So pitch your theory!

[On Our own]

In some cases you need to check these "environmental groups" that "appear" to be blocking some of these projects!

In several cases groups that are purportedly environmental groups are backed by one industry or another which has an altogether different agenda!!

Every single oil company and most of the coal companies have their own heavily subsidized "enviro group"....

 

[Big Daddy]

As far as solar panels, what about all the useless desert in Utah and Nevada and parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado. Seems like there needs to be some priorities.

I agree with you on this. But these are the very places people are screaming about because some jumping mouse might have to move around the power pole or the solar panel would shade their den hole.

Anyone who objects to solar and wind panels in Nevada, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico has NEVER DRIVEN THROUGH, spent time in or hiked through Nevada, Colorado, Arizona or New Mexico.

The trip from Salt Lake to Reno would be a good place. Solar panels would give you something to look at. I know some people think that is beautiful country , but I hate that stretch.

 

[sylvie]

Those who want to ban windmills aren't all corporate backed environmental activists, although I do agree that most could be.

When our tall cell towers were being erected, there were permits issued without community imput. That changed and tower locations were blocked because the public was demanding informational meetings. Proposed towers were in the flight path of many local private aircraft.
In our 5 sq mile town there are 9 private airfields that fly antique airplanes which need more distance and time to reach elevation, and an airport(my family's) which services many private planes.
Cell towers aren't the 300' that the wind turbines can be, but since there are problems with the shorter height, I can imagine the 300' would be worse.

 

[VT-Chicklit]

One thing that has not been discussed on this thread is the fact that the current administration is pushing for cap and trade. As we have discussed, companies that are trying to get these alternate energy sources up and running are being thwarted at every turn. In most cases, this is being done by those who are espousing the need for green energy but "Not In My Back Yard"! This has been an issue for a while, here in Vermont, which is a fairly "green consious" state.

Cap and Trade is going to penalize electric manufacturers that are not "Green Enough" by placing unreasonable costs on the extra carbon that they emit. These costs will shurely be passed along to us, the consumer. As we have discussed, in many areas of the country, is is difficult and costly if not impossible to get any of these big green projects off the ground. These projects are held up by a small group, while the intersts of the many that will be served by the project are ignored. This will add insult to injury, when those of us who want these projects to succeed, have to pay radically higher energy costs and higher costs for everything because a few are blocking their completion.

I have not heard anything from the administration on how they plan to address this issue. It is not fair that they plan to have a Cap and Trade system, yet we cannot change from fossile fuels to cleaner energy because of the courts, and some that use litigation as a weapon, preventing the greener energy that is the goal. We will be penalized for this even though it is not with in our control. I am not for government confiscation, eminent(sp) domain or other wise, inorder to get these projects done. I also feel that we should not have to pay substantially higher prices either. That will further hurt a dammaged economy. I dont know what the solution is. I do know that Cap and Trade should not be instituted until this issue is solved and there are viable alternatives in place. If it is instituted before that occurs, the economy will be dammaged further. Our economy has been built on the use of energy at reasonable rates and a radical rise in cost will injur or kill any improvement that might have happened as we come out of this recession.

 

[Big Daddy]

One thing that has not been discussed on this thread is the fact that the current administration is pushing for cap and trade. As we have discussed, companies that are trying to get these alternate energy sources up and running are being thwarted at every turn. In most cases, this is being done by those who are espousing the need for green energy but "Not In My Back Yard"! This has been an issue for a while, here in Vermont, which is a fairly "green consious" state.

Cap and Trade is going to penalize electric manufacturers that are not "Green Enough" by placing unreasonable costs on the extra carbon that they emit. These costs will shurely be passed along to us, the consumer. As we have discussed, in many areas of the country, is is difficult and costly if not impossible to get any of these big green projects off the ground. These projects are held up by a small group, while the intersts of the many that will be served by the project are ignored. This will add insult to injury, when those of us who want these projects to succeed, have to pay radically higher energy costs and higher costs for everything because a few are blocking their completion.

