Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Knight771

"Green Industry" is really about robbing American taxpayers of their $$$$GREEN

Rate this topic

62 posts in this topic

Talking about the green industry. An industry supported by the left and by "true conservatives".

 

Difference is minor but at least the conservatives give graft to companies which actually do things (big oil, big pharma, big aircraft) as opposed to giving money to fairy tale failures like the greenies.

 

But, if I had a $100 million, I guess a smart move would be to back Obama for the millions more I could get for my slip shod wind mill/solar panel/battery operation and run like a thief after it fails.

 

BTW, I would remove the fed government from backing or giving tax credits to any business or industry and only supporting R&D which directly affected human life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talking about the green industry. An industry supported by the left and by "true conservatives".

Difference is minor but at least the conservatives give graft to companies which actually do things (big oil, big pharma, big aircraft) as opposed to giving money to fairy tale failures like the greenies.

But, if I had a $100 million, I guess a smart move would be to back Obama for the millions more I could get for my slip shod wind mill/solar panel/battery operation and run like a thief after it fails.

BTW, I would remove the fed government from backing or giving tax credits to any business or industry and only supporting R&D which directly affected human life.

 

my support comes from a desire to compete with China, since "green" one of the biggest growing industries outside the US.

 

 

I don't want us sitting on the sidelines as a spectator.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talking about the green industry. An industry supported by the left and by "true conservatives".

Difference is minor but at least the conservatives give graft to companies which actually do things (big oil, big pharma, big aircraft) as opposed to giving money to fairy tale failures like the greenies.

But, if I had a $100 million, I guess a smart move would be to back Obama for the millions more I could get for my slip shod wind mill/solar panel/battery operation and run like a thief after it fails.

BTW, I would remove the fed government from backing or giving tax credits to any business or industry and only supporting R&D which directly affected human life.

 

your position makes no sense. your feelings are getting in the way. conservatives believe we need to mitigate our dependence on foreign oil. the oil and nuclear industries where and are heavily subsidized.

 

green energy is not a fairy tale. we can and d get energy from grren sources. you are just one of those guys who is against it now because the Dems are for it. funny ****. I'm not happy that we need to subidize it to get it off the ground and to compete with china but we should not just surrender. it's a national security issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


icon14.gif  Exactly! 

 



Quote:

Originally Posted by NS Mike D View Post

my support comes from a desire to compete with China, since "green" one of the biggest growing industries outside the US.

I don't want us sitting on the sidelines as a spectator.



China may still be building coal-fired generation facilities, but they know the future will be green and are planning to position themselves as the world leading producer of solar and wind technology and equipment, and working on electric vehicles.



 



Nobody ever responded to me decently when I questioned what was really meant by comments such as "follow the money" and "thirst for power."  If I had been follow this whole green thing with interest, I wouldn't have needed to ask but green and global warming were things I just didn't before think were something about which I needed to form a strong opinion.



 



Correct be where I'm wrong:



 



Follow the Money:  means subsidies to the study of global warming and development of energy aside from fossil fuels.  Previously, the petroleum industry had no problems with the tax payers' money going to them.



 



... Power:  I believe this is viewed negatively only with respect to ones perspective in whom is holding it.  I assume that the power against which many are straining regarding this issue is that which would mandate reductions (20%) of greenhouse gases (dependence on fossil fuels).



 



I believe the importance of this power is not to develop something now, instead of waiting for the inventors of the future, because solar and wing are viable already but are considered stupid by those who have an interest in it being not so, and point to the present cost effectiveness of these.  This power is the establishment of a goal.  The goal will force deployment of the technology that is at hand--the more of something made, bought and used, the cheaper it becomes in all aspects (except for that for which it is an alternative).



 




  • Green must not be viewed only to the extent of reducing our reliance upon foreign oil, but on oil.

  • Improvements in efficiencies are a big help.

  • The "nothing need be done"  and messing with this natural event is "desecrating the earth" is turning a blind eye to what will result.

  • Adaptation will have no downside to those (paraphrasing what is frequently said here) don't give a damn about anything except: me; my life style; now, and to the extent of my lifetime.

  • Adaptation will not be cheap nor easy.  People needing to move, lost property and lost infrastructure; or dikes as in the Netherlands (unlike the dikes in New Orleans).  Adaptation sort of sounds like "pay me now or pay me latter."


 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthered View Post

 

 

icon14.gif  Exactly! 

 

 

 

China may still be building coal-fired generation facilities, but they know the future will be green and are planning to position themselves as the world leading producer of solar and wind technology and equipment, and working on electric vehicles.

 

 

 

Nobody ever responded to me decently when I questioned what was really meant by comments such as "follow the money" and "thirst for power."  If I had been follow this whole green thing with interest, I wouldn't have needed to ask but green and global warming were things I just didn't before think were something about which I needed to form a strong opinion.

 

 

 

Correct be where I'm wrong:

 

 

 

Follow the Money:  means subsidies to the study of global warming and development of energy aside from fossil fuels.  Previously, the petroleum industry had no problems with the tax payers' money going to them.

 

 

 

... Power:  I believe this is viewed negatively only with respect to ones perspective in whom is holding it.  I assume that the power against which many are straining regarding this issue is that which would mandate reductions (20%) of greenhouse gases (dependence on fossil fuels).

 

 

 

I believe the importance of this power is not to develop something now, instead of waiting for the inventors of the future, because solar and wing are viable already but are considered stupid by those who have an interest in it being not so, and point to the present cost effectiveness of these.  This power is the establishment of a goal.  The goal will force deployment of the technology that is at hand--the more of something made, bought and used, the cheaper it becomes in all aspects (except for that for which it is an alternative).

 

 

Green must not be viewed only to the extent of reducing our reliance upon foreign oil, but on oil.

Improvements in efficiencies are a big help.

The "nothing need be done"  and messing with this natural event is "desecrating the earth" is turning a blind eye to what will result.

Adaptation will have no downside to those (paraphrasing what is frequently said here) don't give a damn about anything except: me; my life style; now, and to the extent of my lifetime.

Adaptation will not be cheap nor easy.  People needing to move, lost property and lost infrastructure; or dikes as in the Netherlands (unlike the dikes in New Orleans).  Adaptation sort of sounds like "pay me now or pay me latter."

 

 

 

OK. help me out.  Lets pretend, but base it on facts.  Money is no object, you get all you want.  Then you rub the genie's lamp.  What doies the US power generating ifrastructure look like after the genie makes it so?  How will it look how will it work.  Include all the social changes as well, I believe they are a very important part of the formula.  You mentioned "lost property", I am particularly interested in that.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
]Talking about the green industry. An industry supported by the left and by "true conservatives".[/b]

Difference is minor but at least the conservatives give graft to companies which actually do things (big oil, big pharma, big aircraft) as opposed to giving money to fairy tale failures like the greenies.

But, if I had a $100 million, I guess a smart move would be to back Obama for the millions more I could get for my slip shod wind mill/solar panel/battery operation and run like a thief after it fails.

BTW, I would remove the fed government from backing or giving tax credits to any business or industry and only supporting R&D which directly affected human life.

 

help me out knight....how do true conservatives support green industry robbing taxpayers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


For the Reagenites:  "Now (Little) there you go again."  

 



Quote:

Originally Posted by Little View Post


OK. help me out.  Lets pretend, but base it on facts.  Money is no object, you get all you want.  Then you rub the genie's lamp.  What does the US power generating infrastructure look like after the genie makes it so?  How will it look how will it work.  Include all the social changes as well, I believe they are a very important part of the formula.  You mentioned "lost property", I am particularly interested in that.



 





biggrin.gif  Because of all the BS in this forum, I just can't resist:  One of the people that has all the answers is asking me for help; or, are you really  interested in "discussion?"  Now?  cwm27.gif



 



I'm as skeptical of real interest in this here as some are skeptical of apparent warming.  You want me to "pretend, but base it on facts"?  You must think that I believe I have all the answers.  You what me to speculate about the future so that you can ask me to prove it.   Fulfilling your wish presents me with daunting task--many here don't even consider the certainty of past, claim there is no relevant data and/or claim that all data is suspect as these are all "manufactured." 



 



However, despite my belief that your only interest is in me giving you something more to which to "cleverly" retort, I would suspect--because the facts have not yet been manufactured--that the electrical grid that was created by fossil fuel powered facilities will still be managed by them and they will still be supplying it with electricity that generated with fossil fuels.  One difference would be the number of solar panels on residential sites would probable increase as costs come down as might the number of generators powered by the wind.  In one area of New Jersey, Public Service Gas and Electric would continue with installing even more solar panels on their utility poles (but I hope they wouldn't make me a liar).



 



"How will it look how will it work ... include all the social changes as well"?  I think there are few among us that ae truly qualified to seriously discuss global warming, green technologies and, let alone to envision the outcome of these in the U.S. where clearly there is no consensus.  Certainly the U.S. is not part of a globa consensus that is largely established regarding these issues.  Therefore, despite my not being qualified to answer your questions and also in believing that you hope I make a fool of myself because of this, I say that I'm no Jules Verne and I do not wish to write an environmental impact statement for you.  Not that I don't believe you are a good guy--it's just that I am not going to do this.



 



About "You mentioned 'lost property,' I am particularly interested in that, I can see how I didn't make the meaning of this clear.  I was think property in terms of land upon which people were living.  However, I guess this might mean that there would be new opportunities in again selling swampland in Florida. 



 cwm40.gif  The Everglades would again have water in them albeit salty.  I've never seen these with my own two eyes, but I think man has screwed up the flow of fresh water though them.  wink.gif



 



 



 



 



 



 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would remove the fed government from backing or giving tax credits to any business or industry and only supporting R&D which directly affected human life.

 

I'm having a hard time coming up with an industry the US government didn't subsidize to get off the ground :huh:

 

Rail service and the trans continental railroad

Air transportation

The biochem industry

Internet start-up via infrastructure

Ma'Bell

Cable TV

Ford'/GM

Home electricity

GPS

Farming industry

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Don't forget the development of nuclear energy the associated manufactured data that was provided, free.  (Nuclear energy could be produced so cheaply it could almost be given away free.)


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back and too many to answer but, here goes. "Green" energy is very inefficient and a poor provider of mass power. If it was "the next great thing" it would not need federal government/taxpayer dollars to do anything. People would be beating a path to its door.

 

BTW, I have some experience in this. Mobile backed a solar panel company in Wilmington, DE in the 1980s and they were both my clients. The sp company was a failure because the panels could not generate enough wattage to even come close to competing with carbon based systems. Fast foward 30 years and the technology has not advanced much at all. The greenie's solution to this is to try via the fed to penalize oil, gas, coal, etc. to make it more expensive and therefore make solar, etc. more competitive. As we are seeing, it still does not work. But that is not stopping the fed from litterally wasting billions of our dollars on failure. Really not that difficult to understand folks.

 

Someday, someone will come up with the wiget which will bring this technology to the forefront and I will be first in line to get it, because IT WORKS. Until then, it is just a vehicle to pay off big donors to the liberal cause. Graft with a green face. Prove me wrong.

 

MDC, You are simply wrong about a number of things on your list:

 

* The earliest railroads and their equipment were private affairs backed by companies who needed them to haul bulk (lumber, rock, coal, etc.) The transcon RR was done by two PRIVATE RR companies and too my knowledge had no government backing. The government(s) did step in during the Civil War to pay RR to build more lines to move troops and supplies but after the war, government support pretty much dried up.

 

* AirTrans, the government had nothing to do with the Wright Bros or early aviation up until WW1 when because of war, aviation technology made a quantum leap. But after the war, government money dried up and private companies began air services first flying "air mail" and then passengers. Again WWII, government support caused aviation to make a quantum leap but after the war, air trans grew mostly on its own. I.E. the "Connie" had no military equivalent and the companies which sprang up were not "backed" in any way by the fed.

 

* Bio-chem. It may interest you to know that the major Pharmaceutical companies were private and grew on their own without gov. help as part of the medical industry around the turn of the century. Go to the museums at Merck, E.R. Squibb, Wheaton (glass for pharm) and others. Pharm grew without government investment (while the gov. may have made mass purchases for military, plague and other uses)

 

** Internet. Can't argue with you there, thank the U.S. Military. But government development had nothing to do with civilian use but only military preparedness.

 

* Ford and GM--Come on. Neither got any start up money nor any government help except for purchases.

 

Home Electricity/telephones-- I don't remember either Bell or Marconi getting government dollars while they were working on their inventions. Let me know if I am wrong. After the technologies were invented and developed the companies SOLD to the government as their major customers. Gov. had nothing to do with the start up.

 

* GPS--Yep. Right on. Thank the U.S. military again.

 

* Farming---What???? I don't think G Washington or T Jefferson got any start up money for their plantations. If you are talking about today's agribusiness, yes, like most things the fed has got its hooks in and so, the business has become less competitive. But farming has been going on for thousands of years and 400 years in this country and the fed spent nothing to get it started.

 

Most of the businesses you take for granted were started and developed privately, built up during time of war or are a product of military need. Today, big government controls many things and has now gone so far as to play favorites in providing seed money. This is wrong and the money we've wasted on green technology provies it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

help me out knight....how do true conservatives support green industry robbing taxpayers?

 

Back and too many to answer but, here goes. "Green" energy is very inefficient and a poor provider of mass power. If it was "the next great thing" it would not need federal government/taxpayer dollars to do anything. People would be beating a path to its door.

BTW, I have some experience in this. Mobile backed a solar panel company in Wilmington, DE in the 1980s and they were both my clients. The sp company was a failure because the panels could not generate enough wattage to even come close to competing with carbon based systems. Fast foward 30 years and the technology has not advanced much at all. The greenie's solution to this is to try via the fed to penalize oil, gas, coal, etc. to make it more expensive and therefore make solar, etc. more competitive. As we are seeing, it still does not work. But that is not stopping the fed from litterally wasting billions of our dollars on failure. Really not that difficult to understand folks.

Someday, someone will come up with the wiget which will bring this technology to the forefront and I will be first in line to get it, because IT WORKS. Until then, it is just a vehicle to pay off big donors to the liberal cause. Graft with a green face. Prove me wrong.

MDC, You are simply wrong about a number of things on your list:

* The earliest railroads and their equipment were private affairs backed by companies who needed them to haul bulk (lumber, rock, coal, etc.) The transcon RR was done by two PRIVATE RR companies and too my knowledge had no government backing. The government(s) did step in during the Civil War to pay RR to build more lines to move troops and supplies but after the war, government support pretty much dried up.

* AirTrans, the government had nothing to do with the Wright Bros or early aviation up until WW1 when because of war, aviation technology made a quantum leap. But after the war, government money dried up and private companies began air services first flying "air mail" and then passengers. Again WWII, government support caused aviation to make a quantum leap but after the war, air trans grew mostly on its own. I.E. the "Connie" had no military equivalent and the companies which sprang up were not "backed" in any way by the fed.

* Bio-chem. It may interest you to know that the major Pharmaceutical companies were private and grew on their own without gov. help as part of the medical industry around the turn of the century. Go to the museums at Merck, E.R. Squibb, Wheaton (glass for pharm) and others. Pharm grew without government investment (while the gov. may have made mass purchases for military, plague and other uses)

** Internet. Can't argue with you there, thank the U.S. Military. But government development had nothing to do with civilian use but only military preparedness.

* Ford and GM--Come on. Neither got any start up money nor any government help except for purchases.

Home Electricity/telephones-- I don't remember either Bell or Marconi getting government dollars while they were working on their inventions. Let me know if I am wrong. After the technologies were invented and developed the companies SOLD to the government as their major customers. Gov. had nothing to do with the start up.

* GPS--Yep. Right on. Thank the U.S. military again.

* Farming---What???? I don't think G Washington or T Jefferson got any start up money for their plantations. If you are talking about today's agribusiness, yes, like most things the fed has got its hooks in and so, the business has become less competitive. But farming has been going on for thousands of years and 400 years in this country and the fed spent nothing to get it started.

Most of the businesses you take for granted were started and developed privately, built up during time of war or are a product of military need. Today, big government controls many things and has now gone so far as to play favorites in providing seed money. This is wrong and the money we've wasted on green technology provies it.

 

I didnt see your answer to the quesiotn I asked.....how do true conservatives support green industry robbing taxpayers?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.