On that basis you can't tax me. You need CAUSATION.
Ah, and it comes out. You're coal power. Gotcha. No, I don't need 'causation' to tax you, no more than Uncle Sam needs causation to tax my income.
On that basis you can't tax me. You need CAUSATION.
Let's see. We have studies that:
1. Show emissions from coal power plants. We know what they are, quantities, etc...
2. Show air samples in communities around said plants containing elevated amounts of said emissions.
3. Show elevated amounts of illness
At this point, yeah, it could still be considered correlation. However, that's not all
4. Laboratory tests of said emissions, in the amounts experienced by the communities, have shown that the lab animals exposed suffer higher rates of illness/death
5. Biological studies have even identified the mechanisms involved in creating many of the illnesses.
Face it dude, you're a tobacco exective saying that the increased incidences of lung cancer among smokers is 'only correlation'.
People that don't grasp the distinction between correlation and causation shouldn't cite statistics AT ALL.
Well, it's a good thing you don't cite any, now is it?
As to power plants being dangerous to workers etc... don't be obtuse. It makes you sound petty and quarrelsome which is not helping you.
I thought it was a valid arguing tactic going by your example.
As to internalizing costs, you cannot do that unless you can nail down causation on a case by case basis.
You may not be able to be precise about it, but you can get it in the ballpark.
As to 29%... we're talking about PM2.5 in San Francisco actually if you read the source. And the amount of air pollution in San Francisco is pretty fucking low.
Compared to China, yes. They still have problems with it.
Let me make this clear, you know there is arsenic in many natural water sources right? That's something we often use as RAT POISON.
There's also Uranium in my water. Do I need to point out why I don't need to worry about having a functioning nuclear reactor for a body anytime soon? Man, you assume all sorts of ignorance on my part. And then you go on and on and on about it...
Yes, dosage is incredibly important. But the point is - there's enough pollution from coal power plants, combined with other pollution sources, to cause serious negative health benefits. Remember how I mentioned taxing gasoline for it's pollution as well? You're ALL responsible.
As to the geo engineering... if you're not familiar with the proposed methods of geo engineering than you're not well read on climate change. Period.
And this matters why when my point was only tangently related to climate change? Again, reading your sources, these are not 'shovel ready' proposals.
The cost structure for these plans is well under a billion dollars for either one. And either would entirely negate the effect of global warming. Understand... ENTIRELY negate the warming. ALL of it.
If that was true, I'd expect a lot more scientists to be jumping on it.
Instead, from the articles it's made very clear that there remains a LOT of research left on the Sulfur Dioxide problem, and the second points out that it'd only be a partial solution, and reducing CO2 emissions would still be needed.
The carbon credit scheme will do nothing of the kind whilst costing trillions.
if you want the warming to stop, support a plan that will ACTUALLY work.
Which is all well and good when you realize that I never supported carbon credits. I viewed them as an over-complicated crock long before this thread.
And then take the MASSIVE savings and sink a portion of that into funding research for new technologies. Contrary to what you might think, funding for new technologies to replace coal etc are not actually that high.
At least you have 'might' in here. Because I agree that they're not that high. Massive savings, on the other hand, that's more debatable.
A straight up CO2 tax, on the other hand, would be bringing money in that could then be spent developing said replacement infrastructure, or even fund geo-engineering if that turned out to be cheaper.
We spend a lot of money on wind farms and solar farms but we don't spend anywhere near that kind of money on research into the technology that will actually get rid of coal.
Like nuclear power... For about the same price per watt of capacity, you can get three times or more kWh per year, due to the fact that nuclear can reach a 90% capacity factor, while solar/wind is lucky to hit 30%. Capacity factor being the ratio between actual power produced, divided by the theoretical maximum it could have produced if it ran at 100% the entire period.
As to conflating all subsidies as equal... *sigh*... please try to watch the fallacies. You seem to operate almost entirely in them and it makes it tedious to correct simple logical errors. There are small subsidies and there are fucking massive subsides. Saying "we subsidized something once so clearly all subsides no matter how massive are just the same thing."
Tedius? Well, I suppose carefully crafting a strawman to attack does get rather tedious. Reread what I said and add a hefty dose of pessimism to what I said. I wasn't saying that global warming subsidies aren't massive and corrupt. I'm saying that massive corrupt subsidies are a fact of life. Wool. Sugar. Citris. Automobiles. Planes. Corn. I was disagreeing with the 'contempt' part, not the corruption part.
Utter and complete nonsense.
Doesn't actually mean anything.
The point is as inconvienent to you politically and ideologically as it may be... is that the man you think you're sticking it to with the AGW rules... play directly into the man's hands. He gets to fuck over his competition by creating so much red tape and regulation that only the big companies can deal with it either because they have dedicated legal departments or because they can buy exemptions from congressman. And then the pork just flows and flows and flows. Is anyone scrutinizing the funding on these solar power plants or wind farms? Who gets the contracts, if whatever is being installed is being bidded out at a competitive rate?
