Trump signs order sweeping away Obama-era climate policies

[ilostmypassword]

30 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Government didn't make solar energy more affordable. Obama's attempt to do so was a failure.

No increase in efficiency of anything came about because of government. Government only causes inefficiency and unneccessary regulations.

If government wanted to make a difference they could stop paying people to have children. People cause pollution; more people cause more pollution, less people cause less pollution. Save the planet, have less children.

Really, government intervention in the markets didn't make solar more affordable. Are you aware of how rapidly the price of solar energy has dropped? And one of the big reasons was government support of that industry including subsidies to consumers.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Really, government intervention in the markets didn't make solar more affordable. Are you aware of how rapidly the price of solar energy has dropped? And one of the big reasons was government support of that industry including subsidies to consumers.

IMO the price dropped because electricity companies promised to reduce bills if people started to sell them surplus electricity. Increased sales always leads to reduced prices. Without private companies input it wouldn't have happened. Governments never get it right when they try to influence the market. Look at what happened when they removed bank controls ( Clinton, I believe ).

[ilostmypassword]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the price dropped because electricity companies promised to reduce bills if people started to sell them surplus electricity. Increased sales always leads to reduced prices. Without private companies input it wouldn't have happened. Governments never get it right when they try to influence the market. Look at what happened when they removed bank controls ( Clinton, I believe ).

That choice of bank controls was a particularly bad one. Since it was government that placed those controls on banks in the first place. In other words, you've just successfully argued against yourself. And i agree with you 100% about Clinton's removal of them.

[ilostmypassword]

27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the price dropped because electricity companies promised to reduce bills if people started to sell them surplus electricity. Increased sales always leads to reduced prices. Without private companies input it wouldn't have happened. Governments never get it right when they try to influence the market. Look at what happened when they removed bank controls ( Clinton, I believe ).

You weren't, by any chance, the person carrying the sign that said, "Keep government's hands off my Medicare"?

[thaibeachlovers]

28 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You weren't, by any chance, the person carrying the sign that said, "Keep government's hands off my Medicare"?

Don't get medicare in my country, and even as an old fella I still have to pay the same as young people to get a 15 minute appointment with a GP that won't deal with everything in one appointment so I have to pay twice. Not much concern for pensioners at all, unlike the UK which does look after it's oldies ( medically ).

[Traveler19491]

19 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Even Milton Friedman had to concede that in the case of pollution, government intervention was necessary.

Hmmmm. Governments have intervened to stop pollution?????? I think not. Whenever I go to the supermarket I get given polluting plastic bags, and there isn't a decent public transport system anywhere out of the major cities in my country. Every day, hundreds of people drive single occupant cars for many miles to get to work because there isn't a train service available.

All this "we must stop pollution" from government is a load of bunkum- they aren't doing anything worthwhile.

 

Your arguments do little other than point out the need for government intervention. In the US, there is a push on to get the government to restrict the use of plastic bags. Those of us who saw their harm to the environment started using reusable bags years ago (many made from recycled plastic bags, oddly enough). The way to get effective public transportation is via government subsidies to business to make it profitable for private enterprise to get involved in such a project and to citizens to encourage its use. In major cities in the US, we have "carpool lanes" during "rush hour" that require two or more passengers to use, thus encouraging carpooling and that incur heavy fines for anyone else using them (more government intervention). It was government regulation that curtailed water pollution, and vehicle emission and commercial "smokestack" emission regulations that drastically improved air quality.

