hitops Posted January 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) 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.... No, not EV's. They are not even close to sustainable vs cost. The only realistic EV's that come anywhere close are Tesla, and those are $70,000+, require massive fossil fuel combustion to build, and power from your local fossil fuel burning plant to charge. 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. That's the problem, there is no way to 'do it right'. There is only one way to reduce our consumption, and that is to make us poorer. When people are poorer, they consume less. That can happen by increasing cost of oil, increased taxes, or other financial hardship. This will have the OPPOSITE effect on poor people, because their prosperity is dependent on ours. When we have more cash to spare, we export more from them, use more labor in their countries, buy more manufacturered products from them, etc. Blindly making ourselves poorer will not help, it will hurt them. The truly poor do not need slightly cheaper gas. They need work and opportunity. That comes from collectively global prosperity, not self-punishment. But regardless, increased prosperity and innovation has ALSO led to cheaper gas as well. 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 None of those things are helped by limiting fossil fuel consumption right now, they are all hindered by it. We desperately need cheaper fuels to sustain more productivity, more wealth, and therefore more innovation to make all those technologies better for the future. Reducing FF consumption will just retard that process, not advance it. Edited January 9, 2014 by hitops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The new Conservative campaign slogan: Stephen Harper... we could do a lot worse! Oh my. Worked the last two times... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Worked the last two times... really? How did I miss that... Simple's comment was a plaintive defeatist lament carved out from the woes that have beset Harper! Clearly, when one can't find the positives, Harper Conservative supporters reach for the, "we could do a lot worse" platitude! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 It was humorous to see how cool Harper was and was so quick to say "It wouldn't be BC without it". The audience got a big kick out of it. It's nice to see the man out of the Ottawa political bubble - his answers are never scripted or shallow - the guy knows his stuff. You may not like him - and may not vote for him - but he is well respected around the world - and in the business community. We could do a lot worse. Yeah I don't think they were laughing because they thought he was cool. It appears that even a buffoon like Chris Christie is more up front than our boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 No, not EV's. They are not even close to sustainable vs cost. The only realistic EV's that come anywhere close are Tesla, and those are $70,000+, require massive fossil fuel combustion to build, and power from your local fossil fuel burning plant to charge. Remember, we were talking about nuclear plants powering cars. This will not happen in the short term...\ That's the problem, there is no way to 'do it right'. There is only one way to reduce our consumption, and that is to make us poorer. ... When I save money on energy I get richer - not poorer. We have been getting more effiecient every year - and richer too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted January 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) 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. There is no realistic conceivable chance in the near or remote future of nuclear power, powering cars. Any chance that there is, will be retarded, not advanced, by limiting fossil fuel consumption today. The problem with your premise is that you won't save money on energy by limited consumption of energy, you will save less. If consumption goes down, that necessitates that cost has gone up. Ergo, your cost goes up. There has been on development that has reduced your energy costs - the massive rise of fraking, the opposite of limiting consumption. We have been getting more efficient, but not richer. The average Canadian is overall poorer than years ago, as wages have fallen in real terms, and costs of living substantially increased. Because of increased energy harvesting and consumption in the domestic US, it is making them richer and driving their energy costs down. Edited January 10, 2014 by hitops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Well, under the (dubious) premise that this is a serious question, you get the same answer you'd get if any other celebrity figure were the subject; if enough people tune out of Enright's show, he will be replaced. Or here's a crazy idea. You could just turn the dial and ignore him. I tried that with Harper but he's still wrecking the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheogorath_The_Mad Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 'poor countries' where people are forced to pay to listen to 'propaganda'. Like those Conservative Action Plan propaganda pieces? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheogorath_The_Mad Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Forgot to mention that the presence of these two protesters so close to the PM is a horrific breach of security. Heads should roll. Yeah I hear those paper signs were razor sharp! Maybe we could use them in the guillotine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 Words make people think and that's the last thing Harper wants people to do when he's in the spotlight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 Yeah I hear those paper signs were razor sharp! Maybe we could use them in the guillotine? I have no problem if those people and any signs are 100 feet from him, in front of him. But there is no fucking way that anybody should be anywhere near that close to any PM of any political stripe at any time. Epic fail by the security detail. Epic fail by Harpers staff if they don't change whatever caused that failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted January 11, 2014 Report Share Posted January 11, 2014 There is no realistic conceivable chance in the near or remote future of nuclear power, powering cars. Any chance that there is, will be retarded, not advanced, by limiting fossil fuel consumption today. 