In the news article below, you will see that the government of the UK is deliberately moving to increase the cost of wind energy. Given the seriousness of the global warming problem, this is highly irrational. That it is that irrational suggests that the British government is bowing to the demands of the energy companies which want to burn as much fossil fuel as possible. Perhaps the energy companies are bribing British members of Parliament in a way similar to the methods they use to bribe American members of Congress. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26958327
Yes, no doubt a number of people aren't intelligent enough to see through the intellectual problems you are noting. In addition, the energy companies which are quietly leading the movement to prevent a solution to the global warming danger, for reasons of profit, are certainly using the tactics you noted. The problem of those leaders is probably that they think they can take the money they earn and move to a climate which is still pleasant. However, are those top executives and major shareholders really that invulnerable? They might be able to move north to a sheltered area. However, they are perhaps not seeing that their investments, and the investments of their grandchildren, will be at risk from global warming. Investments are only of good quality if the general economy is sound. However, the damage to the economy as global warming continues, as food production drops due to worse floods and worst droughts, leading to wars, the economic damage from an increasing number of the worst hurricanes and worst tornadoes will damage their own investments. They are the ones planting the anti-solution propaganda. One of the reasons for the strong effect of the propaganda is that they don't tell the reader that they are using fake experts, and so forth. So many readers can't tell the difference between the false propaganda and the real scientific reports. It would be difficult, but would it be possible for us to educate members of the public on how to tell false propaganda from genuine reports?
Or maybe its not just one big fossil fuel company conspiracy Maybe its just too expensive to be viable .... period Ever think of that ?
"Too expensive" is merely part of the false propaganda. It does at this time cost a bit more than fossil fuels, although future technology might correct that. However, even if it stays more expensive, the same as now, all we need do is cut back in some other areas, and we can afford it. The point is that the damage from continually increasing global warming will be much more expensive than the extra costs of wind and solar. Even now, losses from a single major storm or major flood run into the billions of dollars, and we are having a number of those per year. We will have more the more we increase the CO2 in the air. So if we look at total cost, wind and solar energy is already less expensive than the damage from global warming. One old saying applies: penny wise and pound foolish. I don't know how you define "conspiracy". The energy companies don't seem to be all meeting together with a chairperson, and voting on what they will do next. However, when members of a group have a common interest, they will often individually act in similar ways. That is working in common, but not a formal conspiracy. There was an interesting comment by Prince Phillip just before the last major climate conference. He said that the energy companies are blocking the world's governments from solving the climate change problem. The Royal Family isn't really supposed to get involved in controversies, and Prince Phillip would have consulted the family before saying something that provocative. The Royal Family wouldn't dare say something controversial which would be false, because that could really get them into trouble. Therefore, Prince Phillip must have been saying the truth. Many energy companies are larger than more than half of the nations in the world, equating Gross Domestic Products with gross receipts. That much cash flow gives those corporations an ability to bribe as many government officials around the world as they need to get their way, and the cost of the bribery would be just pocket change for corporations that large. Bribery can be subtle. In the United States, there are a couple of legal ways to bribe members of Congress; campaign contributions and highly paid jobs when the Congresspersons leave office. So it isn't really a conspiracy, but the energy companies are preventing the governments of the world from solving the problem. - - - Updated - - - "Too expensive" is merely part of the false propaganda. It does at this time cost a bit more than fossil fuels, although future technology might correct that. However, even if it stays more expensive, the same as now, all we need do is cut back in some other areas, and we can afford it. The point is that the damage from continually increasing global warming will be much more expensive than the extra costs of wind and solar. Even now, losses from a single major storm or major flood run into the billions of dollars, and we are having a number of those per year. We will have more the more we increase the CO2 in the air. So if we look at total cost, wind and solar energy is already less expensive than the damage from global warming. One old saying applies: penny wise and pound foolish. I don't know how you define "conspiracy". The energy companies don't seem to be all meeting together with a chairperson, and voting on what they will do next. However, when members of a group have a common interest, they will often individually act in similar ways. That is working in common, but not a formal conspiracy. There was an interesting comment by Prince Phillip just before the last major climate conference. He said that the energy companies are blocking the world's governments from solving the climate change problem. The Royal Family isn't really supposed to get involved in controversies, and Prince Phillip would have consulted the family before saying something that provocative. The Royal Family wouldn't dare say something controversial which would be false, because that could really get them into trouble. Therefore, Prince Phillip must have been saying the truth. Many energy companies are larger than more than half of the nations in the world, equating Gross Domestic Products with gross receipts. That much cash flow gives those corporations an ability to bribe as many government officials around the world as they need to get their way, and the cost of the bribery would be just pocket change for corporations that large. Bribery can be subtle. In the United States, there are a couple of legal ways to bribe members of Congress; campaign contributions and highly paid jobs when the Congresspersons leave office. So it isn't really a conspiracy, but the energy companies are preventing the governments of the world from solving the problem.
