Jump to content

Race to be green


Neo

Recommended Posts

I will agree that there are certainly scientists and environmental advocates that are hypocritical, but IMO by in large there is a much greater good gained than not. Regardless if there are are hypocrites in the system, does that negate our need for urgent change? Just because one person jumps of the bridge does that mean we're all to follow?

Carbon offsets aren't true? I guess I need to stop paying for them through my utility bill then. In my state (North Carolina) they offer a tax deductible program for carbon offsetting your electricity usage. I participate as the money I pay into the program is put back into the system in NC by paying for renewable energies (wind, solar, etc.) so in effect I am paying to have my electricity come from a green and renewable source even though it may be located elsewhere in the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm not saying they aren't true. I just think it is more of a feelgood thing, and doesn't do all that much to promote energy research. Now, if you paid extra and the elctric companies put it towards research, then, yeah, you're making a difference. It just seems to me you're giving them money without any benefit to you other than feeling good.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. If that's the way you want to roll, more power to you. I'm not trying to convince you to stop.

But, be advised that there is no way that you (not you in particular) can specify where your energy comes from. The grid isn't set up that way. So you pay the extra money and your power still comes from a coal plant. And the power company is that much richer.

What concerns me is power companies forcing me to pay money for green energy. Not that it has come to that, but I could see it happening. just more money for them.

Out of curiosity, do the tax breaks you get offset the added cost on your bill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, do the tax breaks you get offset the added cost on your bill?

For me specifically this is the case. Carbon offsets are something you need to do some research on. Obviously some are going to be more trustworthy than others and I certainly agree some are simply there to make you feel good. I would never want to or suggest contributing to one of these organizations, but I completely support organizations that actually put your carbon offset money into offsetting the CO2 generated.

We need research and development being done by the government so that we can bring down the costs of renewable energies so that the cost of coal and solar or wind are equal. Would there be any incentive to continue coal energy production if cleaner sources were priced equally?

The US heavily subsidized nuclear when it was first getting off the ground here so I see no reason why the US shouldn't subsidize green alternative energy that is renewable like solar and wind. Imagine the cost of electricity had nuclear not been subsidized? We would have likely just given up and went with something much cheaper (and much dirtier) like coal to make up the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally when you pay more money to have green electricity, you're not directly getting your electricity from wind, solar, etc (TVA's green energy switch program specifically tells you this). Insted, they take the extra $ from the green switch clients and pool it to fund wind farms, solar arrays, and whatnot. Because of the nature of the power grid, it is impossible to route the power generated from a wind turbine to a spacific apartment in Knoxville or wherever. The more green switches they get, the more money goes to green energy construction ergo, a larger percentage of your electricity WILL be from green sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my knowledge, North Carolina is the only state offering a program like this. No, you don't get your own electricity back as 'green' renewable energy, but you supply someone else that was getting or would be getting their electricity from a dirty source with clean renewable energy. It doesn't matter who is getting the clean electricity, what matters is that someone is getting clean electricity that would have been getting dirty energy otherwise so you are being truly offset.

IMO there needs to be a federal program for such offsets that taxpayers can trust. This would allow those who really wanted to make a difference the ability to do so and would funnel continuous funds into R&D for green energy. I'm proud that my state has decided to take the initiative on this but hope that it expands so others can be involved. The tax deduction is icing on the cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for alternative energy. I just think the timing and the way in which we are doing it is wrong. The reason i'm agaist it currently is based around one thing, the government. Why do you think the government makes the best decisions concerning this issue?

The government isn't the one pushing it, were you not around during the Bush administration? Scientists and independent companies have been pushing for this for several years and the government has given their best look with a blind eye until now. The government did not start the 'green' movement, particularly for green renewable energy so I'm not sure where you got that from. Unfortunately the only way this country and the world will move to a much cleaner and alternative energy is if the government gets involved which is what has been pushed for quite some time...only now is the government seeing the need which IMO is very late in the game to make the move easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What i'm getting at is what you just said. "the only way this country and the world will move to a much cleaner and alternative energy is if the government gets involved". Why? Are you a socialist? What keeps you from saying that over every part of our economy? If you build it, investors will come. If they don't come, why should I be taxed forced to invest the way the government see's fit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What i'm getting at is what you just said. "the only way this country and the world will move to a much cleaner and alternative energy is if the government gets involved". Why? Are you a socialist? What keeps you from saying that over every part of our economy? If you build it, investors will come. If they don't come, why should I be taxed forced to invest the way the government see's fit?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because we really don't have the time to wait for the market to be ready. I dont want to be taxed as much as the next guy but I would rather have an inhabitable planet for my grandchildren.

This is my thoughts exactly and the reason for this thread, we simply don't have the time thus it is a race to be green. I believe I stated earlier in this thread that if we had a few decades then by all means let the market bring these technologies to fruition, but I do not believe we have decades (and almost every scientist in the world researching global warming agrees that we may have as little as 10 years to make a significant change in CO2 output).

Would you rather leave an inhabitable planet to our children and grandchildren just so you could play your anti-government spending card? We don't have the time nor the patience to play politics or wait for the market to pony up on its own. Is green profitable right now (overall)? No, because the technologies need improving, but we don't have the time to wait for private entities to pony up the needed funds to make it cheaper, thus we need to rely on the government to pick up the slack. In the meantime, whatever government does this first I believe will create a thriving economy based on clean energy that other countries and governments will envy. I want to be in the country that is envied and has a stable economy based on clean energy, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust me. Humanity is more than able to cope with any change in the environment. That's why we have these big ole brains.

We'll adapt.

The issue is that we, as humans, won't be able to adapt fast enough. We're talking major water shortages and land capable of growing food for consumption (particularly an issue with the rapidly rising population). You can't adapt without food and water, it just isn't possible. Global warming does not mean nicer days at your favorite beach in the winter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen studies go both ways on whether or not GW will produce more or less rain. Really more of a local than global issue, though. The probablem with arable land usually is caused by corrupt governments, although some places just aren't suited to food production.

However, I think its defeatest to say we won't adapt fast enough. I'm sure we will. It isn't so much that I don't believe in climate change as I don't think it's going to be the big deal they make it out to be.

As for growing green, for me its more of an economic thing. If it is cheaper and more efficient, I'm for it. If it is the gov forcing 'feel good' measures down my throat while costing me more money, I'm against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen studies go both ways on whether or not GW will produce more or less rain. Really more of a local than global issue, though. The probablem with arable land usually is caused by corrupt governments, although some places just aren't suited to food production.

However, I think its defeatest to say we won't adapt fast enough. I'm sure we will. It isn't so much that I don't believe in climate change as I don't think it's going to be the big deal they make it out to be.

As for growing green, for me its more of an economic thing. If it is cheaper and more efficient, I'm for it. If it is the gov forcing 'feel good' measures down my throat while costing me more money, I'm against it.

I assure you that our government isn't doing this just to feel good, what benefit would they gain by doing so? You are obviously entitled to your opinion and it appears that you won't be dissuaded from your view on global warming, but for those of us who do believe we are the cause and the ramifications of not doing something drastic will be disastrous this is a very real issue that we want real action on.

Even if you believe that global warming will simply mean a few extra days at the beach during the year, why would you oppose cleaner air and a much reduced (or complete riddance) dependence on foreign energy? Coal is cheap and taking a walk in any major city in China will make it clear to you why it is cheap. Do you want to see what is happening to Chinese cities happen to your hometown? Keep in mind that you don't need to live in a major city to see the effects of CO2. I forgot the exact percentage, but an amazingly large amount of smog makes it to the US from China.

At least its cheap. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should I pay for Your Belief? Taxes are shared. Don't avoid the question and divert to your beliefs on global warming. Answer the question straight up.

