WSJ/ The Non-Green Jobs Boom

[Stadium-Armory]

twa, what point are you trying to make? Serious question.

I sense there is a position you're trying defend, but its not clear to me what it is. Please clarify.

[twa]

Which post?

With TSF?

Life is a sum of all your choices.
~Albert Camus

One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes ... and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility.
~Eleanor Roosevelt

[PeterMP]

But there was no out and out ban on CFC's , they had grandfather clauses and exemptions for both essential and non-essential products.

Those were also costs that did not directly effect every household....the old frog in the pot trick don't work it ya don't go slow

Do you want to claim that the Montreal Protocol, as singed by Reagan and unmodified afterwards, wasn't predicted to have dire out comes?

[twa]

do you want to claim it was a outright ban?
I can play too

add
it was modified 7 times according to Wiki,and of course rule interpretation and application always varies

[Stadium-Armory]

Which post?

With TSF?

Life is a sum of all your choices.
~Albert Camus

One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes ... and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility.
~Eleanor Roosevelt

Generally, in this thread. It seems like you're saying you only support spending money to develop emerging energy sources only if such expenditures immediately make money.

[PeterMP]

do you want to claim it was a outright ban?
I can play too

add
it was modified 7 times according to Wiki,and of course rule interpretation and application always varies

The ammendments have dealt with the elimination of other ozone depleting molecules like HCFCs.
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/intpol/history.html

(I'll note that an ammendment to the Montreal Protocol isn't like an ammendment to the US Constitution. Signatores of the original protocol are not subject to the ammendments automatically. The original document has not changed. Some countries have signed the original document, but not the ammendments, and they are subject to the original document, but not the ammendments. It would be better stated to say they are additional side agreements that have strengthened the original document.)

They had no impact on the use of CFCs in the US.

There were essentially 2 exceptions to the ban in the US:
1. Very limited medical devices
2. research

so the term out and out ban was an overstatement by me.

Both of those were allowed under the original Montreal Protocol.

Back to my original question, do you know of a single case where the industry bad case scenarios have come true?

If your answer is no because there are exemptions, then I'll point out that in many cases even with those exemption the desired environomental affect has been achieved (CFC release being one of them), AND environmental regulations normally have some sort of exemption policy in them from the beginning (BEFORE industry complaints) (the CFCs being a case with VERY limited exemptions as compared to most EPA regulations).

And we can start to discuss why industry never seems to be properly take those into account those exemptions.

[twa]

Because industry cannot count on exemptions,nor reasonable interpretations w/o pressure being applied.
I certainly agree utilizing good judgement and discretion in applying exemptions can still enable the desired effect(a example is Texas's flex permitting,which allows variance in methods to reach cleaner air)

Your bad case question always comes down to how the rules are applied,and since politicos are not suicidal,very bad scenarios are avoided by allowances and discretionary enforcement because of pressure applied.
They won't happen because we do not allow them to happen(just as with the EPA's latest idiocy adjustments/exemptions or delay WILL be enacted because they MUST ....kinda like bank bailouts)

on the CFC's there were many other exemptions in practice,as well as the allowable use of inventory(which allowed more cushion)


SA ...I support research and development(as I have mentioned several times in this thread),I do not support large scale investment in inferior technology that is unsustainable w/o continuing subsidies and requiring gaming elect rates.

It is foolish,and that fact has been demonstrated in Europe already

I gave a list of projected costs(over the life of the sources) earlier...if it ain't profitable over it's life it is a very bad idea.(and if you must artificially increase other energy costs to make it appear profitable you are SCREWING everyone)

[PeterMP]

Because industry cannot count on exemptions,nor reasonable interpretations w/o pressure being applied.
I certainly agree utilizing good judgement and discretion in applying exemptions can still enable the desired effect(a example is Texas's flex permitting,which allows variance in methods to reach cleaner air)

Your bad case question always comes down to how the rules are applied,and since politicos are not suicidal,very bad scenarios are avoided by allowances and discretionary enforcement because of pressure applied.
They won't happen because we do not allow them to happen(just as with the EPA's latest idiocy adjustments/exemptions or delay WILL be enacted because they MUST ....kinda like bank bailouts)

on the CFC's there were many other exemptions in practice,as well as the allowable use of inventory(which allowed more cushion)

The use of existing inventory is part of the original Montreal protocol. Industry sources should have known they could use what they had in hand (and even get delivery of things that were manufacutred, but that they hadn't obtained).

