Accountability Now Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 The Americans will do their utmost to keep accurate industry/sector employment records....who knew they were so important to Canadian arguments on web forums. Lol. Quote
kairos Posted February 25, 2013 Author Report Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Harper provided a loan guarantee for the Muskrat Falls project, which will mean that 98% of Newfoundland and Labrador will be powered by renewable energy and Nova Scotia will be able to close coal plants. Its good to see that the provinces are taking action. Well except Alberta that is... Edited February 25, 2013 by kairos Quote
waldo Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 ....I'm starting to think that you know you have lost this arguement. Do you know the difference between DIRECT AND INDIRECT? you're forever claiming, "I win, I win... look at me, look at me... I win, I win"!!! I am heartened to realize I help you presume to validate yourself. clearly you don't know the difference between direct and indirect/induced. It's most damning (of you) to realize your myopic and self-serving understanding associates the green/clean economy to mean, simply, in its most narrowest term, nothing more than "Renewable Energy". Is this truly your naivety or is this simply you carrying on the charade, knowing full well you can't stand up to either the Brookings or the U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistic definitions for, respectively, 2.7 million jobs associated with the "green/clean/low carbon economy", or 3.1 million jobs related to "green goods & services"..... as compared to, per your referenced study, the 2.1 million jobs directly associated with the oil & gas industry. here, let me save you further embarrassment: => green or clean or low-carbon economy jobs are defined as jobs found within the sectors of the economy that produces goods and services with an environmental benefit. => green goods and services jobs are found in businesses that produce goods and provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources. Quote
TimG Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 FWIW: if green energy actually creates more 'direct' jobs then that is extremely BAD for green energy because it means it is labour intensive which makes it even less economic than it already is. A good energy source is one that produces a lot of energy and employs almost no people. This means labour is freed up to perform more productive economy building tasks. To compare: 100 years ago 90% of people worked on farms (i.e. farming was a huge job creator). Now only 2% of people work on farms and most people understand that this is a very good thing. The same logic applies to jobs involved producing energy. Quote
Newfoundlander Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 Its good to see that the provinces are taking action. Well except Alberta that is... How isn't Alberta taking action? Not only do they have a carbon tax but they're also working to make the oil sands more environmentally friendly. Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 you're forever claiming, "I win, I win... look at me, look at me... I win, I win"!!! I am heartened to realize I help you presume to validate yourself. Sorry Waldo....winning is just something I do. You should try it sometime. clearly you don't know the difference between direct and indirect/induced. It's most damning (of you) to realize your myopic and self-serving understanding associates the green/clean economy to mean, simply, in its most narrowest term, nothing more than "Renewable Energy". Is this truly your naivety or is this simply you carrying on the charade, knowing full well you can't stand up to either the Brookings or the U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistic definitions for, respectively, 2.7 million jobs associated with the "green/clean/low carbon economy", or 3.1 million jobs related to "green goods & services"..... as compared to, per your referenced study, the 2.1 million jobs directly associated with the oil & gas industry. here, let me save you further embarrassment: => green or clean or low-carbon economy jobs are defined as jobs found within the sectors of the economy that produces goods and services with an environmental benefit. => green goods and services jobs are found in businesses that produce goods and provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources. As Tim G said..CLASSIC WALDO. You have deviated so much from the arguement that you don't even know what you are saying anymore. Let me remind you of how this has gone down: - I initiated by commenting the government didn't want to bet on losing horses citiing Solyndra as an example. You got your panties in a bunch and ranted and raved about Solyndra. After a few threads, you fully admitted that Solyndra was a failure. FAIL! - We then moved into talking about other green energy programs. We agreed that the other programs did quite well on the goverment loans but we disagreed when discsussing the impact of the oil/gas versus green energy jobs. You tried tying in all sorts of non-related environmental jobs to try and help your green energy arguement but alas FAILED again.By only using the Brookings Study I was able to show that oil/gas employs 2.4M directly where as the green energy system merely employs 138,000. EPIC FAIL!!! - Now you are trying to educated me one what green econonmy or green goods are? I know what they are. I have been pointing them out to you like the 300k that work in Waste Treatment or the 300k that work in Conservation. Our arguement had NOTHING to do with these industries however you keep trying to use them only to pad your numbers. Should I add the auto industry because cars run on gas? Oh wait....the Public Transit system could give us some numbers too as alot of buses run on gas too. I suppose I could add any business that uses natural gas for heating. Man...my numbers are HUGE now. Another EPIC FAIL by waldo. Yikes... You consistently try to change the arguement once you realize that you are wrong and have been clearly handed your lunch. However, most people here are smart enough to see right through your charade. So if you want to save anyone any embarassment, it should be you by putting your tail between your legs and waddling away. Quote
waldo Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 Sorry Waldo....winning is just something I do. You should try it sometime. yes, clearly...you're all about perpetually claiming "I win, I win"! You can wallow in your self-aggrandizing... I'm quite content to live in reality, speak from accuracy and present cogent thought with supporting citation references. Sorry... it's just something I do. You should try it sometime. I initiated by commenting the government didn't want to bet on losing horses citiing Solyndra as an example. You got your panties in a bunch and ranted and raved about Solyndra. After a few threads, you fully admitted that Solyndra was a failure. FAIL! what? More chest pumping!!! No - what actually happened was you were called on your significant politicization of Solyndra... it's what your types do. I showed you how relatively insignificant Solyndra was to the greater complement of DOE Loan Guarantee program applicants - I'll throw up the same graphic if you'd like. I've been all over Solyndra through an assortment of previous MLW threads. I certainly don't need you claiming "another win" to highlight I've previously acknowledged the failure of Solyndra. Of course, as here, I've done it in a properly constructed argument that offers perspective on the greater achievements. Certainly, it must have burned your false narrative to have presented you with the two separate unbiased, independent reviews that spoke to the overall success of the DOE Loan Guarantee Program. But c'mon... what was most humourous was reading you once again puff up over your false/exaggerated claim concerning Aldy/Recovery Act - I note you quietly shifted away once I punted your claimed Aldy "harshness". Here, read it again: again, you choose to ignore the unbiased, independent reviews I presented. Your linked article's writer, and you by extension, take liberties with Aldy's study... your word "harsh" is harsh. Yes, from the standpoint of altering the risk-return balance, Aldy does subscribe to grants/tax credits being a better/preferred alternative... simply because it provides a possibility to, "increase a projects’ returns by lowering the amount of private sector capital that needs to be raised for a project". Harsh!!! in any case, within the links I provided (the links you ignore), a complete analysis was done down to the respective applicant level. The overall success of the DOE Loan Guarantee Program reflects on that granular level analysis. - We then moved into talking about other green energy programs. We agreed that the other programs did quite well on the goverment loans you're quite the revisionist! Perhaps you can point out just where you stated, let alone agreed that other green energy programs did quite well on government loans. Your whole game was to attempt to leverage Solyndra as a symbol of the complete failure of the U.S. DOE Loan Guarantee program. Yes, you certainly are the revisionist!!! but we disagreed when discsussing the impact of the oil/gas versus green energy jobs. You tried tying in all sorts of non-related environmental jobs to try and help your green energy arguement but alas FAILED again.By only using the Brookings Study I was able to show that oil/gas employs 2.4M directly where as the green energy system merely employs 138,000. EPIC FAIL!!! no - again, your "epic fail" is where you adamantly insist on ignoring the 2 Brookings and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics definitions on what constitutes the so-called 'green/clean/low carbon economy'... 