Why should people in the suburbs pay taxes for transit projects? Why should those living in the city that use mass transit pay for roads in the suburbs and rural areas? Why pay for schools if you don't have kids? Do you honestly believe that your taxes should only go to resources that only you utilize? Like taxes for schools, taxes going towards R&D for wind, solar, etc. benefit society as a whole.

This isn't a belief IMO. Look at the sheer amount of scientists that have pointed the finger at our utilization of whatever is cheap (i.e. coal) as the cause of our current situation. It is very obvious that you don't care to understand what we are doing to our planet and don't plan to do anything about it, but I honestly don't think that should stand in the way of our progress towards a cleaner form of energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to my world. Is paying for what you use such a hard idea to grasp? As it is set up right now, the government needs to make a happy median between the two viewpoints. Coal is not as dirty as you think. It is possible to create a near zero emission coal plant. Does it have to be green to be green?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to my world. Is paying for what you use such a hard idea to grasp? As it is set up right now, the government needs to make a happy median between the two viewpoints. Coal is not as dirty as you think. It is possible to create a near zero emission coal plant. Does it have to be green to be green?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

Coal is clean? Are you a proponent of mountain top removal? Please tell me what is clean about that. Here's a nice stat for you: More than 104,000 miners in America have died in coal mines since 1900. This number does not include the amazingly large amount of people that have died or suffer from black lung disease. Think of the amount of trucks it takes to transport the coal from where it is mined to where it is burned.

Sounds pretty dirty to me. You can't just sequester CO2 from coal and call it clean.

I'm not sure what you mean by welcome to my world? I actually don't mind pooling my tax dollars to pay for the greater good of society. Education, better roads, expanded mass transit, better energy policies, etc. all benefit society and me. I don't have kids, yet I don't mind paying taxes to better their education, perhaps I should be asking why it is such a hard idea to grasp?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article

US ambassador Hillary Rodham Clinton has wrapped up her tour in Asia. Highlighting this was bringing climate change to the table in China. Indonesia says that the United States needs to show leadership in this area.

It seems like China and the United States are finally willing to cooperate on tackling climate change. China is now the world's leading polluter.

I'm no expert but I can't just get behind clean coal or CO2 sequestration. To me, it's akin to nuclear waste that we just put out of site and out of mind. Though, I'm ok with nuclear power because the ratio of amount of waste produced to energy generated is so much better than coal energy that it's staggering. In my ideal world, we would get all of our energy with zero waste produced. This is wind, solar, or geothermal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for clean air, but CO2 is not a pollutant. I can't believe people consider it that. But coal plants in the US are remarkably clean. Coal power doesn't bother me at all, and will be a necessary bridge to the next phase of energy production, whatever that may be.

Coal mining is a pretty dangerous job, but much safer now than it used to be.

Didn't they ban mountaintop mining? I'm actually ambivalent towards it, but I was pretty sure it was banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for clean air, but CO2 is not a pollutant. I can't believe people consider it that. But coal plants in the US are remarkably clean. Coal power doesn't bother me at all, and will be a necessary bridge to the next phase of energy production, whatever that may be.

While CO2 is not technically a pollutant (since it is naturally occurring), we are pumping way too much of it into our atmosphere. Would you be ok with taking many times more vitamin D than your body can naturally accept? Would you still classify it as safe and non-toxic to your body?

Here is an excellent chart of very likely outcomes with increasing levels of CO2:

stabilisation_b-600.jpg

Keep in mind that the release of CO2 is exponential. CO2 trapped in the ocean, permafrost, etc. will be released when warming occurs in those areas enough to thaw, etc and will dramatically speed up the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere. I agree that we need bridges to cleaner energy, but I don't believe that coal should be a part of that plan. I can't get behind something that requires the removal of our beautiful mountains just so we can have whatever is cheap. I want my nation to be forward thinking and not turn to whatever is easy. If we had done that we never would have landed a man on the Moon or defeated Hitler.

Didn't they ban mountaintop mining? I'm actually ambivalent towards it, but I was pretty sure it was banned.

This was just overturned: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/02/us...-mining-ban.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.