energy companies are fully aware there are millions upon millions of stupid people, ideologues who are easily duped...energy corporations deliberately pander to these moronic pseudo-intellectuals...it's a delaying tactic to protect corporate profits,wages and affluent lifestyles...I live in a city that is built on corporate oil I know many of these people personally, a Ceo, a VP, geologists, drillers, financiers (all family members and friends) they're not stupid people but this is their livelihood and they enjoy their lifestyle...every one of them privately acknowledge CC is caused by fossil fuels but none of them want to give up the paychecks that go with it and that's understandable...they need to pay those mortgage payments, put food on the table and educate their kids, if they have to play the game and dupe the scientific retards of denierworld tp preserve their jobs that's what they'll do...my son-in-law will be starting work for ConocoPhillips soon, he's a bright guy 3.9 grade average and fully aware of the science of CC but he also needs a job and with the local oil corporations paying an average 130K per year he's not going to say no to a starting wage of 70K right out of uni...
A hundred years from now when the Earth is a toilet, we'll tell our kids we didn't stop it because it wasn't profitable. They'll understand. Everyone understands profits and how they are the most important thing ever. And, in a hundred years I am fully confident the Earth will be a toilet with or without global warming. Our current mega corporations and conglomerates by that time will have fully taken control of everything and there will be no one to stop the pollution. I mean, why would they stop it? There's no profit in it.
So do your part and give up your -- created via pollution and non-renewable resources -- I-Phone/Smart Phone, I-pad, laptop, desk top personal computing devices and your automobile and most of the really stylish clothing and all that restaurant food -- you don't want to KNOW how much non-renewable resources and polluting practices were committed somewhere along that process for profit -- and so forth and so on. All of which were created via the thirst and competitive drive for -- gasp! -- profit.
Nobody is saying that we have to give up everything. I'm certainly not and never have. I believe in moderation. But there are things that can be done to minimize the impact of the pollution and many times there are cleaner ways of doing things than what is done. And I'm certainly not saying that a profit motive is inherently bad. I just don't consider it's importance to be above maintaining a livable planet where we don't have to buy our energy from our enemies whom we'll eventually go to war with when the dinosaur juice starts running out. But my biggest pet peeve is that we have the technology to start weening off of fossil fuels but we don't because it's "not profitable". I say the government should do it with our tax dollars then and I don't care how wasteful or inefficient it is. It needs to be done. That infrastructure needs to be built and the technology harnessed regardless of whether stockholders are going to get rich from it. Again here, moderation, because I certainly don't expect less pollutive and renewable resources to completely replace fossil fuels, at least not with our current technology. I am for the use of nuclear power. Even natural gas is more efficient than oil. There are things that can be done but aren't, things we have the ability to do but don't.
That is rather good information. Even with a large program to build new solar and wind energy facilities, it would only reduce the sales of fossil fuels slowly, and the energy companies could themselves become involved in renewable energy. It wouldn't have to be a problem. Then of course, once carbon dioxide emissions are down to the carbon sink, some fossil fuel could still be sold. One thing that would help would be for the federal government to provide a research job to every scientist and engineer who lost his or her job due to downsizing, or to being fired before retirement so that the corporation can hire new researchers just out of college at a lower salary than the fired older researcher were receiving. At a good rate of pay. Once people have learned how to do research, they can jump to another somewhat similar area of research if they want to do so.
You are right about not giving up everything. Many elements of our standard of living don't use very much energy nor raw materials, For example, medical care uses very little energy per person, and there are plenty of raw materials to make drugs, so nobody would have to give up any medical care. As long as it is well insulated, a large house is about as energy efficient as a small house, so everyone could have a reasonably roomy house. The only difference between expensive clothing and cheap clothing is design. In terms of energy and raw materials used, everyone could have clothing with museum quality design, and that clothing would use no more energy and raw materials than cheap clothing does. Hand made arts and crafts use a very modest amount of energy and raw materials. Therefore, everyone could have original roof sculptures, garden sculptures, hand made ceramics and glass, original paintings, and so forth. That would in fact raise the standard of living for many people. Gourmet food uses the same basic ingredients as ordinary food. The only difference is that it is better prepared, Therefore, everyone could have gourmet food. Of course, at some point, we will have to stop population growth, or there won't be enough food for everyone. But as long as there is food, it can be gourmet. Or electronics now use very little energy, and very small amounts of things like rare earths. Therefore, it would be safe for the environment for everyone to have as much electronics as desired. In fact, we are now better off in entertainment than kings and the wealthy a couple of hundred years ago. Then, kings and the wealthy had to depend on live performances, and there was very restricted selection. Now with recordings, we can listen to almost everything that has been composed, which is a vastly greater selection than any king or wealthy person had two hundred years ago. It is similar, in terms of selection available, with drama. Most people don't realize just how well off they are compared with kings and wealthy persons just a couple of hundred years ago. This too can be part of a lifestyle safe for the environment. There will have to be some give with transportation. However, people will probably be able to have small electric cars. Whether or not that is possible however, the above would make a high standard of living for everyone, in ways safe for the environment.
and that's what happening energy companies are looking at alternate energy sources, but changing revenue sources for multi billion dollar corporations is a slow process.... sure but few industries can match the salaries paid in the energy field, how many industries have average wage of 130k, where a kid right out of uni or highschool can make 70k, and sr engineer 300k...there will be a strong resistance to any change....
I've seen my UK energy bills increase 50% in 5 years subsidising these useless green alternatives with those bills set to double again by 2020. Why is that a good thing ? You do realise that statistically cold kills nearly twice as many people per annum than heat does . And that's before we address starvation deaths from declining food supplies and shorter growing seasons caused by increased cold. Its more heat we need not less. Alarmists are invested in climate catastrophe. Academic livelihoods depend on it. Reputations rely on it. Governments collect billions in tax on it, supporting a network of subservient scientific societies to promote this scam. Instead of worrying about how rich the oil companies are perhaps you should address that In the meantime, radicalized conservation associations push climate change instead of solving real environmental problems. Crony capitalists get rich on it by feeding at the public trough, peddling products like windmills and solar panels that could never survive in the market place without massive taxpayer subsidy. Climate ideology is a profitable business for special interests, lining particular pockets at the expense of everyone else. Its simply gotten too big and too lucrative now to ever be allowed to fail whatever happens in the real world
and while the governmental stooges are living in luxury their people are dying all the while lying to the public http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...higher-than-government-estimates-7462426.html The number of people dying as a result of fuel poverty is three times higher than government estimates suggest, according to new academic research. Some 7,800 people die during winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly, says fuel poverty expert Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster. That works out at 65 deaths a day. Fuel poverty is defined as when someone needs to spend 10 per cent or more on heating their home. The new total – calculated using World Health Organisation guidance and official excess winter death figures - is four times as many fatalities as happen in road accidents each year. The previous government estimate put the total of deaths relating to fuel poverty at just 2,700 a year. That was included in a report last year by Professor John Hills, who is expected to produce his final recommendations on fuel poverty next month. I just hope the people here in the US are not so stupid as to repeat the mistakes the EU and Australia made and follow them like lemmings off a cliff
You've never known a number of college professors who do research, so you don't understand. Anyone intelligent enough to be a college professor could make a lot more money in business. However, a number of people have a strong interest in knowledge, so they give up the possibility of earning more in order to devote themselves to finding new knowledge. Of course, there are professors who don't do research, generally at lower level colleges, and they may just be professors because they aren't as intelligent as the research professors, so couldn't do as well in business as research professors could. Since the college professors who do research want to discover new knowledge, they are quite honest. If one wants to discover new knowledge, the last thing one wants is letting dishonesty into one's head. Energy company executives and major shareholders are different in motivation, however. Not all business persons are dishonest, of course. However. many are. Many top executives have compensation packages of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, and others are in the tens of millions. Then, or course, lower executives have to have high compensation practices as well. Even a quite tiny company, Hawaiian Electric Industries, is paying its top executive about two and a half million dollars per year. That is where much of your higher energy bill is coming from. This has been going on in the United States for several decades, but evidently, it is now spreading to the UK. In the last 30 years in the United States, about 10% of the entire American aggregate income has been shifted from the middle class and the poor by the wealthy. What you are seeing in the UK is not extra green energy expense, but rather the top corporate executives and largest shareholders beginning to transfer income for themselves out of the pockets of the middle class and poor in the UK, just like they have done in the United States.