'green goods & services'. I even tried to save you additional/further embarrassment: here, let me save you further embarrassment: => green or clean or low-carbon economy jobs are defined as jobs found within the sectors of the economy that produces goods and services with an environmental benefit. => green goods and services jobs are found in businesses that produce goods and provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources. Another EPIC FAIL by waldo. Yikes... no - the 'another epic fail'... yours... is failing to recognize the distinction between direct jobs and indirect/induced jobs. I initially offered you the benefit of the doubt... suggesting you might simply be naive, rather than patently fronting a charade. I'm now accepting to the latter... it's the same charade other fossil-fuel industry hacks trot out, like your original linked article's author did, like you're now doing. Yes, clearly, to you and your ilk, any inroads that "green/clean/low carbon" jobs make must be met with extreme prejudice... even to the point of, as you did, flogging the 9.2 million jobs figure (inclusive of indirect and induced contributions). Have you no shame, sir? You consistently try to change the arguement once you realize that you are wrong and have been clearly handed your lunch. However, most people here are smart enough to see right through your charade. So if you want to save anyone any embarassment, it should be you by putting your tail between your legs and waddling away. wow! Just how insecure are you... as an anonymous poster within an online discussion forum! Quote
waldo Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 speaking of alternative energy inroads: In the power sector, renewables accounted for almost half of the estimated 208 gigawatts (GW) of electric capacity added globally during 2011. Wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) accounted for almost 40% and 30% of new renewable capacity, respectively, followed by hydropower (nearly 25%). By the end of 2011, total renewable power capacity worldwide exceeded 1,360 GW, up 8% over 2010; renewables comprised more than 25% of total global power-generating capacity (estimated at 5,360 GW in 2011) and supplied an estimated 20.3% of global electricity. Non-hydropower renewables exceeded 390 GW, a 24% capacity increase over 2010. Link . per the UN Environmental Programme & Bloomberg New Energy Finance: In 2011, renewable power (excluding large hydro) accounted for 44% of new generation capacity worldwide in 2011, up from 34% in 2010. The $237 billion invested in building these green power plants compares with $223 billion of net new expenditure annually on building additional fossil-fueled power plants globally in 2011. Quote
waldo Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 FWIW: if green energy actually creates more 'direct' jobs then that is extremely BAD for green energy because it means it is labour intensive which makes it even less economic than it already is. A good energy source is one that produces a lot of energy and employs almost no people.ah yes, this ole canard! Even if one were to accept what you're saying, you're simply exchanging and most accepting to the capital intensive nature of fossil-fuel production over labour intensity. It's also emblematic of you, 'having your cake and eating it too'! It took decades over decades to realize the mammoth capital fossil-fuel investments and efficiency increases that heavily leverage today's automation "gains"... gains, at the expense of real workers/jobs. Yes, that took multi-decades to achieve. As is your way, you expect a comparable playing field with renewables after a most relatively significant smaller period of time... of course you do!This means labour is freed up to perform more productive economy building tasks.you mean all that shoulda/coulda productivity that never materializes... or, rather, manifests itself offshore? That kind of productivity gain? Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) yes, clearly...you're all about perpetually claiming "I win, I win"! You can wallow in your self-aggrandizing... I'm quite content to live in reality, speak from accuracy and present cogent thought with supporting citation references. Sorry... it's just something I do. You should try it sometime. Accuracy and Reality? Your so called accuracy and reality with trying to pass off green energy as green ecomony is proof that you live in an alternate reality. I didn't even have to lean on any of my own citations....I could use the ones you provided to prove how idiotic your arguments are. what? More chest pumping!!! No - what actually happened was you were called on your significant politicization of Solyndra... it's what your types do. I showed you how relatively insignificant Solyndra was to the greater complement of DOE Loan Guarantee program applicants - I'll throw up the same graphic if you'd like. I've been all over Solyndra through an assortment of previous MLW threads. I certainly don't need you claiming "another win" to highlight I've previously acknowledged the failure of Solyndra. Politicization? I said Solyndra was a failure. I never went any further than to state that much. It was your bunched up panties that made you rant and rave about the DOE program only to admit later that I was right about the failure of Solyndra. As far as the DOE Loan program....I even posted