seems your a bit too late, someones already re-looking at wind powerOriginally Posted by Banditbandit
God's Evil Twin
seems your a bit too late, someones already re-looking at wind power
Science Is But An Organized System Of Ignorance"Pornography: The thing with billions of views that nobody watches" - WhiteManBehindADesk
Come warm yourself by the fire
If you feel bad - don't drive the car, light a fire and ride the motorbike for a week.that will release those nasty carbon creatures.
Besides burning oil is a common occurrence in daily life. They can't charge for that.
Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.
Come warm yourself by the fire
[QUOTE=Scuba_Steve;1130121314]seems your a bit too late, someones already re-looking at wind power
And then some
http://cleantechnica.com/2010/04/13/...at-30000-feet/
Last edited by Jantar; 4th August 2011 at 17:05. Reason: quoted embedded image removed.
Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.
SH1 rider
Awl look at all those carbon creatures escaping directly to the atmosphere. Must be lovely and warm on the rigIf you feel bad - don't drive the car, light a fire and ride the motorbike for a week.
Besides burning oil is a common occurrence in daily life. They can't charge for that.
Hopefully the bike will be back on the road tonight.
Its winter so of course there is a daily fire of some sort, be it coal, wood, gas or electric.
I'ma get medieval on your ass!
Quasi, you are a decent guy and you are willing to form a point of view.
Doesn't it seem odd to you that politicians all over the world - mainly in the rich countries - have agreed that carbon emissions are a bad thing. Various ETS schemes have been introduced.
Politicians hate new taxes, hate telling the voters about new bills to pay. Corporate business hates the new bills as well and especially hates taxes. Politicians are scared stiff about not being re-elected, and not getting money from business to run their campaigns.
Wouldn't the obvious move be to rubbish carbon trading? Not to have it at all? Think of the votes and money that would attract.
Yet even in NZ which as you say pollutes very little, a National govt (right-wingish, business friendly) has brought in our own ETS.
Why on earth would they do that?
I'ma get medieval on your ass!
Oh - and why have the rich countries landed carbon taxes on their citizens? You don't get rich by making life tougher for your own people. In fact they have made life easier for third world competitors. That does not make any sense at all.
Anarchic Wild Child
I knew it was not an original idea .. but surely we could do better than attaching a parasail to the bow .. How about sails and masts using the technology of our big racing yachts?
Yeah .. maybe ...
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Forum whore
It's not? Most reports I read show it is having an effect..but isn't hitting the big polluters yet because of Nationals massive subsidies
The government released its first Report on the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, tracking progress in the ETS, today. Their conclusion is that the scheme is working well, ........ Forestry emissions - the most direct and immediate way we can control our emissions profile - are down, forest owners having stopped cutting down trees the moment it started costing them money. Energy sector emissions are also down (mostly due to good weather, but in part due to generators prioritising plants which wouldn't cost them money), and investment has been steered towards renewables and away from dirty generation. At the same time, it also highlights the biggest flaw of National's modifications to the ETS: the massive pollution subsidy scheme, which sees emitters rewarded for destroying the environment. National's ETS means subsidies for everyone, from cement-works to capsicum growers. But the biggest beneficiaries are two of our biggest companies: New Zealand Aluminium Smelters and Methanex. Unfortunately, the report doesn't say how much these companies received, and obfuscates its numbers to make it difficult to work out. But it does highlight the scale of subsidies: NZAS gets 4.36 tons of carbon credits for each ton of Aluminium produced, to offset its already generously low electricity costs. And Methanex gets 0.35 tons of carbon for each ton of Methanol. Despite the low latter figure, the company received 9% of all credits allocated to industry - or about 160,000 tons (and that will double after next year)on which I would sorely disagree - the science is certainly not false...unless the Nats and ACT were involved somewhere...!
The scaremongering is over the top, but, would people actually take any notice if there was none?
“- He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.”
Come warm yourself by the fire
Errr you do know what has happened in the last few years.
It wasn't exactly "productionville - burn the dollar" lately......... We did have that GFC thing......
Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.
Forum whore
Why would they do that? Because it's a golden opportunity for them. Here we have a whole Climate Change Industry dedicated to justifying it's own existence, coming up with scarier and scarier scenarios that the media just love to use for a headline. Pollies are rubbing their hands together with glee in that they can promote new taxes as "doing the right thing for you and the environment", whilst using the new taxes to balance their budgets in tough economic times. Everyone else is doing the dirty work for them, and given there is no credible Opposition they are in a win-win position.
It's Y2K all over again.
Forum whore
Well there is a MASSIVE quantity of credible information that would argue that SPman.
What I do see tho through your post is the big CHIP sitting on your shoulder in respects of ACT and National, heaven forbid if your beloved labour got in power there intentions where far worse than the nats have established.
Based on their policey ACT would most likely remove the ETS, one of the reasons they will get my Vote this year.
Ive run out of fucks to give
Jam and tarts....
Now, that is cool! The $5m cost is unbelievable too, that's madness at how cheap that could be. The more of them they make = more oil to refine for us instead of those big fat boats.
Alloy, stainless and Ti polishing.
Bling your bike out!
PM me
Forum whore
Actually, I reckon Labour have lost the plot - beloved of mine - no way! I'm a communal anarchist!
When National or ACT show any signs of policies that aren't all about further enriching the already rich to the detriment of everyone else, and looking after society as a whole, as they (well, National), once did, many years past, I may pay them some heed. Until then, I class most of them as dross of the worst order who are worthy of a precisely placed bullet.
“- He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.”
Forum whore
Can I ask what Party currently lines up with your beliefs now?
who will offer relief to the poor, and why would/ should a party oppress the rich so they can be poor to? how much money classifies someone as rich?
this is dumming down the people to the lowest denominator
Ive run out of fucks to give
Forum whore
What party - I don't think there is one - some have snippets...I guess it's the usual voting pattern of voting for the MP in the electorate I consider best of the bunch, then looking at the party vote and seeing which, if any have appalled me the least....
You offer relief to the poor, by making society a better and more equitable place to live in, with policies that promote justice, fairness and cohesiveness - not pitting one section of society off against the other and then spitting on them all - you know - utopian ideals that seem to be receding so fast into the distance, we'll not see them in my lifetime...
There is a difference between having the wealthy pay their way and oppressing them. A lot of the rich are already poor - in spirit, outlook and empathy - you don't have to make them poor. If you mean relieve them of some of their wealth, to provide decent health, infrastructure & education to society at large, then I think that is a good enough reason. How much money classifies someone as rich - the very rich don't know - it seems the more they have the more they want - if you've got a million, you want 5, if you've got a 100 mill, then 200 mill is better....and so it goes. I'm not earning a super amount, but I'm quite happy to pay my $25k a year in taxes if it helps towards a more equitable society.
Dumbing down?
If someone makes , say, $500,000 a year and is expected to pay, say $150,000 tax, should you feel sorry for him that he has to live on only $350,000 a year, when the median income is $40,000?
How is that pulling a wealthy person down to the bottom?
I guess it's all about expectations .......and those of the '60's have been well and truly shat upon, to the extent I'd prefer to keep most people away at the end of a big, sharp, pointy stick, whilst never ceasing to be amazed at how truly, deeply, stupefyingly dumb they are!
“- He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.”
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks