Gary, if the warmers are correct, and I think they are, the problem will solve it's self and neither of us will be around to see the results. We will deindustialize as we know it or become Venus like.

Are you saying there is no possibility of an economically feasible and politically feasible solution? That does leave open dictatorially imposed solutions or the actions of insane mad men, absent some natural global epidemic.

IMO the only thing which could work democratically is when clean energy is more cost effective than what most of the world's population is doing.

the same "cradle to the grave" responsibility applied to asbestos could be extended to fossil fuels. The new clean alternatives would instantly be far superior.LINK

And capitalism could continue unabated.

I doubt India or China for example have serious hazmat controls or liabilities. A difference is that the people who are poisoned are mostly domestic for them, the dirty energy is shared with the planet. I don't see mandates working for them.

---

Gary, if the warmers are correct, and I think they are, the problem will solve it's self and neither of us will be around to see the results. We will deindustialize as we know it or become Venus like.

Are you saying there is no possibility of an economically feasible and politically feasible solution? That does leave open dictatorially imposed solutions or the actions of insane mad men, absent some natural global epidemic.

IMO the only thing which could work democratically is when clean energy is more cost effective than what most of the world's population is doing.

the same "cradle to the grave" responsibility applied to asbestos could be extended to fossil fuels. The new clean alternatives would instantly be far superior.LINK

And capitalism could continue unabated.

I doubt India or China for example have serious hazmat controls or liabilities. A difference is that the people who are poisoned are mostly domestic for them, the dirty energy is shared with the planet. I don't see mandates working for them.

It does not matter. As always, someone leads, others follow. And the last one to the party gets leftovers. Mandating India and China is not required. If they wish to continue gearing up using outdated technologies while the rest of the industrialized world moves forward... they would be left behind. And they are smart enough not to let that happen. Moving beyond fossils is not a handicap. Especially if costs were associated to all goods/services sold that added their costs back in. Let the market speak for itself.

You might notice that China and India do not USUALLY attempt to sell asbestos into the united states. The damages get charged back to the point of origin, or as close as it gets.

Progress starts somewhere. When we get up and start moving.

Inertia is the enemy.

---

Janice

Soft, good thoughts, probably the best possible outcome and I am skeptical I will live long enough to see any results other than what have already been cast in stone.

---

Left behind? Are you sure that is how you want to describe it? If by being left behind they are more profitable than going green it may be the greens that are left behind.

It will all depend on price. As long as fossil is significantly less expensive world wide then it will be used. Obviously if green is less expensive, then it gets used.

---

Left behind? Are you sure that is how you want to describe it? If by being left behind they are more profitable than going green it may be the greens that are left behind.

It will all depend on price. As long as fossil is significantly less expensive world wide then it will be used. Obviously if green is less expensive, then it gets used.

Gary, so you agree with me, when green energy is more cost effective then the market will choose to stop fouling the planet. A question is why would you choose not to do the right thing when it costs less? Of course in our modern economies we only look at short term profits.

---

Gary, so you agree with me, when green energy is more cost effective then the market will choose to stop fouling the planet. A question is why would you choose not to do the right thing when it costs less? Of course in our modern economies we only look at short term profits.

The world of the public company is totally focused on the profits of the next quarter. Long term is an illusion. But that is O/T here.

---

Gary, so you agree with me, when green energy is more cost effective then the market will choose to stop fouling the planet. A question is why would you choose not to do the right thing when it costs less? Of course in our modern economies we only look at short term profits.

The world of the public company is totally focused on the profits of the next quarter. Long term is an illusion. But that is O/T here.

What you mean next qtr. Don't you mean this qtr.

Gary, so you agree with me, when green energy is more cost effective then the market will choose to stop fouling the planet. A question is why would you choose not to do the right thing when it costs less? Of course in our modern economies we only look at short term profits.

The world of the public company is totally focused on the profits of the next quarter. Long term is an illusion. But that is O/T here.

What you mean next qtr. Don't you mean this qtr.

The quarter is always over by the time of the report. So for management this quarter is next quarter to shareholders.

---

Gary, so you agree with me, when green energy is more cost effective then the market will choose to stop fouling the planet. A question is why would you choose not to do the right thing when it costs less? Of course in our modern economies we only look at short term profits.

The world of the public company is totally focused on the profits of the next quarter. Long term is an illusion. But that is O/T here.

What you mean next qtr. Don't you mean this qtr.

The quarter is always over by the time of the report. So for management this quarter is next quarter to shareholders.

But usually there is enough info from last report and the analysts to make a decision whether to sell, hold or buy this qtr.