an article stating "Solyndra Stunk. The Green Stimulus Didn't". What don't you get about this? We use letters to make words. Words make sentences. Do you need more help understanding it? You state that you have dealt with the Solyndra thing in past threads and it shows. You came into this arguement with preconcieved notions without even listenting to what I would say. Again...head in the sand. But c'mon... what was most humourous was reading you once again puff up over your false/exaggerated claim concerning Aldy/Recovery Act - I note you quietly shifted away once I punted your claimed Aldy "harshness". Here, read it again: Quietly shifted away. No sir...that is you that quietly shifts away. Other posters have commented on this so don't accuse me of being alone on that comment. We were discussing green energy versus oil and you wanted to get sidetracked because you knew you weren't going to win that one. You never did go on to read Aldy's paper which was cited in that article....did you? It went on to explain a number of things that he would change about the program. Again....the guy who was involved in crafting the program is now saying that improvements can be made and waldo throws it out the window because he has two indpendent studies that tell him everything HE wants to hear. You really have a tough time with criticism....don't you? you're quite the revisionist! Perhaps you can point out just where you stated, let alone agreed that other green energy programs did quite well on government loans. Your whole game was to attempt to leverage Solyndra as a symbol of the complete failure of the U.S. DOE Loan Guarantee program. Yes, you certainly are the revisionist!!! no - again, your "epic fail" is where you adamantly insist on ignoring the 2 Brookings and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics definitions on what constitutes the so-called 'green/clean/low carbon economy'... 'green goods & services'. I even tried to save you additional/further embarrassment: As stated above.... the article I posted was "Solyndra Stunk. The Green Stimulus Didn't". How much MORE clear does it need to get. Should send someone over to your parent's basement and have them read these posts for you? Again green econonmy?????? We were discussing green ENERGY!!! The embarrassment here lies completely on your side. Its obvious now that you aren't trying to argue your point anymore rather you are just trying to waste time. Things a little slow with your government job these days? wow! Just how insecure are you... as an anonymous poster within an online discussion forum! Insecure? Oh boy....its pretty tough being insecure when you win. Not just in an online forum either! Ironic that you post this claim about being an anonymous poster....that is you to a tee. Its obvious by your demeanour that you don't deal with people very often or at all. You most likely stick it out in your cubicle at your goverment post and then hide back in your parents basement at night trolling the internet thinking of ways to try and look smart. Keep trying because it hasn't worked so far. Edited February 25, 2013 by Accountability Now Quote
waldo Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 Accuracy and Reality? Your so called accuracy and reality with trying to pass off green energy as green ecomony is proof that you live in an alternate reality. wow! "Green energy versus green economy"??? Imagine... linking jobs with the economy, or subsets within. Radical concept, hey? Like I said, you have this narrow skewed view of "green/clean/low carbon" jobs - apparently, to you, if a job title doesn't have "Renewable Energy" in it, it can't be a "green/clean/low carbon" job. Go figure! Politicization? I said Solyndra was a failure. I never went any further than to state that much. It was your bunched up panties that made you rant and rave about the DOE program only to admit later that I was right about the failure of Solyndra. yes, that's right, politicization. That's what Solyndra was all about... anyone who brings it up attempts to leverage it for political/ideological gain... like you did. Again, with your perpetual need to claim to be right. Again, as I just told you, I've written at length about Solyndra through an assortment of past MLW threads. I'm openly acknowledge it as a failure within the overall U.S. DOE Loan Guarantee Program. I've also provided that acknowledgement with an appropriate perspective on the overall success of the program. Like I said, if you'd like that graphic again, I'll gladly link to it - you know, the one showing Solyndra made up a mere 3% of but one (of three) overall categories within the program. Like I said, politicization is the only reason anyone brings forward Solyndra... like you did. . As far as the DOE Loan program....I even posted an article stating "Solyndra Stunk. The Green Stimulus Didn't". What don't you get about this? We use letters to make words. Words make sentences. Do you need more help understanding it? You state that you have dealt with the Solyndra thing in past threads and it shows. You came into this arguement