...Didn't I suggest that you stop trying to think what I was thinking? Your rant also shows a simplistic view on how congressional corruption/pork/federal subsidies work.
If you don't know the tax payers get hosed on these projects more often than not... then let this be your wake up call. These programs are often as not given to campaign contributors, at marked up rates, and if you itemize what is actually being installed and do a cost analysis on what is being charged for it all... you'll find the numbers do not add up.
...When did I endorse solar/wind?
What is my solution for all that? I don't think solar and wind should be build in big centralized power projects. Instead, I think citizens should be given tax credits for installing solar panels and wind turbines on their own property.
They are. Though you pretty much have to be a farmer in order to install a wind turbine big enough to be economical. PV panels scale down really well. Turbines are better the bigger and higher they are.
Wind and solar are unique in that you can put them up almost anywhere and they're very defuse energy sources.
diffuse man, not defuse.
What I like about the defuse model is that it is hard for any one company to bribe a congressman to get a contract. Every individual panel buyer or wind mill buyer can buy a panel or a wind mill from any company they want.
Solyndra, man. Government pork to a company intended to sell panels to individual buyers. Like I said, your examples of pork are rather simplistic.
Okay, the way government subsidies work for solar/wind.
1. Individuals get extra tax credits/deductions installing
2. Businesses get extra deductions/credits for installing
3. Companies that produce solar/wind often get local subsidies in the form of reduced taxes(note: Very common outside of renewable energy companies as well).
4. Renewable energy companies get grants to develop stuff.
5. Renewable energy companies get things like loan guarantees from the fed, enabling them to borrow money, or at least borrow money at a lower interest rate. Cheap(to the government) when the company succeeds, expensive when it fails.
You don't actually see much where the government is paying for a specific project via a specific line item in a funding bill, especially at the federal level. What happens is that some business proposes putting up a wind/solar farm, and takes advantage of existing federal subsidies/credits for it.
And consider their tax dollars are currently being funneled to big companies to install these power stations. Why not stop issuing those contracts ENTIRELY and direct ALL of that money to subsidies for private solar and wind at the consumer level?
Because, as I just stated, said contracts don't actually exist? One can certainly argue about ending subsidies for 'large power plants' though. You'd just want to put in some wording so that businesses putting panels in on their roof still get the appropriate subsidies, as long as you still support subsidizing them.
The closes to the contracts you're implying, IE directly between the government and the installer, would be for projects involving putting solar panels and wind turbines up on government property. And such make a LOT of sense in some situations for the government.
For example, deployed locations. You haven't seen expensive power until you're looking at generators running on diesel delivered by convoy. Meanwhile, the camp has a massive amount of clear space simply to make targeting by mortar/rocket difficult. I figured out one deployment that, even figuring on air delivery of the panels, the payback would be 3 months on solar panels. Sure, they wouldn't work at night, but hey, the reduced number of convoys necessary would save 'several' lives a year.
Here you'll say "it isn't as efficient because the units used at the utility level produce a lot more power per dollar input"
Man, you're bad at guessing what I'd say. Now, as I said earlier, wind doesn't scale down that well(the wind is more consistent at higher altitudes, and bigger blades are more efficient), so solar PV is the primary residential install. Now yes, a power company can install PV 'cheaper' than consumers can, between bulk purchasing(vs retail), 'ideal' panel placement(as opposed to pre-existing roof angle), and automation. But the price point they're competing against is also different. They're competing at wholesale prices - IE the 2-4 cents a kWh baseload generators are making. Maybe a couple cents higher in competition with daytime peaking plants. Meanwhile, home solar is competing against retail electric prices - averaging 12 cents a kWh in the USA.
In much of the USA, if you have a suitable roof and are located far enough south, PV makes good sense.
... yes and no. The distribution system is not calculated in that... and i'm not talking about what any power has to deal with but specifically costs associated wtih dealing with solar and wind power introduced to the grid. They play merry hell with the grid because the power jumps around all over the fucking place.
...Not enough to really cause problems until they reach an OOM more penetration than they have in most of the country. Hawaii's being a good test bed in that respect though. See above where I talk about capacity factors otherwise. See earlier posts where I mention natural gas taking over from coal...
Beyond that, municipalities often exploit residents by jacking up power and water costs because they can't justify raising taxes. They'll jack up water or power costs and then redirect the money at program X or Y that had nothing to do with water or power.
That's amazingly difficult to do in most areas. For example, my power company is a cooperative, not a government body. Jacking their prices up nets the government nothing. In other areas they're outright commercial companies.
Generally speaking, the reason power & water costs are going up is that expanding capacity and meeting new government regulations is expensive. Such as the pollution controls on coal. Nitrate levels in water. The EPA keeps tightening the screws.
Still, you get hilarious things like the water company pushing conservation, which leads to less water being used, then, because less water is being used and the treatment plant costs about the same to run no matter how much water they treat, they end up having to raise rates because they're selling less water but have the same expenses.