carepov

If I did this I would be poorer. I would never do that though - why would you ask such a question?

Yes, you are right, oppressive systems - including oppresive religious systems do hold back progress. I was thinking more in the last 100 years where the level of religiouslity seems to decline only after economic progress, no?

We were talking about nuclear power plants. You agreed that they are a good idea but cannot power cars. I am just pointing out that they can by charging the batteries of EVs. Wisely conserving energy can prevent rising energy costs by reducing demand. These claims are false.

In most economically successful/advanced societies, what came first, economic success or a decline in religiousity? I see it as the former preceding the latter, hence a decline in religion is not a cause of economic success. I think that economic success results in a decline in religiosity for some of the reasones mentioned above, also people in wealthy countries, on average: -have more choices, the more choices we have the less likely that we will choose to become involved in a religious group -are more independent, especially at younger ages. You do not need to rely on our religious community for support. You do not need to listen to your parents and grand parents. -start families later in life ...

IMO moderate religiousity is not a useful characteristic in judging a person. If I am understanding you correctly, you seem to think that religious people are intellectually beneath you. Am I right?

As stated in the report, the BAU assumes continued improvements in efficiencies at the same rate as they are currently improving. And speaking of all the improvements in energy efficiency over the past 20 years or so, what percentage are a result of government programs/regulations and what percentage came from "the market"?

Remember, we were talking about nuclear plants powering cars. This will not happen in the short term...\ When I save money on energy I get richer - not poorer. We have been getting more effiecient every year - and richer too.

They wrote that they did not do this. Do you think that they are lying?

The original (broader) point was: Sic semper erat, et sic semper erit Thus has it always been, and thus shall it ever be

Here's the study: that study. The authors compare increased savings (-23%) with BAU (+14%), and clearly stated on page 8: "BAU forecasts have incorporated expectations for greater energy efficiency". BAU savings are not double-counted.

Have a look at the chart on page 13. Most conservation efforts are not new/emerging technology. It is proven/piloted common sense stuff.

So am I. However, odds are $1.2 trillion in savings, for a $520 billion investment has economic merit and will not harm the economy. In theory, some capital will be diverted from "better" inverstments into conservation investments. However, in today's econoimic climate, people and businesses are awash in cheap capital. The reality is that more of today's idle capital will be used to invest in projects that conserve energy - boosting the economy. This will also save cash year after year and allow people and companies to make even more investments. *** Another thing that governments can do is to allow the construction of nuclear plants and pipelines.

In my experience, ROI must be > 20%. Some companies specify a payback period of 3 or even 2 years. This is not the only way. Another way is to introduce a carbon tax. The tax can be revenue-neutral with an offsetting deduction in payroll tax for example. No it is not. This is like sying that the market prices all goods and services perfectly. I find it very hard to beleive that someone can be against energy efficiency!

It did not read like that to me at all: page 12: "various approaches could reduce financial hurdles..." You are assuming that there is always a trade-off between an investment in conservation and a "better" investment. The reality is that sometimes: -people and businesses are unaware of potential conservation investments -there is a choice between conservation investment and no investment, where an extra incentive would increase economic activity and help the economy Also, the report stresses the need for a holistic approach - information and education is always a part of the solution.

Unless you consider EVs. Also, to reduce fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions in the transportation sector, you can use more natural gas vehicles, you can make investments that reduce the amount of cars on the road, you can also.... Not if it done right. It's similar to what you just wrote about natural gas prices in Canada. If the OECD countries increase energy costs but and cut energy demand this will effectively increase global energy supplies and the price of energy should go down for developing economies. First of all, the market is far from perfect (see 2008). Second, there are plenty of actions that we can take to reduce energy consumption without reducing our standard of living. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/debunking-myths-about-nuclear-fuel-coal-wind-solar-10

The measures discussed in the report were cost effective: "such measures would result in $1.2 trillion in savings, far more than the $520 billion investment required to implement them". A good question that you often bring up is: if saving energy already saves money, why aren't we doing it already? The report effectively answers that question starting on page 8. There are barriers to implementing conservation efforts and there are various solutions that remove these barriers - while benefiting the economy.

No. Here is an expanded quote from my link: "The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that, under existing policies, total energy consumption will grow by 14 percent by 2035. That doesn't have to be the case. A report published last year by McKinsey & Company calculates that widespread deployment of energy-efficiency measures can decrease consumption by 23 percent of projected demand by 2020 IOW: BAU => +14%, versus widespread "common sense" conservation => -23%, for a net savings of 37%. I've had no luck so far... it would be interesting...

Yes, I suppose that there was organized hunting... Anyways, it is hard enough to define "religion" let alone "organized religion"... The mere existence of "the anthropology of religion" supports my claim that religious beliefs existed in pre-history. Good question. What are you trying to say? When do you think that religion emerged?

I across an interesting link that strongly supports my principle argument. "A report published last year by McKinsey & Company calculates that widespread deployment of energy-efficiency measures can decrease consumption by 23 percent of projected demand by 2020. What's more, such measures would result in $1.2 trillion in savings, far more than the $520 billion investment required to implement them. The corresponding reduction of greenhouse gas emissions would be like taking an entire U.S. fleet of passenger vehicles off the road." http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/debunking-myths-about-nuclear-fuel-coal-wind-solar-10

Why would you even bring up "organized religion"? Can you think of anything that was organized in pre-history? The existence of religious beliefs in pre-history is the prevalent theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion If you are claiming otherwise then it is up to you to provide evidence.

The concerns are not exactly the same but there is plenty of overlap. Not exactly. Cut demand by reducing waste (conservation) and switching energy sources to hydyo and geothermal where avaialble and nuclear - and some limitted use of wind/solar others. We should moderately increase costs of fossil fuels in the OECD (carbon tax) and help poorer countries develop sustainably. Until fossil fuels run out, then what?

I agree that the real problem of under-development/poverty dwarfs the potential problem of climate change. I also agree that the eco-extremist calling for a shutdown of all fossil-fuel usage is ridiculous and harmful. However, IMO the majority of activists are not calling for an end to fossil fuel development. I do not agree with these two protesters but I do not agree with our government's stance on climate change either. There are still good reasons to concern ourselves with climate change and to limit the burning of fossil fuels. -It is unjust to future generations if we irresponsibly consume non-renewable fossil fuels -If we can cut the demand for fossil fuels, especially in the OECD, this will put downward pressure on energy prices and help poor countries develop.

So everyone agrees that religion has been a part of humanity for at least the last 25,000 years? The world of elephants is indeed fascinating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_intelligence#Death_ritual

So, in your opinion, when did religion emerge?

Not all burial sites are religious. However the existance of grave sites and cerimonial burial rituals are very stong evidence for the existance of religion in prehistoric times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_religion