Germany's Green Plan is Crumbling

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2014 7:13 PM GMT
    The subsidies in the industry whether they be in the US or Germany are unsustainable.

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2013/06/15/germanys-green-plan-is-crumbling/

    Businessmen say the Energiewende [Germany's energy revolution] will kill German industry. Power experts worry about blackouts. Voters are furious about ever higher fuel bills. The chaos undermines Germany’s claim to efficiency, threatens its vaunted competitiveness and unnecessarily burdens households. It also demonstrates Germany’s curious refusal to think about Europe strategically. [...]

    The cost of this mess is passed on to electricity users. Household fuel bills have gone up by a quarter over the past three years, to 40-50% above the EU average. And because the contracts guaranteeing renewables prices are set for 20 years, the problem will get worse as more such supplies come on stream. Thomas Vahlenkamp of McKinsey reckons that the cost of the Energiewende will double over the next decade. Rising electricity bills will dampen German consumers’ spending, exactly the opposite of what is needed to rebalance the economy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2014 10:22 PM GMT
    Dude, you're so pathetic. I've never seen anyone who's so anxious to post anti-environmental drivel. I won't bother reading your stupid link because 9 times out of 10 they're from some retarded Conservative source. And even if Germany's green plan isn't working, why don't you ever post anything that highlights the green plans across the globe that ARE working?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 26, 2014 10:45 PM GMT
    Scruffypup saidDude, you're so pathetic. I've never seen anyone who's so anxious to post anti-environmental drivel. I won't bother reading your stupid link because 9 times out of 10 they're from some retarded Conservative source. And even if Germany's green plan isn't working, why don't you ever post anything that highlights the green plans across the globe that ARE working?


    Except it's not a conservative source. Maybe you should try for once to shrug off your ignorance and lack of curiosity in the world.

    I have posted a number of articles about technologies that are working and that promise to be revolutionary economically. It's just too bad your sensitive eyes are unable to absorb facts that might run contrary to your vicious world view.
  • PolitiMAC

    Posts: 728

    Feb 27, 2014 12:06 AM GMT
    Of course, they're unsustainable. They're ALL unsustainable icon_razz.gif

    Green energy is just far too expensive and way too inefficient.

    Give me coal and gas any day (cue the outrage and dismay of the Greenies who think we're all gonna die soon).
  • PolitiMAC

    Posts: 728

    Feb 27, 2014 12:08 AM GMT
    Scruffypup saidDude, you're so pathetic. I've never seen anyone who's so anxious to post anti-environmental drivel. I won't bother reading your stupid link because 9 times out of 10 they're from some retarded Conservative source. And even if Germany's green plan isn't working, why don't you ever post anything that highlights the green plans across the globe that ARE working?


    So because it might be from a Conservative site, it's wrong?

    This is the intolerance of the Left that I point out.

    Arrogant, sanctimonious and rude sneering and scoffing at anything you don't agree with.

    "Green plans that ARE working", you ask?

    Please, do tell me one that one; is cost effective, two; energy efficient and three; LOWERS THE TEMPERATURE.

    That's the whole point of so called Green Energy; to lower the temperature of the planet because it's supposed to get rid of pollution and that murderous gas, CO2 (which is hardly murderous).
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14295

    Feb 27, 2014 12:22 AM GMT
    Scruffypup saidDude, you're so pathetic. I've never seen anyone who's so anxious to post anti-environmental drivel. I won't bother reading your stupid link because 9 times out of 10 they're from some retarded Conservative source. And even if Germany's green plan isn't working, why don't you ever post anything that highlights the green plans across the globe that ARE working?
    Because Germany is considered a major international leader and innovator of green technology. If it is not working, than there needs to be a major overhaul of the green technologies and while that is being pursued the use of fossil fuels will have to do for now until these so-called green technologies become more perfected and sustainable. By looking into the serious problems that Germany is encountering with the green technologies, it will give us an opportunity to see if this is going to work right or end being a costly disastrous failure with the taxpayers stuck with the bills. I am all for reducing our reliance on coal and oil but there has to be workable, economical alternatives available. Right now there really isn't unfortunately.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 27, 2014 2:03 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    Scruffypup saidDude, you're so pathetic. I've never seen anyone who's so anxious to post anti-environmental drivel. I won't bother reading your stupid link because 9 times out of 10 they're from some retarded Conservative source. And even if Germany's green plan isn't working, why don't you ever post anything that highlights the green plans across the globe that ARE working?
    Because Germany is considered a major international leader and innovator of green technology. If it is not working, than there needs to be a major overhaul of the green technologies and while that is being pursued the use of fossil fuels will have to do for now until these so-called green technologies become more perfected and sustainable. By looking into the serious problems that Germany is encountering with the green technologies, it will give us an opportunity to see if this is going to work right or end being a costly disastrous failure with the taxpayers stuck with the bills. I am all for reducing our reliance on coal and oil but there has to be workable, economical alternatives available. Right now there really isn't unfortunately.


