Is Global Warming Worth A Billion Dollars a Day?
According to the Climate Policy Initiative, we're on pace to spend about $359 billion this year to fight global warming.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Motley Fool.
#1 Nov 3, 2013
This is a foolish piece .. with few sensible words. I don't find it helpful for our place on the planet.
Also, it is filled with advertisements.
#2 Nov 4, 2013
.. overnight all my posts were given the judgeits that you see in #1. Overriding the previous aones..
What's the message?
P.S. Happens to some of us every day.
#3 Nov 4, 2013
From the article:
some will debate whether global warming is a battle that even needs to be fought.
While not everyone can get behind the process of hydraulic fracturing to solve this issue.....
There are many that think fighting global warming is a lost cause......
Presented as if the above statements aren't their own wishes, Motley Fool slides away from facts that those statements are their own.
Their own desires to appear as supporting "green", when they have no intension of being "green", immediately tells the story of toxic AGW denier upper floor upper crust paper shuffler & people shover boardroom PEE-R strategies.
Supporting bio-energy projects is a classical example of Motley Fool foolishly implementing their toxic AGW denier plans. Not directly mentioned, but strong suspicions are Motley Fool continues to support the mathematically collapsing "ideal" of ethanol cut into our nation's gasoline supplies. Hey, it bio, which gotta be good.....right.
#4 Nov 4, 2013
I would disagree and wonder if you actually read the piece.
Note that it suggests that there is economic benefits to the fight, regardless of AGW (such as bio-fuels from land fill methane, cutting economic dependence on OPEC, etc.
About $US140B of this figure is probably the disaster insurance for things like Hurricane Sandy and others. Much of the other 'cost' of climage change action is probably more due to stimulus money which has started the recover.
And what is NOT accounted for in the 'costs' are the massive costs of NOT fighting AGW, i.e http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/n...
If that were included, the net cost would be negative over the long term. An investment in the future.
p.s. Ignore litesong. He has a bug about biofuels, particularly ethanol, that has never been shown to have a solid foundation of fact.
#5 Nov 4, 2013
From another article & post:
.... farmers.....wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies......
Five million acres of land set aside for conservation -- more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined -- have vanished on Obama's watch.
Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.
Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, contaminated rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can't survive.
.....many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy.......
The government's predictions of the benefits have proven so inaccurate that independent scientists question whether it will ever achieve its central environmental goal: reducing greenhouse gases.
The article is about corn for ethanol, & all those arguments are true.
E85(85% ethanol-15% gasoline) was readily determined by the market, not to be a good product, even running through engines developed for E85. My argument has been that 10% ethanol blend is no benefit to lower compression ratio gasoline engine power production, thus no benefit to our nation's gasoline supplies & ethanol has even drained national gasoline stocks! Along with its 3% energy btu loss per gallon compared to gasoline, ethanol needs much higher, near diesel-like compression ratio ethanol engines(like INDY car engines) to gain ethanol efficiency.
One fellow, with 115,000 miles of gasoline engine driving, has stated that his careful records has showed a 10% difference between 100% gasoline & 10% ethanol blends, in his one vehicle. Many other people for their own individual vehicles, state also a 10% difference. In those cars, ethanol is running through the engine, producing no power! In some cars with ethanol cutting 11% or worse mpg to some vehicles, it appears ethanol INTERFERES with gasoline energy production, too. As for my three vehicles with a decade of record keeping, I show 8%, 7% & 5% difference. My present vehicle, a 2013 Hyundai Elantra, bad-mouthed for bad mpg, is averaging 39+mpg since mid-May & through the summer, till now. I expect my mpg to drop through the winter, but now believe my yearly mpg should be 7-9% better than I would have expected with 10% ethanol blends.
Many ethanol advocates have said that newer vehicles perform nearly as well as 100% gasoline, using 10% ethanol blends. That statement appears not to be so. Reading hybrid drivers who have tested 100% gasoline & 10% ethanol blends in their vehicles, I've been surprised at the numerous reports that the 100% gasoline-10% ethanol blend difference is still 7% to 10% for many drivers. Many newer vehicles(hybrids included) are using "atkinson cycle" gasoline engines. This particular engine sacrifices some power, to gain more efficiency in a long power stroke. The ethanol involved in that long power stroke cannot deliver its power, thus the wide 7% to 10% fuels gap. Ethanol is a fool's fuel, when used in gasoline engines.
Whatever the problems are (otto cycle gasoline engines also use ethanol ineffectively), the wide majority of gasoline engines (old or modern) are NOT using ethanol for the best mpg.
Ethanol in a low compression gasoline engine is a collapsed idea of poor thinking.
#6 Nov 4, 2013
See what I mean..
#7 Nov 5, 2013
People don't see what you mean, but they know what I mean, having recorded for a decade for 3 vehicles, showing 8%, 7% & 5% superiority for 100% gasoline. Now my 4th vehicle shows extraordinary mpg & ease of performance using 100% gasoline. A surprisingly high percentage of people indicate decreases of 10% using only 10% ethanol blends. Their individual vehicles show no power is being developed from ethanol as used in low compression ratio gasoline engines.
#8 Nov 5, 2013
The topic is:
Global Warming: Big Money
“He [Al Gore] impressed us all at Deutsche Bank Asset Management. We invited him to an internal meeting in April 2007 during which we discussed the issue of climate change extensively. A few months later, he received the Nobel Peace Prize for his commitment. We then created a fund that invests in companies that position themselves as climate-neutral. Within two months almost 10 billion dollars flowed into this fund. Can you imagine? 10 billion! There has never been such an overwhelming success.”—Kevin Parker, Director of Global Asset Management, Deutsche Bank, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Nov. 15, 2010
#9 Nov 20, 2013
Follow the money.
Climate Science is about the redistribution of wealth.
#10 Nov 20, 2013
Every time I go to the store, I 'redistribute wealth'. What is your problem? That is the whole POINT behind money as a 'medium of exchange'.
You just expose yourself as having no rational argument and are trying to fit 'sound bites' to get you out of the intellectual hole you are in.
Add your comments below
|Tax bill boosts oil, gas drilling a " and renew...||5 hr||CodeTalker||15|
|PSC Solar Hearing Has 'Mic-Drop Moment'||Fri||Concave||17|
|Solar Power Rate Debate Draws Crowd to PSC||Dec 14||Concave||2|
|Renewable energy is surging. The Republican tax...||Dec 14||Concave||7|
|Mark Ruffalo is 'disgusted' with Trump's monume...||Dec 14||Concave||2|
|Nebraska's largest solar farm is up and running||Dec 12||Solarman||1|
|Japanese solar firm to take on Tesla in roof ti...||Dec 12||Solarman||1|
Find what you want!
Search Alternative Energy Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC