California communities suing for polluters to pay for storm damage

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

Also Musk may help Puerto Rico rebuild their grid.

ibtimes.com/elon-musk-puerto-ricos-governor-discuss-tesla-building-solar-power-grid-2598175

Sounds nice but who will end up paying for it? ( definitely not Tesla)

[Lake-Effect]

Gadagirl's link for the cut'n'paste impaired:

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...ergy-subsidies

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Gadagirl's link for the cut'n'paste impaired:

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...ergy-subsidies

Not cut and paste impaired I did that to read the articles ( the drivel that they are) .
However I feel if you are willing to take the time to post a link you should do it right.

[Exile]

For the sake of objectivity, it would probably be more illustrative to compare direct subsidies as opposed to unknowable and unquantifiable costs of theoretical harm to the environment, or military costs associated with protecting oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. But no matter, the exercise seems rather useless so long as the true cost of producing the same amount of energy from fossil fuels is so much lower than renewables.

The reality is if subsidies (however defined) ceased for the fossil fuel & related industries, the deficit would be reduced, it would be harder for certain congressmen to get reelected, but gas would still be relatively cheap. But if such subsidies were eliminated for the renewable energy industry, the renewable energy industry would no longer exist. If the govt is going to require taxpayers to provide financial support to a billionaire like Elon Musk, then it should be in a laboratory where his supposed brilliance can be tasked to R&D (and where we can keep an eye on him ).

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by Exile

... but gas would still be relatively cheap. But if such subsidies were eliminated for the renewable energy industry, the renewable energy industry would no longer exist...

... but the Chinese renewable energy industry would likely fill the void no problem - no? Or are they too subsidised?

For a country renowned as the bastion of capitalism, those billions and billions in subsidies to power and oil cos (among others) seems incredible to an outsider. Is it all simply about getting re-elected? What a terribly distorted marketplace you seem to have!

[markpierce]

Fuel taxes and road/bridge tolls here pay for roads, but also subsidize alternatives such as bicycles, buses, and trains. ... Don't consider energy-company income deductions for exploratory efforts to be a subsidy. ... We have heavy property taxes subsidizing public transit also. Unfortunately, most public/alternative transportation is expensive and highly subsidized. ... Drivers of private vehicles aren't compensated (for their time or investment) unlike most all others in the transportation field.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

... but the Chinese renewable energy industry would likely fill the void no problem - no? Or are they too subsidized?

You're kidding, right? In an authoritative, communist system where the govt. has absolute control over the economy and just about everything else? Not sure "subsidized" is the right terminology here. I assume you've heard about the "dumping" of Chinese solar panels onto the US economy.

For a country renowned as the bastion of crony capitalism, those billions and billions in subsidies to power and oil cos (among others) seems incredible to an outsider.

As they should, as well as to many inside the US too.

Is it all simply about getting re-elected?

Getting re-elected costs a lot of money. Politicians are therefore constantly fundraising. Industry, unions, wealthy individuals are only too happy to oblige to gain access, influence, and benefits. Exxon-Mobil opens a new plant in a congressman's district with the help of an accelerated capital depreciation schedule passed into the tax code in the middle of the night. Union officials get a favorable ruling from the NLRB after using employee dues to donate to someone's campaign. A billionaire like Elon Musk contributes heavily to a political party and with subsidies alone is able to increase his wealth through stock appreciation even though Tesla has yet to turn a profit selling their luxury cars. But the congressman from Tesla's district gets re-elected for "bringing home the bacon," is able to continue earning a salary he/she would never have been competent enough to earn in the private sector, remains exempt from the ravages of the ACA whether it gets repealed or not, and is assured a pension for life in the amount of his/her full salary whether he/she gets re-elected again or not. Seems like everyone wins except the taxpayer.

What a terribly distorted corrupt marketplace you seem to have!

Agreed!