    There are a few things that can be done that both help the environment and are sustainable economically:

    (1) Switch from oil and coal to natural gas - which is already at least 50% better for the environment

    (2) Reduce barriers for people buying new cars - newer cars are far more efficient and cleaner.

    (3) Reduce regulations and costs surrounding retrofits for cars to be flex fuel.

    (4) Pave the way for regulations for automated cars and adaptive cruise control - these will reduce the purchase of cars in the long term and allow for more "sharing". They will also be more efficient and reduce the need for as many highways.

    The next step up would be to remove subsidies and instead offer "prizes" for achieving specific objective goals for solar wind and nuclear. We are on the cusp already of a tipping point for solar - with solar already economical. What isn't economical is the batteries... but I think that's coming - and there a lot of exciting technologies in the pipe there.

    What is absolutely idiotic is what you point out - subsidies that play favorites for specific technologies rather than outcomes - ones that are no longer affordable to taxpayers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2014 9:21 PM GMT
    http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/02/27/germanys-energiewende-a-path-to-economic-self-destruction/

    More bad news for Germany’s green dreamers: Two reports published this week highlight some fundamental flaws underlying the Energiewende, Germany’s radical set of energy policies.

    The first, by the Commission for Research and Innovation (EFI), states that the subsidies by which green power producers in Germany are paid guaranteed, above-market prices to put electricity on the grid aren’t a cost-effective instrument for climate protection. Nor are they producing a measurable effect on innovation. “For both these reasons, there is no justification for a continuation of the EEG [the Renewable Energy Law],” the report concludes.

    Those are devastating blows against the Energiewende’s legislative cornerstone, which has been in force since 2000. The special path on energy cost taxpayers €22 billion last year alone—and that figure doesn’t include residual costs to the economy. . . .

    The second report, by Information Handling Services (IHS), calculates that Germany lost €15 billion in exports last year from having to pay a premium for electricity compared with international competitors, and a total of €52 billion in the six-year period from 2008–13. As the Financial Times points out, smaller companies were disproportionately affected, because, “unlike heavy energy users such as BASF and ThyssenKrupp, small companies are not eligible for exemptions from the energy bill surcharges that cover the costs of the move to clean energy.”
  • The_Guruburu

    Posts: 895

    Mar 03, 2014 9:34 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    roadbikeRob said
    Scruffypup saidDude, you're so pathetic. I've never seen anyone who's so anxious to post anti-environmental drivel. I won't bother reading your stupid link because 9 times out of 10 they're from some retarded Conservative source. And even if Germany's green plan isn't working, why don't you ever post anything that highlights the green plans across the globe that ARE working?
    Because Germany is considered a major international leader and innovator of green technology. If it is not working, than there needs to be a major overhaul of the green technologies and while that is being pursued the use of fossil fuels will have to do for now until these so-called green technologies become more perfected and sustainable. By looking into the serious problems that Germany is encountering with the green technologies, it will give us an opportunity to see if this is going to work right or end being a costly disastrous failure with the taxpayers stuck with the bills. I am all for reducing our reliance on coal and oil but there has to be workable, economical alternatives available. Right now there really isn't unfortunately.


    There are a few things that can be done that both help the environment and are sustainable economically:

    (1) Switch from oil and coal to natural gas - which is already at least 50% better for the environment

    (2) Reduce barriers for people buying new cars - newer cars are far more efficient and cleaner.