What rule issued by the EPA do you object to?

SA ...I support research and development(as I have mentioned several times in this thread),I do not support large scale investment in inferior technology that is unsustainable w/o continuing subsidies and requiring gaming elect rates.

It is foolish,and that fact has been demonstrated in Europe already

I gave a list of projected costs(over the life of the sources) earlier...if it ain't profitable over it's life it is a very bad idea.(and if you must artificially increase other energy costs to make it appear profitable you are SCREWING everyone)

How sustainable are fossil fuels if we eliminate the depletion allowance?

How about if we eliminate our military presence in the Middle East?

If they can't "survive" those things, are they really sustainable?

[twa]

The misuse of the cross state rule is irritating me most at the moment, but I can make a list of others.

I really don't see your issue with the depletion allowance,nor your attempt to use it with solar....but carbon based fuels are very sustainable for centuries,the allowance simply enables marginal wells to continue to produce both oil and tax revenue(at a net gain,unlike solar) since we limit areas for drilling

Open up domestic sources and there is no need as far as our oil supply....you will of course still have the issues of stability and our allies interests(our ME dependency is very overrated as far as oil) as far as market forces the military ensures....the notion we only involve ourselves there for oil ignores the regions world wide importance

Remove the barriers and find out ....you can even drop the 'subsidies' and let true market forces work.(I don't think most people understand just how much is recoverable in the US)

It is of course true they cannot be sustainable while being choked....but not much can for long

[twa]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrez...rnate-reality/

Alternative Energy's Alternate Reality

Creating a “green energy” economy may be the most daunting central planning task ever attempted. It entails nothing less than the reengineering of our entire energy infrastructure. And, like all central planning schemes, it is based on a roadmap that eschews real-world experience and sound economics in favor of utopian ideology driven by political connections.

Now the experiment is unraveling, having barely begun. As the parade of government-subsidized failures like Solyndra, Stirling Energy, SpectraWatt, Evergreen Solar, Beacon Power, and others mount, now is a good time to look at how all the pieces of the alternative energy puzzle are supposed to fit together—and what happens when they don’t.
more @ link

[Tulane Skins Fan]

You don.t think it is relevant when we put about 66 billion into alt energy last yr?

You don't think it is relevant O has restricted drilling in other places?

You don't think it relevant when O is 'focused' on jobs?

Welcome to responsibility,where choices matter

I guess your trying to say that because Obama pushed some investment into green jobs, and because there has been a "non-green jobs boom," somehow investing in green jobs was dumb? Ok, that is just illogical. I thought you were just hacking away, but now I think you are just irrational.

[twa]

He is doing more than just pushing investment....He is behaving irrationally(aside from playing to his base and rewarding supporters)

If you are unable to defend govt policy stay out of the game.

[PeterMP]

The misuse of the cross state rule is irritating me most at the moment, but I can make a list of others.

So the courts are wrong?

I really don't see your issue with the depletion allowance,nor your attempt to use it with solar....but carbon based fuels are very sustainable for centuries,the allowance simply enables marginal wells to continue to produce both oil and tax revenue(at a net gain,unlike solar) since we limit areas for drilling

Because it is stupid. It awards ineffecient use of resources. Like I've already pointed out with respect to the farming industry. If you applied a deplotion allowance to top soil or the nutrients therein, the modern farm industry would be completely different as would the surface of the US.

It is particularly bad for oil companies where it can be calculated based on the gross sales of the asset vs. the value of the asset (keeping in mind in many cases oil companies don't actually OWN the oil UNTIL they remove it from the ground) so they can actually end up with deductions greater than they actually put into the project.