 

Is the government ever going to 100% eliminate pollution? Of course not. However, absent government intervention, our air and water would be of a vastly poorer quality than they are now. Business is concerned with one thing only...profit, and environmental regulations eat into those profits, ergo, businesses will never voluntarily curb their polluting ways, so must be compelled to via regulation. I refer back to the meme I posted at the beginning of this thread that shows the New York City skyline in the 1970's compared to today. That cleaner air is primarily due to efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency (a Richard Nixon [Republican] creation). No, government will never solve the problem entirely, but without government efforts, the environment would be a hell of a lot worse today than it is.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/27/2017 at 1:18 PM, Traveler19491 said:

Your arguments do little other than point out the need for government intervention. In the US, there is a push on to get the government to restrict the use of plastic bags. Those of us who saw their harm to the environment started using reusable bags years ago (many made from recycled plastic bags, oddly enough). The way to get effective public transportation is via government subsidies to business to make it profitable for private enterprise to get involved in such a project and to citizens to encourage its use. In major cities in the US, we have "carpool lanes" during "rush hour" that require two or more passengers to use, thus encouraging carpooling and that incur heavy fines for anyone else using them (more government intervention). It was government regulation that curtailed water pollution, and vehicle emission and commercial "smokestack" emission regulations that drastically improved air quality.

 

Is the government ever going to 100% eliminate pollution? Of course not. However, absent government intervention, our air and water would be of a vastly poorer quality than they are now. Business is concerned with one thing only...profit, and environmental regulations eat into those profits, ergo, businesses will never voluntarily curb their polluting ways, so must be compelled to via regulation. I refer back to the meme I posted at the beginning of this thread that shows the New York City skyline in the 1970's compared to today. That cleaner air is primarily due to efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency (a Richard Nixon [Republican] creation). No, government will never solve the problem entirely, but without government efforts, the environment would be a hell of a lot worse today than it is.

I disagree. Government intervention is not the answer. Consumer action is the only thing that will work, if consumers punish those that pollute, the market will respond. Look what happened at United after bad publicity- the share price went down and the company had to change.

Too many people are walking around like sheeple with a phone glued to their ear and don't care about anything, so it's time for them to get the message. Frankly, IMO if the public don't care about pollution, they deserve to get polluted.

Edited April 29, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[Traveler19491]

On 4/26/2017 at 1:52 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the price dropped because electricity companies promised to reduce bills if people started to sell them surplus electricity. Increased sales always leads to reduced prices. Without private companies input it wouldn't have happened. Governments never get it right when they try to influence the market. Look at what happened when they removed bank controls ( Clinton, I believe ).

 

That might be true, were it not true. The power industry has lobbied heavily for legislation that will remove any and all subsidies to individual solar users and allow the power companies to charge higher rates or impose fines upon those who opt for solar energy.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/13/solar-panel-energy-power-company-nevada

https://electrek.co/2016/10/30/how-the-electricity-utilities-use-a-little-bit-of-political-jiu-jitsu-to-steal-the-sun/

https://thinkprogress.org/oklahoma-will-charge-customers-who-install-their-own-solar-panels-4bbf8850a3d0

 

Investor-owned utilities spend hundreds of millions annually in lobbying against renewable energy. They (justifiably) fear that renewables will eat into their profits and so go all out to destroy what in several states amounts to their only competition as in those states they have monopolies. The price of producing solar has dropped significantly due to vast improvements in manufacturing techniques and refinements in the materials used to turn solar into electricity (http://fortune.com/2016/06/13/solar-to-get-crazy-cheap/).

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Traveler19491 said:

That might be true, were it not true. The power industry has lobbied heavily for legislation that will remove any and all subsidies to individual solar users and allow the power companies to charge higher rates or impose fines upon those who opt for solar energy.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/13/solar-panel-energy-power-company-nevada

https://electrek.co/2016/10/30/how-the-electricity-utilities-use-a-little-bit-of-political-jiu-jitsu-to-steal-the-sun/

https://thinkprogress.org/oklahoma-will-charge-customers-who-install-their-own-solar-panels-4bbf8850a3d0

 

Investor-owned utilities spend hundreds of millions annually in lobbying against renewable energy. They (justifiably) fear that renewables will eat into their profits and so go all out to destroy what in several states amounts to their only competition as in those states they have monopolies. The price of producing solar has dropped significantly due to vast improvements in manufacturing techniques and refinements in the materials used to turn solar into electricity (http://fortune.com/2016/06/13/solar-to-get-crazy-cheap/).