with preconcieved notions without even listenting to what I would say. Again...head in the sand. buddy, your letters to make words, words to make sentences, speak volumes. Perhaps you should read your own quote that you attributed to your article. All your words/sentences, in their entirety, presumed to speak to the failure of the U.S. DOE Loan Guarantee Program. You said nothing about the "Green Stimulus"... not a word... nada, zilch, buptkiss! Like I said, you live in a perpetual revisionist world. Would you like me to quote your entire words into sentences statement? Quietly shifted away. No sir...that is you that quietly shifts away. Other posters have commented on this so don't accuse me of being alone on that comment. We were discussing green energy versus oil and you wanted to get sidetracked because you knew you weren't going to win that one. You never did go on to read Aldy's paper which was cited in that article....did you? It went on to explain a number of things that he would change about the program. Again....the guy who was involved in crafting the program is now saying that improvements can be made and waldo throws it out the window because he has two indpendent studies that tell him everything HE wants to hear. You really have a tough time with criticism....don't you? I didn't shift from anything... I've been most 'in your face' pointing out your failures, your revisionism, your lack of accuracy and your living outside reality. As for reading the Aldy study... why, yes I did. Apparently, you didn't, as I attributed a statement to Aldy, one directly from the study. Here, let's deal with this bout of your revisionism straight-up: again, you choose to ignore the unbiased, independent reviews I presented. Your linked article's writer, and you by extension, take liberties with Aldy's study... your word "harsh" is harsh. Yes, from the standpoint of altering the risk-return balance, Aldy does subscribe to grants/tax credits being a better/preferred alternative... simply because it provides a possibility to, "increase a projects’ returns by lowering the amount of private sector capital that needs to be raised for a project". Harsh!!! in any case, within the links I provided (the links you ignore), a complete analysis was done down to the respective applicant level. The overall success of the DOE Loan Guarantee Program reflects on that granular level analysis. As stated above.... the article I posted was "Solyndra Stunk. The Green Stimulus Didn't". How much MORE clear does it need to get. Should send someone over to your parent's basement and have them read these posts for you? more insults hey? Just how unnerved are you? You really should try to exercise more control. And like I said above, you didn't say a single word one about the "Green Stimulus". Not one. Your entire intention and related words aimed to politicize Solyndra and attempted to claim the U.S. DOE Loan Guarantee Program was an abysmal failure... which, of course, in reality world, it wasn't an overall failure of any kind. Again green econonmy?????? We were discussing green ENERGY!!! The embarrassment here lies completely on your side. Its obvious now that you aren't trying to argue your point anymore rather you are just trying to waste time. Things a little slow with your government job these days? again, more insults? Perhaps an online discussion forum isn't the best outlet for you, yes? But like I said, you really are struggling with the whole jobs/economy thingee, hey? Insecure? Oh boy....its pretty tough being insecure when you win. Not just in an online forum either! Ironic that you post this claim about being an anonymous poster....that is you to a tee. Its obvious by your demeanour that you don't deal with people very often or at all. You most likely stick it out in your cubicle at your goverment post and then hide back in your parents basement at night trolling the internet thinking of ways to try and look smart. Keep trying because it hasn't worked so far. and yet more of your insults. Perhaps you should take a break - just pull back from the keyboard for a while. Perhaps come back when you feel you can attempt to articulate a position without peppering it with such blatant insults - yes? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 ....I'm openly acknowledge it as a failure within the overall U.S. DOE Loan Guarantee Program. I've also provided that acknowledgement with an appropriate perspective on the overall success of the program. Like I said, if you'd like that graphic again, I'll gladly link to it - you know, the one showing Solyndra made up a mere 3% of but one (of three) overall categories within the program. Like I said, politicization is the only reason anyone brings forward Solyndra... like you did. Your entire intention and related words aimed to politicize Solyndra and attempted to claim the U.S. DOE Loan Guarantee Program was an abysmal failure... which, of course, in reality world, it wasn't an overall failure of any kind. Gee....I surely must apologize for the U.S. letting some Canadians down. Who knew that all of their green hopes and dreams rested on the American DOE loan program. It's unbearable to witness the fighting it has caused north of the border. America promises to do better....maybe....sometime. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Accountability Now Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 and yet more of your insults. Perhaps you should take a break - just pull back from the keyboard for a while. Perhaps come back when you feel you can attempt to articulate a position without peppering it with such blatant insults - yes? Nope...don't need a break. This is just too much fun getting the upper edge on poor old waldo. I find your inability to see the objective truth to be quite funny for me (scary for you). Don't worry....you can go home tonight and tell your chat room friends about how cool you are. Have fun with your head in the sand! Quote
Moonbox Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 wow! "Green energy versus green economy"??? Imagine... linking jobs with the economy, or subsets within. Radical concept, hey? Like I said, you have this narrow skewed view of "green/clean/low carbon" jobs - apparently, to you, if a job title doesn't have "Renewable Energy" in it, it can't be a "green/clean/low carbon" job. Go figure! This is the sort of brain-dead justification that people always come up with when it comes to subsidies and public spending. Economically speaking (a field you struggle mightily with), the green energy movement is a black hole. The jobs created in it, either directly or indirectly, do not even come close to making up for the amount of public money being siphoned off to support it. The 'indirect' benefits argument is a crutch that people have used forever to support otherwise obviously broken policy proposals. It's akin to people saying that EI is good for the economy because people on EI spend money and support jobs! LOL and yet more of your insults. Perhaps you should take a break - just pull back from the keyboard for a while. Perhaps come back when you feel you can attempt to articulate a position without peppering it with such blatant insults - yes? Now this is funny. Here you are criticizing someone for flaring up at you, but it's VERY clear that you're purposely goading and provoking it with your mockery and condescension. What's especially frustrating is that you're not even clever about it! Using the thesaurus a lot to find novel words doesn't make your arguments stronger! Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Accountability Now Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 Gee....I surely must apologize for the U.S. letting some Canadians down. Who knew that all of their green hopes and dreams rested on the American DOE loan program. It's unbearable to witness the fighting it has caused north of the border. America promises to do better....maybe....sometime. Thanks for your sincere apology. Lol. I regret to say the issue here has little to do with the American DOE program, rather it has everything to do with your friend waldo not willing to realize he's been beat. Objective numbers mean nothing to him. You've dealt with him in the past...do you find the same type of thing? Quote
Accountability Now Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 This is the sort of brain-dead justification that people always come up with when it comes to subsidies and public spending. Economically speaking (a field you struggle mightily with), the green energy movement is a black hole. The jobs created in it, either directly or indirectly, do not even come close to making up for the amount of public money being siphoned off to support it. The 'indirect' benefits argument is a crutch that people have used forever to support otherwise obviously broken policy proposals. It's akin to people saying that EI is good for the economy because people on EI spend money and support jobs! LOL Now this is funny. Here you are criticizing someone for flaring up at you, but it's VERY clear that you're purposely goading and provoking it with your mockery and condescension. What's especially frustrating is that you're not even clever about it! Using the thesaurus a lot to find novel words doesn't make your arguments stronger! Ah...a clear voice on the matter. Thank you Moonbox. My faith in the forum may yet be returned. Quote
waldo Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 Gee....I surely must apologize for the U.S. letting some Canadians down. Who knew that all of their green hopes and dreams rested on the American DOE loan program. It's unbearable to witness the fighting it has caused north of the border. America promises to do better....maybe....sometime. in just a few threads I've been following in recent days, this is probably your fourth (fifth?) direct reference to other MLW members referencing U.S. source references. Of course, this is nothing new from you... it's like a dead horse you regularly trot out. For what it's worth, I actually thought you had risen above/beyond this - it's part of why I took you off ignore. Don't let me down now! Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Yes....as have other members. It's really a grand show, with passionate seduction using the best available U.S. data and alphabet soup, only to come crashing down in reality each time. Once again, the Americans have failed him. Of what use is a lone superpower if its data and resources cannot be used to win arguments on a Canadian forum ? Edited February 25, 2013 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 LOL Now this is funny. Moonbox, are you still smarting? Quote
