Reply With Quote
Possibly.
Coal, gas, and oil have never had their subsidies lapse.
What makes you think that any government will stop subsidizing any form of energy?
I never said I did. Right now, I cannot think of subsidies I support beyond helping the elderly and handicapped. As for social programs, only temporary ones to help people get themselves on their feet. If the individual doesn't apply themselves to be able to support themselves, then them.
Possibly.
Coal, gas, and oil have never had their subsidies lapse.
What makes you think that any government will stop subsidizing any form of energy?
Here is a thing that you must try to reconcile:
If you allow companies to pollute unrestrictedly, because of non-existant government oversight (something you advocate for), then that is a subsidy.
Coal production and usage is terribly polluting. Mercury, sulfuric acid rain, and all manner of ash left-overs complicate this energy source.
Government pollution regulations in this sense distort the "free market", by forcing the *true* costs of the energy source on those who produce/consume it.
If we fully require the coal industry to a zero pollution model that fully eliminates any inherent pollution subsidy, that would make coal far more expensive than it is today.
That would imply then, that coal is actually much much less compe ive than any given renewables, would it not?
Good point.
Well put.
I'm not aware of these being subsidized. Can you prove that?
That doesn't happen. Industries are watched, and some older facilities have been grandfathered, but what you speak of is very limited.
Haven't you jkept up? Over the last several decades, regulation have reduced this to a very high degree. Want to pound on this point? Go to asia, Mexico, etc.
WTF do you mean? Regulations do make energy more expensive, and the consumer does pay got it in higher rates than it would otherwise be. That's not necessarily a bad thing. If wind power wasn't subsidized, nobody would build it. they would still build oil, gas, and coal power stations without these subsidies as power requirements dictate more demand.
You will never get zero pollution with anything. There comes a point where the output is acceptable. Now that the EPA has become part of the partisan charades, classing CO2 as a pollutant, it's now impossible. They made themselves a joke. Who wants to listen to them now anyway?
Clean burning technology for coal is expensive, yet still cheaper than many alternatives.
The point is that without environmental pollution being regulated by the government, the companies that do pollute essentially get a "free ride", or a "subsidy" if you will.
Right but "clean" technologies produce less pollution. It's a matter of perspective. RG is assuming a "zero-tolerance-for-pollution model", whereas yours seems to be a "people who are affected by pollution can sue the company" model.
Neither is necessarily right or wrong; RG is just pointing out that environmental regulation can be effective at evening the playing field of clean technologies. (The implementation of said regulations can certainly be ineffective, but that's somewhat beside his overall point.)
This is why agencies like the EPA were created. Few of us want all regulations lifted. If they aren't enforcing good regulations, then they need to be called to the floor.
Yes it is not. We will never get to zero, so where do we draw the line. I haven't seen any percentages of contamination to be concerned over. have you? If so, what did I miss?
No, I want all pollution limited. I rather get tired of people taking the short sighted "all or nothing" at ude.
Evening the playing field should not be done by subsidies. If it has merit, it will,survive by it's merit. Investors will invest if it has merit. Social engineering is just wrong. How can you justify it?
No it doesn't. But that is mostly because the "free market" providers of electricity have the cudgel of regulation and fines hanging over their heads.
Do you think the same free-market that gives us Bernie Madoff, Enron, WorldCom, etc, etc, etc, would just magically suddenly behave completely ethically when it comes to decisions as to whether or not to pollute if they can pad next quarter's bottom line?
Have you ever seen the studies on ethics conducted at business schools and how poorly most MBA candidates do on that? You can't trust crooked politicians, but you put your faith in people who have been proven to be just as ethically deficient?
Do you really think that, absent of government regulations, the dispartiy in resources to fight court battles between billion dollar companies, and small communities or smaller industries would lead to any sort of meaningful pollution controls whatsoever?
Seriously?
Don't get me wrong here.
I am not advocating all or nothing.
What I *am* saying is that coal costs more to the wider economy than you are admitting to.
Some pollution is acceptable, and the costs of goign to "nothing" are pretty steep, and probably beyond the benefit gained.
That said, any pollution is, in essence, stealing something from someone.
In a wider, balanced view of energy sources, you have to consider this in a cost/benefit scenario.
I would also say that lobbying money has grandfathered these coal plants, especially here in Texas, where the Republicans have gone out of their way to be "business-friendly", over the interests of the public good.