But usually there is enough info from last report and the analysts to make a decision whether to sell, hold or buy this qtr.

http://www.whispernumber.com/

---

Gary, so you agree with me, when green energy is more cost effective then the market will choose to stop fouling the planet. A question is why would you choose not to do the right thing when it costs less? Of course in our modern economies we only look at short term profits.

The world of the public company is totally focused on the profits of the next quarter. Long term is an illusion. But that is O/T here.

Eating your young is probably not a long term survival tactic for mammals.

---

Eating your young is probably not a long term survival tactic for mammals.

But It Is. The Sickly, deformed, otherwise Weak Of The Litter Get Eaten By Mom, for The Strong Ones Survival.

Thus Tens Of Millions Of Mammalian Species Survival. Then Man Mammal Came Along.

And Now The Decline and Eventual Extinction.

Due To The Mom/Pops Not "Eating Their Young" So To Speak.

IGNORE Say: No IGNORING Evolution. Humans Have Disrupted The Natural Flow. Goodbye HumanKind. Unless You Get Hungry.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Nice argument, but not true.
Well spoken from one who was once a worm.

---

Eating your young is probably not a long term survival tactic for mammals.

But It Is. The Sickly, deformed, otherwise Weak Of The Litter Get Eaten By Mom, for The Strong Ones Survival.

Thus Tens Of Millions Of Mammalian Species Survival. Then Man Mammal Came Along.

And Now The Decline and Eventual Extinction.

Due To The Mom/Pops Not "Eating Their Young" So To Speak.

IGNORE Say: No IGNORING Evolution. Humans Have Disrupted The Natural Flow. Goodbye HumanKind. Unless You Get Hungry.

The Angel is right. Humanity is the only species which has made sterility an inheritable trait.

T.A.

What a tangled web we weave when we practice deception via tax code ...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/06/cutbacks-in-subsidies-indicate-future-solar-may-be-dimming/
Solar Power

"The fundamental problem is it's not economically sustainable," said Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center, a think tank in Washington state.
...
At the heart of this dilemma are what's known as net metering customers. These homeowners and businesses produce solar power which they use, but then they're able to sell power they don't use back into the grid. They're compensated at retail rates and can currently receive a check at the end of the year.
...
She and her husband put solar panels on their house last year and anticipate breaking even in 14 years, but if the Idaho Power changes go through, they may never recoup the $25,000 solar panel investment they made.
...
"Everywhere you go, solar energy requires massive subsidies, which eventually blow a hole in the federal or state budget, and then are dropped," said Myers. "Solar is a bad way to go."

---

Gary, quoting slanted articles for Faux news is certainly not a solution. To say it depends on subsidies is false. To say someone overpaid for a system and might not get as much as they expected back is possible.

But this is not part of the solution. It is part of the problem. Cheer coal and petroleum, slam wind/solar. Even with weak arguments from slanted sources.

---

Janice

Gary, quoting slanted articles for Faux news is certainly not a solution. To say it depends on subsidies is false. To say someone overpaid for a system and might not get as much as they expected back is possible.

But this is not part of the solution. It is part of the problem. Cheer coal and petroleum, slam wind/solar. Even with weak arguments from slanted sources.

Ah, you don't see the real issue behind. As long as someone has to pay in cash the difference in price between PV solar and coal/natural gas that someone will eventually go broke. To make PV solar work is has to cost less without any trickery by tax code or otherwise than coal/natural gas. Until that happens PV solar is not part of the solution and we need to look elsewhere for the solution. That is the real issue.

The same applies to any technology that is proposed. It has to cost less than what is presently in use. It is a reality that the arm waving "make it so" crowd ignores.

---

Ok here is a question for all of you. The oil companys get a tax break and or a subsidy. If the Government took that away how much would Gas and heating fuel be?
Also, then how would wind, and PV solar stack up?

---

[/quote]

Old James

no difference. considering they just add the "gubment" handout to their profits. The last I checked some of the "oil" companies are raking in about $400 billion a year. taking $20 billion away is not going to substantially hurt their bottom line. BTW those handouts are to encourage them to explore for oil. Of note, Big Oil already explores for oil. its not like they weren't already going to do it.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

no difference. considering they just add the "gubment" handout to their profits. The last I checked some of the "oil" companies are raking in about $400 billion a year. taking $20 billion away is not going to substantially hurt their bottom line. BTW those handouts are to encourage them to explore for oil. Of note, Big Oil already explores for oil. its not like they weren't already going to do it.

And how much have we paid to them to uncap a well they capped when oil was to cheap?

---

[/quote]

Old James