We limit oil drilling on PUBLIC land, but we also limit ALL SORTS of behavior on public land.

Alternative energy has the same issues:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/bu...pagewanted=all

Open up domestic sources and there is no need as far as our oil supply....you will of course still have the issues of stability and our allies interests(our ME dependency is very overrated as far as oil) as far as market forces the military ensures....the notion we only involve ourselves there for oil ignores the regions world wide importance

Remove the barriers and find out ....you can even drop the 'subsidies' and let true market forces work.(I don't think most people understand just how much is recoverable in the US)

It is of course true they cannot be sustainable while being choked....but not much can for long

1. Barriers exits for EVERYTHING. Pretending like ONLY the fossil fuel industry is limted by governmental barriers is just WRONG. Though I generally disagree with the idea that NOT allowing a company to do WHATEVER it wants on public land as a "barrier". The fact that we open public and up to them, in a manner that still allows them to make larger profits should be though of as an AWARD (Heck, the oil industry acts like PRIVATE ownership of land (by other people) is "barrier" for them. Just look at the issues with eminient domain with respect to building pipelines (Note this isn't true of just the oil industry either).).

(On public land, we should consider what is best for the long term for the public. I don't think anybody can put forth a reasonable arguement where the best long term thing for the public is that we consume all of the oil in the US as fast as we can.)

2. Oil is sold on a world market, even that produced directly in the US is not automaticaly destined for use in the US. Things that affect the costs of oil to Europe and China are going to affect our costs.

3. Why is the area more internationally important than say North African area of Somolia, Ethiopia, and Eritrea where we have very LIMITED millitary internvention despite decades of conflicts, human rights absues, and suffering?

Between pretty specific tax breaks the encourage ineffecient use of resources long term, land use (access to public and private land), health costs, and foreign policy, we have been subsidizing the fossil fuel industry at BILLIONS of dollars a year for DECADES.

To claim that some other industry that can't come in and immediately compete given the historical advantages is some how inferior is just ridiculous.

[twa]

The courts are not finished with the matter, but they are regularly wrong and decisions overturned.


Why the comparisons to things totally dissimilar?
If a farmer leases the land it is a tax deduction
If we charge solar firms for access to the sun's rays I will fully support a depletion allowance
What would charging for leases to the sun;s rays do to solar prices?

Alt energy generation is not forbidden in large areas of the US....again totally dissimilar


1 The oil companies are not asking to be free of all restrictions(a rather foolish argument)

2 You could insert a right of purchase to any lease if the destination is a concern

3 Africa has never been the crossroads of civilization(though it will gain importance as it develops,and we ARE intervening militarily there NOW)


Compete with the tax revenue income and other benefits fossil fuels generate that FAR outstrip the costs and we can talk.

I will be happy to see other energy sources expand as they become cost effective,and support expanding the ones that are (or are close) now....I'm in favor of removing foolish barriers in their cases as well.

added
You think this is the way oil and gas exploration are treated?(your link)

Developers and environmentalists say Mrs. Feinstein has modified the monument legislation to address some of their issues. The 2.5 million acres set aside in a draft version of the monument act has been shrunk to around one million acres, allowing at least two projects to proceed. The bill also includes provisions designed to accelerate approval of renewable energy projects on federal land.

[oisn1]

Generally, in this thread. It seems like you're saying you only support spending money to develop emerging energy sources only if such expenditures immediately make money.

I find this to be the most concerning aspect of our country's culture. If you look at our economic, education, and energy policy, they are rooted in short term thinking. Remember when we went to moon? There was no gain in it (outside of pride), but we did it anyways, and guess what; it spurred innovations in many different sectors. I find it sad that we can't lead on green energy, not because I think it's a panacea, but because it's clearly the future of energy production. Only an idiot would think we can keep drilling forever; it's a foregone conclusion that one day the world will move to renewable energy in some form. But apparently, there are those in this country that want us to follow others, rather than lead (and make the most profit) on a new energy policy.