    (3) Reduce regulations and costs surrounding retrofits for cars to be flex fuel.

    (4) Pave the way for regulations for automated cars and adaptive cruise control - these will reduce the purchase of cars in the long term and allow for more "sharing". They will also be more efficient and reduce the need for as many highways.

    The next step up would be to remove subsidies and instead offer "prizes" for achieving specific objective goals for solar wind and nuclear. We are on the cusp already of a tipping point for solar - with solar already economical. What isn't economical is the batteries... but I think that's coming - and there a lot of exciting technologies in the pipe there.

    What is absolutely idiotic is what you point out - subsidies that play favorites for specific technologies rather than outcomes - ones that are no longer affordable to taxpayers.



    If only...icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2014 9:41 PM GMT
    The alternatives are far worse...

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/03/03/titans-of-eu-industry-green-follies-are-killing-us/

    Europe’s dogged pursuit of a solar- and wind-powered future has jacked up energy prices for households and industry alike. For families, it has meant higher monthly power bills—a tax felt most keenly by the poor. For businesses, it has even farther-reaching implications. As the EUobserver reports, more than a hundred leaders of European industry are warning that these rising costs are threatening the EU’s economic recovery. . . .

    This isn’t just a matter of lower-than-expected GDP growth for EU member states. Europe has staked out a position as a global leader in green initiatives, so for many of these CEOs the recent rise in electricity prices is only the beginning. Overall, the costs of doing business in Europe are edging toward the unworkable. For multinationals, healthier energy and regulatory environments are beckoning. In particular, the shale boom has made the United States an especially attractive home for energy-intensive industry.

    Europe is beginning to feel the pains of its policy of placing the environment before the economy. This is a shame, because the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. America is an excellent example of a healthier balance: by embracing shale gas, it has been able to wean itself somewhat off of coal, both reducing emissions and bringing prices down. Europe has plenty of shale itself, if it would only embrace it.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Mar 05, 2014 10:54 PM GMT
    PolitiNerd said
    Scruffypup saidDude, you're so pathetic. I've never seen anyone who's so anxious to post anti-environmental drivel. I won't bother reading your stupid link because 9 times out of 10 they're from some retarded Conservative source. And even if Germany's green plan isn't working, why don't you ever post anything that highlights the green plans across the globe that ARE working?


    So because it might be from a Conservative site, it's wrong?

    This is the intolerance of the Left that I point out.

    Arrogant, sanctimonious and rude sneering and scoffing at anything you don't agree with.

    "Green plans that ARE working", you ask?

    Please, do tell me one that one; is cost effective, two; energy efficient and three; LOWERS THE TEMPERATURE.

    That's the whole point of so called Green Energy; to lower the temperature of the planet because it's supposed to get rid of pollution and that murderous gas, CO2 (which is hardly murderous).

    But you act the same way toward people on the left.icon_confused.gif

    Scruffy is right about Riddler, anyway. I've never met anyone who's pro-technology but anti-science. Somehow, you conservatives have turned an oxymoron into a platform.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2014 11:14 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    PolitiNerd said
    Scruffypup saidDude, you're so pathetic. I've never seen anyone who's so anxious to post anti-environmental drivel. I won't bother reading your stupid link because 9 times out of 10 they're from some retarded Conservative source. And even if Germany's green plan isn't working, why don't you ever post anything that highlights the green plans across the globe that ARE working?


    So because it might be from a Conservative site, it's wrong?

    This is the intolerance of the Left that I point out.

    Arrogant, sanctimonious and rude sneering and scoffing at anything you don't agree with.

    "Green plans that ARE working", you ask?

    Please, do tell me one that one; is cost effective, two; energy efficient and three; LOWERS THE TEMPERATURE.

    That's the whole point of so called Green Energy; to lower the temperature of the planet because it's supposed to get rid of pollution and that murderous gas, CO2 (which is hardly murderous).

    But you act the same way toward people on the left.icon_confused.gif

    Scruffy is right about Riddler, anyway. I've never met anyone who's pro-technology but anti-science. Somehow, you conservatives have turned an oxymoron into a platform.