It's the upper class who are diverting money away from the poor. However, they of course don't want the public to know this, so they blame other things.
A genuine researcher is happy with less money, as long as he or she can do her or his research. Any researchers who are more interested in money than knowledge are not genuine and good researchers, and since they aren't interested in knowledge, they are unlikely to discover important new knowledge. They can be put up as experts in propaganda, even though they aren't able to discover new knowledge themselves, because they aren't interested in knowledge, but rather only money. High salaries for engineers and computer programmers of various kinds in business is risky. Usually, most of them are fired in their early fifties so the corporation can hire new engineers and programmers just out of college, or new engineers and programmers in a lower wage nation like India. Salaries for engineers and programmers in India, last I heard, are about one fourth the salaries of American and European engineers and programmers. A very large number of engineering and programming jobs have been exported. Thus, what happens is that the higher salaries last until the person is in his or her early 50%, and then the person is suddenly unemployed with no salary at all, and other companies just won't hire a 50 year old engineer or programmer. The corporations do this even though it is the engineers or programmers who have created the products the corporation sells. So as you can see, corporations have no gratitude.
those that can do , those that can't teach as far as money goes corporate money cannot ever touch government money According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/
The idea about doing and thinking is just something put out by know-it-all business executives as a social game to try to make people think they, the businesspersons, are superior. But how many businesspersons can do really advanced mathematics or physics or the top work in a number of other fields? It would be more accurate to say ---those who can do research; those who can't go into business. Just talking about expenditures is unbalanced. It should be compared with the costs of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, soil erosion, and droughts. Even now, those costs are as much as the costs of energy research, and so forth. But, the costs of hurricanes, tornadoes floods, soil erosion, and droughts will increase rapidly as the climate continues to warm. Some people are hanging on to the idea that there can be more food production in arctic areas. However, more food production than that will be lost to the climate problems. Crops don't grow in places similar to Death Valley. Not only that, but in experiments, many agricultural plants don't produce as well when they are put in a greenhouse with carbon dioxide increased, and what the plants do produce is less nutritious.
So the government not subsidizing an unprofitable business as much suddenly becomes a vast conspiracy to destroy alternative energy. I would think that the UK liberals would want austerity to include business subsidies. Apparently not. Wind turbines are ugly and I suspect that wave generation is the more practical route for the UK to pursue given it is an island and all. It would actually work well in the US too if we linked the actuators to desalination the way the Aussies are so we can crack two birds with one stone.
wave generation is pretty impractical when you are 1500 miles away from the ocean. Hydrogen is the best alternative once they crack the issue of a cost effective catalyst for fuel cells Wind has not been conside4red a good source for power in over 200 years now. Too much maintenance and unreliablity
It is all on a grid. There is no single best solution. If wave can put power into the coastal areas as well as create potable water in the west, then we will take a pretty huge jump forward in bridging the anticipated supply-demand gap. We can then focus on inland areas under a lot less pressure.
\of course it on a grid but the farther you have to transmit the more loss there is due to resistance. basic ohms law I = E/R. The longer the line the higher the value of R
