Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by sesport on September 17, 2009 at 16:09

Robert - That sentiment is mutual, and I'm flattered that you love to hear what I say. :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on September 18, 2009 at 15:21

Robert - As you said, I don't play your game. :0)

Now, I posted this article with the quote from it that states that it looks like there will be NO CARBON CAPS IN THE IMMEDIATE FORSEEABLE FUTURE. Unwad your knickers. lol

:0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on September 19, 2009 at 2:48

Robert, in case you didn't realize greenhouse gas issues are not a liberal -vs- conservative debate. It boils down to one simple question. Do you believe in climate change or not. There are many experts on both sides of that debate but the question should not be one of politics.

Now if you do believe climate change is an issue of concern then the next question is what do you do to fix the problem. Any solution is going to cost money but again if it is a real problem then it has to be addressed.

An ideal solution will tackle all major categories of greenhouse gas emissions - transportation, power generation, industrial fuel, etc. There should not be any special favors given to certain segments just because they have a strong lobby (read - coal production and coal burning power plants). Every option should be on the table including nuclear power if the problem is to dealt with properly.

By the way - I am not a "liberal" and will not try to convince anyone if climate change is or is not a real issue. That is for each individual to derive on their own judgement. That is what makes our country great.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on September 19, 2009 at 3:19

Excellent statement Les. Actually, there are groups that oppose dealing with CO2 emissions that say even if you believe the scientific evidence of climate change, you should not deal with it because 1) it is not caused by man (sun spots, etc) or 2) the costs of dealing with it exceed the benefits.

As you state so well, it isn't a liberal/conservative issue although there is a strong correlation between a person's position on climate change and the source of that person's information.

I happen to believe that a carbon tax is far better than a bad cap & trade law that sells out to electrical producers and coal companies. What worries me is that puts me in bed with ExxonMobile--what am I missing?

An interesting study by Duke University (partially paid for by Duke Power, the nation's third largest emitter) said that last year's Lieberman cap and trade bill under seven different economic scenarios had very little impact on consumer prices through 2035.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on September 19, 2009 at 4:28

w.r.- If those are the findings of the study, why do I get the impression from the article citing the Duke Energy CEO that he's sort of relieved that the Climate bill issues won't be addressed until 2010 or even 2011?

thanks in advance :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on September 19, 2009 at 6:49

sea,

I have heard Jim Rogers speak on several ocassions. Articulate, poised and VERY Smart. Notice how many gas fired power plants Duke has built recently. I think the answer is zero. Notice how much Duke has invested in "clean coal" technology. Answer is, I think, zero.

Duke wants US (taxpayers) to invest in proving "clean coal" technology. Rogers says 40% of CO2 reduction comes from low hanging fruit of retrofit buildings, homes and grid. Duke should be paid for financing retrofit and CO2 decreases and reduction of kwk consumed, instead of for kwh used. Makes sense. He is a seasoned, smart executive that will try to position Duke to profit from coming necessity to reduce CO2.

Just posting "crap and trade is dead" on this site does not add anything to the dialogue.To me nothing is ever a sure thing! If you say that there is a 25% chance that climate change scientific community is correct on 1. it occurring, 2. CO2 is causing it and 3. the result will be terrible, then what kind of society are we that we do not expend the resources to avoid the dire consequences to mankind.

What amazes me is the certitude with which so many people come down on one side or the other on this issue and for which they are totally unprepared professionally or academically to have an opinion. I am in that category myself so I can criticize the amazing certainty.

Unfortunately, it appears that we will need every source of energy (fossil, nuclear, renewable) to get us to a better technological solution, hydogen?, if there is one)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on September 19, 2009 at 4:15

Thank you Les & w.r. - My thought is that, regardless of which type of power generation, there will be some kind of waste associated with it. There will always be the question of how BEST to deal with it. And no matter which way it goes, there will also be an increase in costs associated with it.

IMHO ( and I am NOT an expert in this area/field, just an EJ) to control/reduce carbon emissions from coal fired plants will increase costs, which will be passed on to consumers. To use ng will subject the companies to the "roller coaster" prices, which will be passed on to the consumers. To implement "green" generation involves costly technology, and still some R&D, and those costs will be passed on to the consumers. Nuclear plants are expensive to build, and the cost will be passed on to the consumers. And that's just for power generation.

There's also the energy & waste to consider that's associated with industrial uses and would fall under a cap & trade or a carbon tax. Again, increasing costs that are passed on to consumers.

Bottom line, and again IMHO which may be subject to correction by more qualified experts, costs across the board to consumers will be increasing. The consumers need to become educated about how to be more efficient & economical.

thanks for the kialogue - :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on September 19, 2009 at 8:32

Sort of hard to generalize. France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear. Most of its vehicular fleet is diesel. Last week President Sarkozy proposed a direct tax on carbon. What kills Europe is the price and political instability of Russian NG.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on September 19, 2009 at 8:37

Robert - I agree that cap & trade won't necessarily control/reduce/eliminate one of the wastes (CO2 emissions). From what I've read, as the industries reach their cap, they will be allowed to trade/buy more credits in the exchange, so what does that solve? And, my guess is (and subject to correction) that the $$$ spent in the exchange will be passed down to the consumers anyway.

So, now it seems to me that we're back to square 1, and natural gas once again has an uphill battle in the competition for its share (and increasing its stakehold) in the energy & industrial markets. And that thought hits close to home.

We need a HS Rally like the one that W VA held over the Labor Day weekend. lol


Thanks for the thughts :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on September 19, 2009 at 18:33

Robert - Here's one of the items I found & considered. It's pretty basic, only 4 pages and makes it's point without a lot of hoop-la.

http://www.illinoispolicy.org/uploads/files/cap-and-trade_final[1].pdf

:0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on September 19, 2009 at 19:43

Okay, try this ...

Attachments:

• cap-and-trade_final[1].pdf, 129 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on September 20, 2009 at 3:28

Robert - Did you notice which state drafted that report? Illinois, the state that our current President represented.

Everyone back in the Political Group is always cautioning that they want the government to take their time making decisions (just remember this next time the rally is for instant action, lol). It appears from the 2 articles I've posted (this one and the one about Duke Energy's CEO) that the gov't. is going to take their time considering this.

Just don't think it means we'll all escape increased costs (what some call "digging in our pockets") forever.

best, sincerely - :0)

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page