    Except for the fact I'm both pro-tech and pro-science, please do note that you're the one who is anti-GMO, anti-facking anti-progress when it comes to carbon based fuels or even nuclear. In reality when it comes to your positions, the best way that it can be characterized is pro-hysteria devoid of reason.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Mar 05, 2014 11:20 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    PolitiNerd said
    Scruffypup saidDude, you're so pathetic. I've never seen anyone who's so anxious to post anti-environmental drivel. I won't bother reading your stupid link because 9 times out of 10 they're from some retarded Conservative source. And even if Germany's green plan isn't working, why don't you ever post anything that highlights the green plans across the globe that ARE working?


    So because it might be from a Conservative site, it's wrong?

    This is the intolerance of the Left that I point out.

    Arrogant, sanctimonious and rude sneering and scoffing at anything you don't agree with.

    "Green plans that ARE working", you ask?

    Please, do tell me one that one; is cost effective, two; energy efficient and three; LOWERS THE TEMPERATURE.

    That's the whole point of so called Green Energy; to lower the temperature of the planet because it's supposed to get rid of pollution and that murderous gas, CO2 (which is hardly murderous).

    But you act the same way toward people on the left.icon_confused.gif

    Scruffy is right about Riddler, anyway. I've never met anyone who's pro-technology but anti-science. Somehow, you conservatives have turned an oxymoron into a platform.


    Except for the fact I'm both pro-tech and pro-science, please do note that you're the one who is anti-GMO, anti-facking anti-progress when it comes to carbon based fuels or even nuclear. In reality when it comes to your positions, the best way that it can be characterized is pro-hysteria devoid of reason.

    You're a climate change denier. There is more scientific research on climate change than on GMOs. No one will ever take you seriously when you write off 95% of scientists and instead side with conspiracy theorists. Also, I never said I was against GMOs. I just question anyone who blindly supports multi-nationals, like you do, and makes false claims about organic farming, or the safety of fracking and nuclear technologies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 05, 2014 11:53 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    PolitiNerd said
    Scruffypup saidDude, you're so pathetic. I've never seen anyone who's so anxious to post anti-environmental drivel. I won't bother reading your stupid link because 9 times out of 10 they're from some retarded Conservative source. And even if Germany's green plan isn't working, why don't you ever post anything that highlights the green plans across the globe that ARE working?


    So because it might be from a Conservative site, it's wrong?

    This is the intolerance of the Left that I point out.

    Arrogant, sanctimonious and rude sneering and scoffing at anything you don't agree with.

    "Green plans that ARE working", you ask?

    Please, do tell me one that one; is cost effective, two; energy efficient and three; LOWERS THE TEMPERATURE.

    That's the whole point of so called Green Energy; to lower the temperature of the planet because it's supposed to get rid of pollution and that murderous gas, CO2 (which is hardly murderous).

    But you act the same way toward people on the left.icon_confused.gif

    Scruffy is right about Riddler, anyway. I've never met anyone who's pro-technology but anti-science. Somehow, you conservatives have turned an oxymoron into a platform.


    Except for the fact I'm both pro-tech and pro-science, please do note that you're the one who is anti-GMO, anti-facking anti-progress when it comes to carbon based fuels or even nuclear. In reality when it comes to your positions, the best way that it can be characterized is pro-hysteria devoid of reason.

    You're a climate change denier. There is more scientific research on climate change than on GMOs. No one will ever take you seriously when you write off 95% of scientists and instead side with conspiracy theorists. Also, I never said I was against GMOs. I just question anyone who blindly supports multi-nationals, like you do, and makes false claims about organic farming, or the safety of fracking and nuclear technologies.


    Except that I am not. It's really too bad you don't actually bother taking the time to either understand the science or the positions of others who don't take the extreme positions you do.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Mar 06, 2014 12:01 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    PolitiNerd said
    Scruffypup saidDude, you're so pathetic. I've never seen anyone who's so anxious to post anti-environmental drivel. I won't bother reading your stupid link because 9 times out of 10 they're from some retarded Conservative source. And even if Germany's green plan isn't working, why don't you ever post anything that highlights the green plans across the globe that ARE working?


    So because it might be from a Conservative site, it's wrong?