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. The problem with your premise is that you won't save money on energy by limited consumption of energy, you will save less. If consumption goes down, that necessitates that cost has gone up. Ergo, your cost goes up. There has been on development that has reduced your energy costs - the massive rise of fraking, the opposite of limiting consumption. Wisely conserving energy can prevent rising energy costs by reducing demand. We have been getting more efficient, but not richer. The average Canadian is overall poorer than years ago, as wages have fallen in real terms, and costs of living substantially increased. Because of increased energy harvesting and consumption in the domestic US, it is making them richer and driving their energy costs down. These claims are false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/protester-sean-devlin-tells-how-he-got-onstage-with-pm-1.2486133 That's kind of embarrassing for Harper's security detail, but beyond that, this is just another example of pure unadulterated ignorance. Climate justice? What this is about is the desire of the so-called "leaders" of Third World countries for cash in exchange for the perceived damage climate change causes them. Is the money likely to be used for development? Probably not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 really? How did I miss that... I don't know. Nobody else did. His main opponents were even worse speakers then him, uncharismatic and unlikeable, as well as having unpallatable platforms. Why wouldn't one vote Harper given that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) When I save money on energy I get richer - not poorer. We have been getting more effiecient every year - and richer too.If you spend $10000 on new insulation that saves you $100/year in energy costs are you richer or are you poorer? Edited January 12, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Road Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 What do you think of Neil Young's opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2014 Report Share Posted January 12, 2014 I agree with it. For the music he plays, Gibson and Martin guitars are preferable to Fenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheogorath_The_Mad Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 I have no problem if those people and any signs are 100 feet from him, in front of him. But there is no fucking way that anybody should be anywhere near that close to any PM of any political stripe at any time. Epic fail by the security detail. Epic fail by Harpers staff if they don't change whatever caused that failure. I don't think any previous PM has been as concerned with the peaseants the Canadian public getting close to them as Harper. What makes Harper so special? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Well, Chretien certainly wasn't. He just beat the peasants up when they got near him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 If you spend $10000 on new insulation that saves you $100/year in energy costs are you richer or are you poorer? If I did this I would be poorer. I would never do that though - why would you ask such a question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 If you spend $10000 on new insulation that saves you $100/year in energy costs are you richer or are you poorer? No but if you needed new insulation, it's a nice "frill". Same with new HVAC appliances. A new furnace is a big ticket purchase I know is coming, and I'm dreading. But when I'll have to replace my current furnace, I'll certainly opt for an energy efficient model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted January 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Wisely conserving energy can prevent rising energy costs by reducing demand. This accomplishes absolutely nothing for poor people in other countries. It just makes us less prosperous and therefore makes them less prosperous. These claims are false. They are demonstrably true, and very easy to verify. Just look at incomes over the last 30 years. It's also a fact that energy costs are decreasing because of falling natural gas and stabilizing oil prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted January 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 What do you think of Neil Young's opinion? Neil Young has an enormous carbon footprint compared to the average person. The energy use to travel all over the place, tour with a band, perform concerts, and record and distribute albums dwarfs that of most people. When he stops those activities, I might take him seriously. In the meantime, the oil sands support the jobs of many, many average people who do not have millions of dollars like Niel Young to fall back on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 If I did this I would be poorer. I would never do that though - why would you ask such a question?Just pointing out that saving energy can make you poorer depending on the cost of saving energy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) But when I'll have to replace my current furnace, I'll certainly opt for an energy efficient model.When I did this I had a choice between the 97% efficient and the 93% efficient model because the math did not justify the extra cost (even assuming increases in energy costs). This is an example of why academics who estimate the "savings" to be had from energy efficiency are likely over stating their case. Edited January 13, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.