Yes, that's right. However, if consumers really want to use "clean" energy they will keep buying solar. If they don't give a monkey's about "clean" energy they won't. If the politicians care they won't make it harder for consumers to use solar, and if they don't care they will.

The world is full of bad people. It's up to the good people to get off their butts and go do something about it, or accept the bad stuff they get. There are only 2 sides to this situation. The ones that want clean energy and prepared to do something about it, or the sheeple that don't care as long as it's cheap.

[Traveler19491]

15 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes, that's right. However, if consumers really want to use "clean" energy they will keep buying solar. If they don't give a monkey's about "clean" energy they won't. If the politicians care they won't make it harder for consumers to use solar, and if they don't care they will.

The world is full of bad people. It's up to the good people to get off their butts and go do something about it, or accept the bad stuff they get. There are only 2 sides to this situation. The ones that want clean energy and prepared to do something about it, or the sheeple that don't care as long as it's cheap.

1

The problem with your position that this issue should be left solely to the markets to correct and that it's up to the good people "to do something about it" is that it is not a pragmatic solution. The majority of people in the American economy are barely getting by as it is, most living one paycheck away from bankruptcy. Your position seems to be that people should buy solar even if it is considerably higher in cost than what they can get from their utility company. Where that breaks down is in the time factor. If they are forced to pay ten, twenty, thirty percent or more for their electricity, most simply can't afford that. It's not a matter of them getting off their butts. It's a matter of paying more for electricity or making the monthly payment on their health insurance, or braces for their kids, or getting new tires for the car, or even putting gas in the car with the balding tires. Your ideological position that leaving everything to the markets is wonderful in theory, but totally lacking in basic pragmatism. Your statement that if politicians care about clean energy they won't make it harder for consumers to buy it lacks in reality, also. Politicians are in the pockets of lobbyists and almost universally vote whichever direction the money tells them to. So relying on politicians to do what is right is about as realistic as expecting gun owners to suddenly start clamoring for more gun regulations. If you are such a die-hard fan of free markets, then how about urging government to prohibit energy utilities from charging penalty fees to solar users, and thereby let the market determine which will dominate? I guarantee that the oligarchs would have a complete meltdown when they realized the actual threat to their investments in fossil fuels.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Traveler19491 said:

The problem with your position that this issue should be left solely to the markets to correct and that it's up to the good people "to do something about it" is that it is not a pragmatic solution. The majority of people in the American economy are barely getting by as it is, most living one paycheck away from bankruptcy. Your position seems to be that people should buy solar even if it is considerably higher in cost than what they can get from their utility company. Where that breaks down is in the time factor. If they are forced to pay ten, twenty, thirty percent or more for their electricity, most simply can't afford that. It's not a matter of them getting off their butts. It's a matter of paying more for electricity or making the monthly payment on their health insurance, or braces for their kids, or getting new tires for the car, or even putting gas in the car with the balding tires. Your ideological position that leaving everything to the markets is wonderful in theory, but totally lacking in basic pragmatism. Your statement that if politicians care about clean energy they won't make it harder for consumers to buy it lacks in reality, also. Politicians are in the pockets of lobbyists and almost universally vote whichever direction the money tells them to. So relying on politicians to do what is right is about as realistic as expecting gun owners to suddenly start clamoring for more gun regulations. If you are such a die-hard fan of free markets, then how about urging government to prohibit energy utilities from charging penalty fees to solar users, and thereby let the market determine which will dominate? I guarantee that the oligarchs would have a complete meltdown when they realized the actual threat to their investments in fossil fuels.

Hmmmm. Actually I agree that the 'government" should regulate, but that would be in a better world than the one we live in. Those public servants that are elected to serve the public more often serve themselves and their "sponsors".

I don't believe that any present government makes right decisions or creates a better world, and to be quite frank, given that most people don't care about anything beyond themselves, I have given up on any hope for a better world till people DO get off their backsides and go do something about it. If they use the excuse that they are too poor, hungry, uneducated, powerless to do so, IMO they deserve the doodoo that they find themselves in.

 

BTW, I am a socialist ( little c ), but I don't believe the idle and the lazy should be given money for nothing.