    This is the intolerance of the Left that I point out.

    Arrogant, sanctimonious and rude sneering and scoffing at anything you don't agree with.

    "Green plans that ARE working", you ask?

    Please, do tell me one that one; is cost effective, two; energy efficient and three; LOWERS THE TEMPERATURE.

    That's the whole point of so called Green Energy; to lower the temperature of the planet because it's supposed to get rid of pollution and that murderous gas, CO2 (which is hardly murderous).

    But you act the same way toward people on the left.icon_confused.gif

    Scruffy is right about Riddler, anyway. I've never met anyone who's pro-technology but anti-science. Somehow, you conservatives have turned an oxymoron into a platform.


    Except for the fact I'm both pro-tech and pro-science, please do note that you're the one who is anti-GMO, anti-facking anti-progress when it comes to carbon based fuels or even nuclear. In reality when it comes to your positions, the best way that it can be characterized is pro-hysteria devoid of reason.

    You're a climate change denier. There is more scientific research on climate change than on GMOs. No one will ever take you seriously when you write off 95% of scientists and instead side with conspiracy theorists. Also, I never said I was against GMOs. I just question anyone who blindly supports multi-nationals, like you do, and makes false claims about organic farming, or the safety of fracking and nuclear technologies.


    Except that I am not. It's really too bad you don't actually bother taking the time to either understand the science or the positions of others who don't take the extreme positions you do.

    If you're not a denier, then you're just a greedy vandal, because you know what we're doing is permanently damaging the environment, yet you keep promoting it anyway, and all for short-term economic gains for the elite.icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2014 12:44 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    PolitiNerd said
    Scruffypup saidDude, you're so pathetic. I've never seen anyone who's so anxious to post anti-environmental drivel. I won't bother reading your stupid link because 9 times out of 10 they're from some retarded Conservative source. And even if Germany's green plan isn't working, why don't you ever post anything that highlights the green plans across the globe that ARE working?


    So because it might be from a Conservative site, it's wrong?

    This is the intolerance of the Left that I point out.

    Arrogant, sanctimonious and rude sneering and scoffing at anything you don't agree with.

    "Green plans that ARE working", you ask?

    Please, do tell me one that one; is cost effective, two; energy efficient and three; LOWERS THE TEMPERATURE.

    That's the whole point of so called Green Energy; to lower the temperature of the planet because it's supposed to get rid of pollution and that murderous gas, CO2 (which is hardly murderous).

    But you act the same way toward people on the left.icon_confused.gif

    Scruffy is right about Riddler, anyway. I've never met anyone who's pro-technology but anti-science. Somehow, you conservatives have turned an oxymoron into a platform.


    Except for the fact I'm both pro-tech and pro-science, please do note that you're the one who is anti-GMO, anti-facking anti-progress when it comes to carbon based fuels or even nuclear. In reality when it comes to your positions, the best way that it can be characterized is pro-hysteria devoid of reason.

    You're a climate change denier. There is more scientific research on climate change than on GMOs. No one will ever take you seriously when you write off 95% of scientists and instead side with conspiracy theorists. Also, I never said I was against GMOs. I just question anyone who blindly supports multi-nationals, like you do, and makes false claims about organic farming, or the safety of fracking and nuclear technologies.


    You say that as if it's an insult. It is not. The earth's climate has been changing for 4.7 billion years and unlikely to stop anytime soon.

  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Mar 06, 2014 12:51 AM GMT
    PolitiNerd said Please, do tell me one that one; is cost effective, two; energy efficient and three; LOWERS THE TEMPERATURE.


    Any renewable energy source is cost effective when the alternative, at the end of the day, is a fossil fuel that once it's gone...it's gone!
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3515

    Mar 06, 2014 1:59 AM GMT
    I would like to see bonus money to support retrofitting "outdoor enabled refridgerators" I mean it is sub zero in most of the populated world for 6 months of the year, why cant we get a refridgerator with a hole in the wall to all that cold weather
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2014 3:09 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidIf you're not a denier, then you're just a greedy vandal, because you know what we're doing is permanently damaging the environment, yet you keep promoting it anyway, and all for short-term economic gains for the elite.icon_confused.gif


    You lack imagination and an inability to think outside your hysteria. No, I don't know what we're doing is permanently damaging the environment. In fact it appears to be quite the opposite.

