manufacturing to remain on shore, costs the Treasury $14.4 billion per decade for these five companies. The foreign tax credit deduction saves the big three domestic oil companies $7.5 billion per decade. The “intangible drilling costs” deduction saved the five companies another $2 billion.
5 companies, 24 BILLION 'annually' in tax breaks as of 2014.
So...subsidize the big players and let the upstarts fend for themselves? Welcome to Oligarchyville!
Either releasing CO2 from fossil fuels is bad for the environment...or its not and we shouldn't care about what we do to produce energy. The consensus is that it's quite bad and getting worse rapidly. Yet we aren't yet putting a 'cost' on that...that is far and away the largest subsidy Coal/Oil is getting.
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
Significant subsidy to fossil fuels companies. The taxes they pay are wholly irrelevant in a discussion about whether they receive assistance.
By far and away the biggest subsidy though is being able to release all the CO2 for free. It's cost is staggering unless you're denying climate change and humans driving of it...
It's really hard to compete in an unfair market. When your competition is given 10s of billions in tax breaks annually and allowed to pollute with impunity... Those gov subsidies to solar are pennies in the dollar compared to what Fossil fuel gets every single year
Actually an interesting idea - but I you'd need to make your 'tank's water proof as leakage into the bottom would limit your power generation ability.
I think the carbon sequestration is based on the compressibility of gas, which for h20 isn't an option. So you'd need caverns of sizes that likely aren't available, at least at significant scale.
It's entirely possible to completely filter the exhaust of basically anything to be as clean as you'd like. What this isn't, is feasible or remotely cost effective - which is my point.
The vast majority of deaths from coal are due to the emissions, not the fly ash dumps or the mining of it. They are certainly issues but not the majority of the fatalities.
It makes a great battery for very limited choices of installation and significant habitat disruption. It's why even the 'green' northwest is starting to move away from this. Hydro just can't be put in many places.
That natural byproduct isn't refined and as such isn't a significant risk...more over we evolved with it so it's 'natural'. More highly refined radioactive material isn't natural.
It's almost like you're being obtuse on purpose with your comments...
Apples and oranges. Nuclear is only lower in deaths because it is massively over engineered for safety and thus massicle more expensive.
Coal wouldn't kill many people if the exhaust was properly filtered.
Actually it's quite predictable. The wind is always blowing somewhere and the sun shines everyday.
But since there are variabilities...renewables will depend on energy storage. Something that is growing in ability every single year.
Whether storing for a day a week a month... It's a tried and true method of smoothing out a variable supply.
Cash doesn't track your location or give you communication at distance.
There's an tangential argument about cash vs digital currency but it's not the same.
And to my actual question... Cash is worth the societal costs of the bad (TM) things that can be done with it. Still conflicted...
When terrorists kill more people than choking on chicken wings, I'll be appropriately scared of them. 9/11 was a significant thing. And it was *entirely* resolved by 3 things. 1. reinforced/locked cockpit doors 2. Me. 3. You.
The old understood contract of just sit tight during a hijacking and get let off in Cuba or wherever was ripped to shreds as evidenced by Flight 93 in PA. NOBODY is going to sit idly by anymore.
I've always wondered about burner phones for this specific reason though. In a world where every 'number' should have a person assoc with it, it seems odd that it would be allowable to have completely anonymous phones able to be used. I understand the myriad of reasons why LOTS of people might want and legitimately need a burner phone, but that ability comes with societal costs such as people using them for 'bad' (TM) reasons; same obviously go's for crowbars and baseball bats.
A burner phone is a tool that can be used for good or ill and should we ban 'tools' simply because it can be abused? In most cases, I'm firmly in the 'no' category and deal with it. In this case, I'm conflicted...
not when you specifically want to be 'invisible'. Stealing phones comes with significant risk...as does using a device known to the network to be stolen.
Sleeper cells specifically do NOT want to attract any unneeded attention.
Slashdot Mirror
Learn some physics. The vast majority of ice is near the poles. When that melts now the weight is now more evenly distributed through the oceans. That's a large change in the position of mass. Also temps are risng faster at the poles than the rest of the planet.
Voting against their own interests is the current thought about what's going on. This site though says perhaps it isn't. They just aren't voting at all and so only the wealthy/middle class in red States end up voting. http://crooksandliars.com/2015...
And funnily enough one party has been claiming govt is terrible AND defunding it at every turn...amazing that you get what you pay for.
I believe he has the united militia of unoccupied wilderness refuges...
Question: why does an industry making billions in PROFITS every year, need any tax breaks?
Since when is not taxing something subsidizing it?
If I'm allowed to pollute a river...that you depend on for drinking, yes I'm not paying a cost that is being spread to others. The cost of not polluting in the first place or the cost of cleaning up my mess.
The costs associated with fossil fuel CO2 release will be massive unless you're denying climate change and it's already happening effects. Yet we aren't requiring the companies producing that CO2 to pay that cost. That's a massive subsidy. How much would a coal plant cost to run (and the electricity produced) if they had to sequester all the CO2 they were releasing? How much would cars cost if they had to capture all the CO2 they are producing rolling around?
Last I checked the companies the produce fossil fuels don't really release CO2
So we're into being pedantic about who we're talking about? Whether you tax the coal/oil at the miner/producer or at the supplier it's the same difference. Yes the end user will end up paying the costs...which makes renewables MUCH more afforadable...that's the point - when the full costs are included, renewables are much cheaper than the full cost of fossil fuels.