You would be shocked at the nasty coal plants that are allowed to keep operating in Texas. That is the best example to me of the real potential failure of the Republican "free market" ideal. It sounds good on paper, but in practice it means selling out to the highest bidder.
Yes, that is why we need some regulations. In some industries, they just laugh at the fines. Some fines simply aren't high enough.
No. But if people are going to break laws, what good does more regulations and laws do? Bernie was caught and is now in jail. I forget what happened to the ENRON CEO's but didn't they get jail time also? Worldcom, I didn't follow, but wasn't there some convictions for wrongdoing there too?
What more do you want? Executions?
Bull . I don't trust anyone until they prove themselves trustworthy. However, the at ude that they are all corrupt and treating them as such has severe problems too.
What the are you talking about. When have I ever advocated no regulations?
This is what I hate about debating you. No matter what I say, you argue as if I believe other than I do. You argue as if I am someone else.
your bigoted at ude.
What do you mean by disparity of resources? Do you think everyone should share without compensation?
What subsidies?
Link please.
You idiots are making the wrong arguments. I am not against most clean air regulations.
Where in is that coming from?
I don't believe you. What evidence do you have? Coal is one of the more cost effective means of generating electricity.
Not if it is small enough that nature handles it just fine.
Absolutely. That's why I am against hydrogen, ethanol, and a few other things.
Don't know the situation there. There had been talk of closing the Boardman plant here in Oregon. I think it will be closing for good. Maybe there are similar timelines involved in Texas for upgrades or closures. Boardman was going to operate until at least 2040, but the upgrades required are too expensive. They made a deal for less expensive upgrades and closing in 2020.
PGE files to close Boardman coal plant early, rekindles concerns
wiki: Boardman Coal Plant
I wouldn't call it a failure if American free market values, but whatever is happening, it will not continue indefinitely.
Have a comprehensive link by chance, or only biased ones?
I was doing a little research on the Boardman plant. They could bring the plant up to standards and run it for another 30 years or more. The cost of modernization alone isn't what's stopping them. It's the unknown cost of paying for Cap~n~Tax!
Because of that, they will run the plant dirty until shut down, rather than cleaning it up!
Thank you lib s, for the policies you support and defend. they are really helping clean things up.
Since the government began aggressively issuing offshore drilling permits under President Reagan, the industry has received tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies, including exemptions from royalty payments — the fees due when a company extracts resources from U.S. government property.
...
The Government Accountability Office estimates that the deep-water waiver program could cost the Treasury $55 billion or more in lost revenue over the life of the leases, depending on the price of oil and gas and the performances of the wells.
Excerpts from here
double post
Most large turbines take up 1/2 an acre.At least wind and solar are energy-dense and don't require much land.
All of the "could", but none of them would, because it would cost them much money (aka incomes/bonuses for the top mgmt). So they say they will stay dirty forever unless taxpayers bail them out to become clean.
And Americans want everything to work well, like clean, renewable energy, but they don't want to pay for it. America is the country of the eternal free lunch.
Coal is not "efficient" if you consider the permanent, irremediable environmental destruction to mine it, the CO2, waste heat, and water to produce it, and the costs of disposing/storing toxic coal ash, which BigCoal has bought enough govt to keep from being regulated.
Thanks WC for slapping yourself.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-30-2010 at 08:41 AM.
Spare me the moral outrage. You do plenty of arguing with others as if they believe things other than they do, and you know it.
That said:
If I have misrepresented your beliefs, then I apologize.
I was under the distinct impression you were a very strict libertarian. Libertarians generally advocate that we really really gut the Federal government's ability to regulate anything.
Please, in the interests of fairness, what are your specific views on pollution controls?
How much burden to we place on private industry to not pollute? Where do you feel that line should be?
Fair enough. It is something of a research project, as I spoke from what I remember ulatively reading about the subject.
Give me a day or two, and I will see what I can find to support that. We will probably get into the "what is a subsidy" semantic argument, though, unless you accept that special tax breaks comprise "subsidies".
Have you added the cost of asthma and other related respiratory ailments into the cost of coal based energy generation (for example).
Maybe that's it, but you can't pack them that close t0gether, so that figure is meaningless, unless... it's the actual base and fence area since these sometimes are placed over farms. The space that can't be used for something else.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