    The thing about science is that it requires a certain level of skepticism understanding that the more we know often we learn that the less we do. Certainly there are some bounds but climate science is one that has been evolving substantially especially after the hockey stick graph was called into question - and especially since there's been little warming in the last 10 years which wasn't predicted in the models.

    I think it's ironic that you are so anti-science and yet run around claiming others are while advocating policies that hurt others particularly the poor. You might want to familiarize yourself a bit better with the science.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2014 3:14 PM GMT
    TrentGrad said
    PolitiNerd said Please, do tell me one that one; is cost effective, two; energy efficient and three; LOWERS THE TEMPERATURE.


    Any renewable energy source is cost effective when the alternative, at the end of the day, is a fossil fuel that once it's gone...it's gone!


    And so it makes sense to look for additional sources while developing others. Which is why natural gas is likely to be a transitional fuel source until we make it to cost effective nuclear/solar.

    That said, the world has changed considerably in the last 10 years. Energy is no longer the constraint it was - 10 years ago we thought we were running out of natural gas and oil in North America. Today there's a substantial surplus - which is projected only to grow.

    What I think "scientists" who don't understand economics don't get is that markets reflect scarcity. ie the less there is of something relative to constant demand, it will go up in price. So lower prices for some resources either suggests and external subsidy (e.g. helium is a good example), or that the markets predict there is a lot more of it left.

    So when Politinerd points out cost effectiveness, he is also pointing to availability.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Mar 08, 2014 4:27 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidIf you're not a denier, then you're just a greedy vandal, because you know what we're doing is permanently damaging the environment, yet you keep promoting it anyway, and all for short-term economic gains for the elite.icon_confused.gif


    You lack imagination and an inability to think outside your hysteria. No, I don't know what we're doing is permanently damaging the environment. In fact it appears to be quite the opposite.

    The thing about science is that it requires a certain level of skepticism understanding that the more we know often we learn that the less we do. Certainly there are some bounds but climate science is one that has been evolving substantially especially after the hockey stick graph was called into question - and especially since there's been little warming in the last 10 years which wasn't predicted in the models.

    I think it's ironic that you are so anti-science and yet run around claiming others are while advocating policies that hurt others particularly the poor. You might want to familiarize yourself a bit better with the science.

    Then you obviously have ignored the latest findings from the scientific community on the endangered great coral reef barrier in Australia---just to name one area where the damage to the environment will last 1,000s, if not millions, of years.icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 08, 2014 4:55 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidIf you're not a denier, then you're just a greedy vandal, because you know what we're doing is permanently damaging the environment, yet you keep promoting it anyway, and all for short-term economic gains for the elite.icon_confused.gif


    You lack imagination and an inability to think outside your hysteria. No, I don't know what we're doing is permanently damaging the environment. In fact it appears to be quite the opposite.

    The thing about science is that it requires a certain level of skepticism understanding that the more we know often we learn that the less we do. Certainly there are some bounds but climate science is one that has been evolving substantially especially after the hockey stick graph was called into question - and especially since there's been little warming in the last 10 years which wasn't predicted in the models.

    I think it's ironic that you are so anti-science and yet run around claiming others are while advocating policies that hurt others particularly the poor. You might want to familiarize yourself a bit better with the science.

    Then you obviously have ignored the latest findings from the scientific community on the endangered great coral reef barrier in Australia---just to name one area where the damage to the environment will last 1,000s, if not millions, of years.icon_confused.gif


    One study does not the scientific community make and I also reject the idea that changing the environment is necessarily destruction. Natural disasters also change the environment, but we don't say that it was destroyed in the aftermath.

    That being said, each case should be looked at. I'm not familiar enough with the great barrier reef. Reading for instance about how some of the dredging is framed by some environmentalist groups though when it comes to the GBR - it becomes clear that they are more interested in no change whatsoever and absolute demonisation rather than any constructive approaches that meet the needs of both environmentalists and in that case, the expansion of a port.