[jimbunyard]

No global warming worries at all, the darlings of the first world, free markets and technology, will, nay, are, rushing in to save the world...at least according to this guy...just waiting for the dinosaurs in the US and a few other places to get pushed out of the way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwaEU7DFKm0

[danielamartindm]

I understand that AGW issues abut upon our lives as people of Mother Ocean (or maybe not), but I personally feel that blatantly political posts undermine the mission statement of CF. If I want acrimony and dogma, I can go to Breitbart or Media Matters. You're not going to change anyone's political opinions by posting provocative, debatable comments here; so why do it? Just MHO.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by danielamartindm

First they'll have to prove that sea levels are, in fact, rising. Calling it "settled science" doesn't make it so to a court of law, or even a sentient person. Wocka wocka wocka.

Originally Posted by danielamartindm

I understand that AGW issues abut upon our lives as people of Mother Ocean (or maybe not), but I personally feel that blatantly political posts undermine the mission statement of CF. If I want acrimony and dogma, I can go to Breitbart or Media Matters. You're not going to change anyone's political opinions by posting provocative, debatable comments here; so why do it? Just MHO.

There's a mixed message here. Are you asking for people to stop debating AGW on CF altogether, or to simply stop posting messages expressing concern about it?

[SV THIRD DAY]

What's hilarious is to watch the MMGWC-ers try and explain away the fact that their models that their entire religion is based upon failing to predict reality. So when their models don't work, they then start faking the data to make it fit. You can't make this stuff up it's so hilarious...but they DO!

[SV THIRD DAY]

Of course when all people can bring to the debate is personal attacks on people who haven't jointed the MMGWC....folks....you know they can't win the argument, they have surrendered their intellectual curiosity and then have to silence anyone who makes them uncomfortable by asking questions.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The reality is if subsidies (however defined) ceased for the fossil fuel & related industries, the deficit would be reduced, it would be harder for certain congressmen to get reelected, but gas would still be relatively cheap. But if such subsidies were eliminated for the renewable energy industry, the renewable energy industry would no longer exist.

The subsidies to renewable energy have done and are doing what they were expected to do: support and encourage the rapid development of the technologies. One of the better uses of tax dollars, I would say.

Despite all the cries of subsidization on both sides... government and industry are completely entwined: where their aims coincide (eg jobs, or low energy costs to prop up a weak economy) there's support and concessions; where they conflict (eg pollution) there's conflict and regulation.

Neither side are likely to lose their subsidies, though the renewables are in a slightly more precarious position due to their being new and in development, and because the old guard of fossil-fuel is so well entrenched and connected.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Here's the game Exile.
The proponents of MMGW when they see too many opposing viewpoints intentionally try to get the threads shut down by playing the name calling/personal attack game. We have seen it before, but to them, it's better to make the thread go away than have their MMGWC views challenged. Sad...but just look at their behavior.

[Exile]

Nothing personal here, but I think this is an unduly idealistic view.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The subsidies to renewable energy have done and are doing what they were expected to do: support and encourage the rapid development of the technologies. One of the better uses of tax dollars, I would say.

More realistically I would say the subsidies have produced a larger footprint for renewables but done little for the "development of the technologies."

Despite all the cries of subsidization on both sides... government and industry are completely entwined: where their aims coincide (eg jobs, or low energy costs to prop up a weak economy) there's support and concessions; where they conflict (eg pollution) there's conflict and regulation.

All true, but you're forgetting the very real human desire for self-interest & greed. This doesn't suddenly disappear because it involves an industry which purports to be green & clean, or with a congressman who lashes out against the fossil fuel industry to please his naive constituency. The only difference is that the current state of the technology renders large scale renewable energy noncompetitive, and thus dependent on govt subsidy just to survive. Maybe if the taxpayer dollars had been directed more towards R&D and less towards propping up for-profit enterprises run by billionaires, we'd actually be further along with actually making renewables competitive.

Neither side are likely to lose their subsidies, though the renewables are in a slightly more completely precarious position due to their being noncompetitive from a cost standpoint, new and in development, and because the old guard of fossil-fuel is so well entrenched and connected, but mostly because fossil fuels are cheap in comparison.