Perhaps things are improving then. However, the question remains why fossil fuels...one of the most profitable industries...is getting *any* subsidies. At what point do they no longer need help to make billions annually?
I found this which finds a number of 2.4 billion in subsidies annually which I've seen in a number of places. One phrased it as 24 billion over a decade and I had misread that as they annual figure.
The point of a subsidy is to give a company help. The Oil companies do not need this help. Renewables still do as until CO2 release is priced in, Oil/coal is still fundamentally an unfair comparison.
Construction/end of life costs and emissions exist in all industries. Feel free to show that building solar panels is worse than building an entire coal plant.
Solar has zero operational costs...can coal say that?
Now you have to show that solar panel construction is worse than both the construction of the coal plant AND it's entire operational life emissions.
So, um, that's a no on evidence? You're conflating normal accounting rules with special tax breaks given to a business - almost as if you're trying to be obtuse on purpose...hmmmm http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell -- earned more than $1 trillion during this time. In the first nine months of 2013, these five companies realized a combined $71 billion in profits. Certainly, these companies can prosper without $2.4 billion in annual special tax breaks. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that three tax preferences provide $24 billion per decade in annual benefits to these five companies. The “limitation on Section 199 deduction,” designed to encourage domestic manufacturing to remain on shore, costs the Treasury $14.4 billion per decade for these five companies. The foreign tax credit deduction saves the big three domestic oil companies $7.5 billion per decade. The “intangible drilling costs” deduction saved the five companies another $2 billion.
5 companies, 24 BILLION 'annually' in tax breaks as of 2014.
So...subsidize the big players and let the upstarts fend for themselves? Welcome to Oligarchyville!
Either releasing CO2 from fossil fuels is bad for the environment...or its not and we shouldn't care about what we do to produce energy. The consensus is that it's quite bad and getting worse rapidly. Yet we aren't yet putting a 'cost' on that...that is far and away the largest subsidy Coal/Oil is getting.
http://thinkprogress.org/clima... Significant subsidy to fossil fuels companies. The taxes they pay are wholly irrelevant in a discussion about whether they receive assistance. By far and away the biggest subsidy though is being able to release all the CO2 for free. It's cost is staggering unless you're denying climate change and humans driving of it...
Do you have any evidence to refute them?
Any data to prove your claims?
The only way fossil fuels make sense is that they don't have to capture their CO2 release. And the billions in tax breaks to the oil companies...
It's really hard to compete in an unfair market. When your competition is given 10s of billions in tax breaks annually and allowed to pollute with impunity... Those gov subsidies to solar are pennies in the dollar compared to what Fossil fuel gets every single year
Actually an interesting idea - but I you'd need to make your 'tank's water proof as leakage into the bottom would limit your power generation ability.
I think the carbon sequestration is based on the compressibility of gas, which for h20 isn't an option. So you'd need caverns of sizes that likely aren't available, at least at significant scale.
It's entirely possible to completely filter the exhaust of basically anything to be as clean as you'd like. What this isn't, is feasible or remotely cost effective - which is my point.
The vast majority of deaths from coal are due to the emissions, not the fly ash dumps or the mining of it. They are certainly issues but not the majority of the fatalities.
It makes a great battery for very limited choices of installation and significant habitat disruption. It's why even the 'green' northwest is starting to move away from this. Hydro just can't be put in many places.
That natural byproduct isn't refined and as such isn't a significant risk...more over we evolved with it so it's 'natural'. More highly refined radioactive material isn't natural. It's almost like you're being obtuse on purpose with your comments...
Apples and oranges. Nuclear is only lower in deaths because it is massively over engineered for safety and thus massicle more expensive. Coal wouldn't kill many people if the exhaust was properly filtered.
Actually it's quite predictable. The wind is always blowing somewhere and the sun shines everyday. But since there are variabilities...renewables will depend on energy storage. Something that is growing in ability every single year. Whether storing for a day a week a month... It's a tried and true method of smoothing out a variable supply.
Cash doesn't track your location or give you communication at distance. There's an tangential argument about cash vs digital currency but it's not the same. And to my actual question... Cash is worth the societal costs of the bad (TM) things that can be done with it. Still conflicted...
When terrorists kill more people than choking on chicken wings, I'll be appropriately scared of them. 9/11 was a significant thing. And it was *entirely* resolved by 3 things. 1. reinforced/locked cockpit doors 2. Me. 3. You.
The old understood contract of just sit tight during a hijacking and get let off in Cuba or wherever was ripped to shreds as evidenced by Flight 93 in PA. NOBODY is going to sit idly by anymore.
I've always wondered about burner phones for this specific reason though. In a world where every 'number' should have a person assoc with it, it seems odd that it would be allowable to have completely anonymous phones able to be used. I understand the myriad of reasons why LOTS of people might want and legitimately need a burner phone, but that ability comes with societal costs such as people using them for 'bad' (TM) reasons; same obviously go's for crowbars and baseball bats.
A burner phone is a tool that can be used for good or ill and should we ban 'tools' simply because it can be abused? In most cases, I'm firmly in the 'no' category and deal with it. In this case, I'm conflicted...
not when you specifically want to be 'invisible'. Stealing phones comes with significant risk...as does using a device known to the network to be stolen.
Sleeper cells specifically do NOT want to attract any unneeded attention.