    Also parenthetically, lost in the hysteria by environmentalists with even the slightest changes in the GBR, this is a much broader look at the GBR:
    http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/846

    Clearly there is work that can be done though.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Mar 08, 2014 5:31 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidIf you're not a denier, then you're just a greedy vandal, because you know what we're doing is permanently damaging the environment, yet you keep promoting it anyway, and all for short-term economic gains for the elite.icon_confused.gif


    You lack imagination and an inability to think outside your hysteria. No, I don't know what we're doing is permanently damaging the environment. In fact it appears to be quite the opposite.

    The thing about science is that it requires a certain level of skepticism understanding that the more we know often we learn that the less we do. Certainly there are some bounds but climate science is one that has been evolving substantially especially after the hockey stick graph was called into question - and especially since there's been little warming in the last 10 years which wasn't predicted in the models.

    I think it's ironic that you are so anti-science and yet run around claiming others are while advocating policies that hurt others particularly the poor. You might want to familiarize yourself a bit better with the science.

    Then you obviously have ignored the latest findings from the scientific community on the endangered great coral reef barrier in Australia---just to name one area where the damage to the environment will last 1,000s, if not millions, of years.icon_confused.gif


    One study does not the scientific community make and I also reject the idea that changing the environment is necessarily destruction. Natural disasters also change the environment, but we don't say that it was destroyed in the aftermath.

    That being said, each case should be looked at. I'm not familiar enough with the great barrier reef. Reading for instance about how some of the dredging is framed by some environmentalist groups though when it comes to the GBR - it becomes clear that they are more interested in no change whatsoever and absolute demonisation rather than any constructive approaches that meet the needs of both environmentalists and in that case, the expansion of a port.

    Also parenthetically, lost in the hysteria by environmentalists with even the slightest changes in the GBR, this is a much broader look at the GBR:
    http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/846

    Clearly there is work that can be done though.

    It's clear that you're not familiar with much of anything relevant to your own thread.icon_confused.gif This wasn't based on one study. This is the consensus of all the leading marine biologists on the planet. The only naysayers are people in unrelated fields that stand to profit off of continued, unabated pollution...icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 08, 2014 6:56 PM GMT
    Germany's Green Plan is Crumbling

    And in other breaking news, the sky is falling. But only over Liberal areas. And now we return you to our regular Right Wing propaganda.
  • frogman89

    Posts: 418

    Mar 08, 2014 7:44 PM GMT
    While researching about that, did you also discover how Germany already counter-regulated the rapid increase in costs? Because they did.

    PolitiNerd said[...]That's the whole point of so called Green Energy; to lower the temperature of the planet because it's supposed to get rid of pollution and that murderous gas, CO2 (which is hardly murderous).

    Are you retarded?
    The point is not to lower the temperature, but to keep it stable.
    And nobody said that CO2 was a murderous gas. The point is that a higher CO2 level in the atmosphere prevents solar radiation to exit it.

    riddler78 saidThe alternatives are far worse...

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/03/03/titans-of-eu-industry-green-follies-are-killing-us/

    Europe’s dogged pursuit of a solar- and wind-powered future has jacked up energy prices for households and industry alike. For families, it has meant higher monthly power bills—a tax felt most keenly by the poor. For businesses, it has even farther-reaching implications. As the EUobserver reports, more than a hundred leaders of European industry are warning that these rising costs are threatening the EU’s economic recovery. . . .

    This isn’t just a matter of lower-than-expected GDP growth for EU member states. Europe has staked out a position as a global leader in green initiatives, so for many of these CEOs the recent rise in electricity prices is only the beginning. Overall, the costs of doing business in Europe are edging toward the unworkable. For multinationals, healthier energy and regulatory environments are beckoning. In particular, the shale boom has made the United States an especially attractive home for energy-intensive industry.

    Europe is beginning to feel the pains of its policy of placing the environment before the economy. This is a shame, because the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. America is an excellent example of a healthier balance: by embracing shale gas, it has been able to wean itself somewhat off of coal, both reducing emissions and bringing prices down. Europe has plenty of shale itself, if it would only embrace it.

    LOL. So heavily LOL.

    This article is plain advertisment and praising American economy. Yay. So unbiased. So believable icon_rolleyes.gif