Renewable Energy Solution of the Month: Wind – Part 2

Get the best ebooks about wind energy here :

To help support Climate Denial Crock of the Week Go to climatecrocks.com If the first wind video is blocked in your area, try here www.greenmanstudio.com I couldn’t fit nearly enough into my first wind video, and many of the unused clips address questions that viewers have since asked. Interconnecting wind farms www.wind-works.org Denmark number one www.forbes.com www.forbes.com No impact on property values green.blogs.nytimes.com eetd.lbl.gov US DOE Wind 20% by 2030 www1.eere.energy.gov Mitigating Bat impacts www.treehugger.com Renewables in Colorado www.washingtonpost.com climateprogress.org


No related posts.

This entry was posted in wind energy and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Renewable Energy Solution of the Month: Wind – Part 2

  1. 00dfm00 says:

    @ctvwr What the hell are you talking about? And what understanding of market economics do you have? Do you actually offer anything, or do you just like to bitch? And you really thought a quote from Keynes would give you some credibility? Ha! Even most mainstream (also lacking) econ profs think his theories are seriously lacking and spend no more than a class talking about them.

  2. ctvwr says:

    @00dfm00

    In response to greenman’s objection to your Austrian babblings you babbled yet more. I’m referring to the stuff about voluntarism. The whole idea behind market distribution mechanisms is that individual actors will seek to buy and sell at the best price to further their own economic ends. This generally leads to efficiency. However, you can’t price intangibles, or externalities. This is why we can’t seem to get away from oil. Climate change as a cost is not reflected in prices.

  3. ctvwr says:

    @ctvwr

    The obvious solution is to use the government as a tool to bring externalities into the pricing mechanism.

  4. 00dfm00 says:

    @ctvwr You might want to think twice about “you can’t price intangibles” since it’s done all the time with services, insurance, and goodwill. And for that matter, polution taxes have been around for a while. But, cutting through that nonsense, I believe your point is that oil needs to embody the ‘true costs’ of using it – such as its impact on climate change.

  5. ctvwr says:

    @00dfm00

    Ok then, take out the word “intangible”. I was trying to indicate that things like morality, or social values, etc. cannot be priced.

  6. ctvwr says:

    @00dfm00

    Also, things like pollution taxes are exactly the sort of thing you seem to denouncing.

  7. 00dfm00 says:

    @ctvwr And let’s not forget the obvious – that any tax will be abused and turned into a big wealth transfer from the many to the few. Especially with the politically-motivated gifting of permits under cap-and-trade. Will such a tax be worth it to keep global temperatures from reaching 1 degree more than where they are supposedly headed? Highly doubt it. You may start your babbling now..

  8. ctvwr says:

    @00dfm00

    You know, there is graft and corruption in highway maintenance funding, too.

  9. ctvwr says:

    @00dfm00

    BTW, 1 degree is kind of a big fucking deal in climatology.

  10. 00dfm00 says:

    @ctvwr You’re right. It’s painfully obvious that usually the more power government gets, the more corruption that follows.

  11. ctvwr says:

    @00dfm00

    The same is true of corporate power. Or any power. Sadly, we live in the real world, and economic policy has to be made. You can stick your head in the sand and think the market will magically fix everything, but it won’t, no matter how many crazed Ron Paul-supporting-Ayn Rand-loving-Austrian economics twats say otherwise.

  12. 00dfm00 says:

    @ctvwr So we are being forced to transfer our wealth to the very few so we can feel better about something that may or may not be true? Even if it were true (AGW), why should there be any coercion – why shouldn’t everyone have to contribute equally to the ‘problem’?

  13. 00dfm00 says:

    @ctvwr The ‘corporate power’ you speak of couldn’t exist if it weren’t for the ability to bribe – lobby – politicians.

  14. ctvwr says:

    @00dfm00

    Yes, yes, I know your dogma at least as well as you do.

  15. 00dfm00 says:

    @ctvwr Prove there really is a problem and then we’ll have that argument.

  16. 00dfm00 says:

    @ctvwr If that is the case, then maybe you should be focused on the real problems frustrating the process rather than encouraging more of the same. I.e. government/corruption.

  17. ctvwr says:

    @00dfm00

    At this point no fewer than 32 national academies of science, as well as numerous other scientific bodies throughout the international scientific community, have issued unequivocal statements that climate change is happening, and that human activity is the driving factor. What more do you want? I don’t think you are amenable to any argument, to be frank. No amount of evidence will sway a committed ideologue.

  18. 00dfm00 says:

    @ctvwr My understanding is that it is just a few institutions – that heavily rely on government grants – that have made these claims. IPCC, NASA, University of East Anglia. They collect the work of many, sort through the findings, run it through their own models, and supposedly speak on behalf of everyone. I suspect that all of these 32 national academies of science have everything to lose by saying anything that contradicts AGW.

  19. ctvwr says:

    @00dfm00

    OH NOES! IT’S A CONSPIRACY!!!

  20. 00dfm00 says:

    @ctvwr Not conspiracy. Just survival.

  21. ctvwr says:

    @00dfm00

    Your understanding of how the scientific process works is just as flimsy as your understanding of the incentives and goals of various states.

  22. 00dfm00 says:

    @ctvwr What the hell do you know about my understanding of the ‘scientific process’? I’ve wasted enough of my time with your baseless accusations and assumptions. Good day.

  23. ctvwr says:

    @00dfm00

    I know you think that thousands of independent researchers are all colluding in what would be the grandest hoax ever perpetrated for no apparent reason. Your thought process is EXACTLY the same as the creationists who claim that evolution is a vast scientific conspiracy.

  24. Thisawareness says:

    @00dfm00 Many states actually have global Warming funds in their budgets, so obviously the incentive is to have AGW, not against it. The governor of NJ just took the 60+ millions of NJ tax dollars and used it for other projects, I’d judge by his actions that he doesn’t believe it, as many states in the Northeast have had unseasonably cool weather. Last few summers, some of the coolest in recent years. Early 90′s were the hottest, cooling off since then

  25. awreslr2 says:

    Gosh do I love your videos! And I see you even manage to garner a few of those anti-government anti-Communists to watch and comment. I like your retorts, but I bet that those replies go right “over the heads” of the anti-Communists who seem rather clueless to see the whole picture.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>