waldo Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 Yes....as have other members. It's really a grand show, with passionate seduction using the best available U.S. data and alphabet soup, only to come crashing down in reality each time. Once again, the Americans have failed him. Of what use is a lone superpower if its data and resources cannot be used to win arguments on a Canadian forum ? of course, you completely ignore when non-U.S. references are made... a brazillion of them could be offered (and they are, quite regularly). All it takes is a couple of U.S. sources to come forward for you to play your old tired game. Rise above it BC! Rise above it! Quote
waldo Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 This is the sort of brain-dead justification that people always come up with when it comes to subsidies and public spending. Economically speaking (a field you struggle mightily with), the green energy movement is a black hole. The jobs created in it, either directly or indirectly, do not even come close to making up for the amount of public money being siphoned off to support it. The 'indirect' benefits argument is a crutch that people have used forever to support otherwise obviously broken policy proposals. your comment has no bearing on what you quoted. Perhaps try again. As for subsidies, that 'dog won't hunt' around here. Check back in this thread for graphics showing the level of "green subsides" versus fossil-fuel subsidies (both globally and for Germany in particular)... clearly, historically and continuing today, there is a disproportionate level of subsidies being applied to fossil-fuels versus subsidies provided to 'green/alternative energy'. Quote
waldo Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 Nope...don't need a break. This is just too much fun getting the upper edge on poor old waldo. I find your inability to see the objective truth to be quite funny for me (scary for you). Don't worry....you can go home tonight and tell your chat room friends about how cool you are. Have fun with your head in the sand! reported Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 of course, you completely ignore when non-U.S. references are made... a brazillion of them could be offered (and they are, quite regularly). All it takes is a couple of U.S. sources to come forward for you to play your old tired game. Rise above it BC! Rise above it! Alas, I can only speak for my own nation's experience and great shame at having failed your oh so green expectations in Canada. At one moment America is a fascist state hell bent on world domination, but then it is expected to be an example for renewable energy and tree hugging. This can be quite confusing to American taxpayers. The Internet (invented by the Americans) exposes all of their Yankee faults with lots of data to fuel torrid arguments about saving the earth from a certain doom. ...Then you want us to build a nasty KeystoneXL pipeline.....so confusing. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Accountability Now Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 reported Oh no!!! LMFAO! You have three other members on here calling you out for your actions...how far do you think reporting will get you? Quote
waldo Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 Oh no!!! LMFAO! You have three other members on here calling you out for your actions...how far do you think reporting will get you? nice to see you rise to it... and no, I didn't report you! As I recall I've only ever reported one poster - a guy who has long since been banned. But really, let's look at some of your gems, your treasures from this thread that you directed to me: You really are a little slow....aren't you Unlike you, I don't have all day to troll the internet Wow....slow indeed The thing that you will never understand (probably because you work in some government institution and don't see the effects of real life) Keep you head in the sand Waldo....its much better there. I don't want you to hurt your brain.... Things a little slow with your government job these days? You most likely stick it out in your cubicle at your goverment post and then hide back in your parents basement at night trolling the internet thinking of ways to try and look smart. Don't worry....you can go home tonight and tell your chat room friends about how cool you are. Have fun with your head in the sand! clearly, you have difficulty with being challenged - and bettered. I'd suggest you have a long hard read of what I quoted. How old are you, anyway? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.