I have not heard anything from the administration on how they plan to address this issue. It is not fair that they plan to have a Cap and Trade system, yet we cannot change from fossile fuels to cleaner energy because of the courts, and some that use litigation as a weapon, preventing the greener energy that is the goal. We will be penalized for this even though it is not with in our control. I am not for government confiscation, eminent(sp) domain or other wise, inorder to get these projects done. I also feel that we should not have to pay substantially higher prices either. That will further hurt a dammaged economy. I dont know what the solution is. I do know that Cap and Trade should not be instituted until this issue is solved and there are viable alternatives in place. If it is instituted before that occurs, the economy will be dammaged further. Our economy has been built on the use of energy at reasonable rates and a radical rise in cost will injur or kill any improvement that might have happened as we come out of this recession.

Cap and Trade seems to be the only way to get industries to clean up their act. It would be nice if they could keep them from passing the cost on to the consumer. Doesn't sound like they will though.

Fixing what is damaged or at least slowing down the damage, won't be cheap. For too long emissions standards have been continuously delayed. I think the cap and trade program is necessary even though it will be costly. We can't afford to listen to all the nay sayers that put dollars before science and refuse to admit the realities. The problem is escalating and the US needs to do it's share. The question should be how do we get China to do their share and how do we get them to quit cutting down the rain forest in South America?

 

[sylvie]

The question should be how do we get China to do their share and how do we get them to quit cutting down the rain forest in South America?

Unfortunately, the same way we get N.Korea to back off it's nuclear ambitions; pay them, subsidize them like we do farmers to not grow soy or corn.

 

[me&thegals]

Unfortunately, economic disincentives may be the ONLY way to get companies to go green. Otherwise, what's in it for them? They're hardly like to see or admit that their way of doing business is killing us. If people are concerned that the cost will be passed on to them, get more efficient. Our costs keep going up and up, yet our bill keeps going down.

Regarding China, I've heard (again, read Flat, Hot and Crowded) that their gov't is well aware of the extreme health and mortality problems with their polluted air. Some are starting to realize that they simply won't get that nice filthy industrial revolution like we did, or if they do folks may start boycotting their products.

Seems like a lot of things come down to money. If a person is concerned about how China and India are manufacturing, don't buy their products (if possible).

Sylvie--when talking about crop subsidies, you do realize that farmers are subsidized TO grow corn and soybeans? They get payments when their income drops below a certain per-bushel price. They USED to be paid to not grow it in order to not flood the market, but that changed a while back. It's crazy.

Maybe you're referring to CRP land? Conservation Reserve Program, I think. In that case, they are paid to not grow anything nearly ecologically sensitive areas like wetlands and river bottom areas in order to protect them ecologically. Just a side note

 

[VT-Chicklit]

Here in Vermont, we have had energy companies try to get commercial wind power started, without much success. It has been blocked by those who dont want a ridge line altered by windmills or a view impacted either. I think people think "Big Electric" is the cause for so few commercial energy projects getting off the ground. I dont see evidence of that. I think they would hop on board if they thought that they could make money from it. After all, that is why they are in business. I believe they havent because the costs are not worth it, especially if you have to fight for every windmill or solar pannel in court!
Vermont wind turbine links:
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2007/10/16/the-many-negatives-of-wind-turbines/

http://www.windaction.org/opinions/17375

I saw a news piece the other day about a company that was trying to get permits for a large solar "farm" out in California. They cant get the permits because a group is attempting to block it. Their reason for blocking it is esthetics and a tortoise population. The place where it was to be erected . . . the Mojave Desert. Senator Feinstein of California has said she would block its construction and push legislation that would turn the 500,000 acres into a national monument to prevent its use.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29837101/ Link for Solar Farm article

Unfortunatly, these renewable sources of energy can only be efficiently harvested in limited areas for larger scale energy production. Large scale energy production is whats needed to supply the millions of people in this nation with electricity! It seems like every area that would be good for energy production, has a group that has a problem with energy production being there. These people with the problem are the same people who have a problem fossile fuel! I guess they do not realise that electricity does not come from thin air . . . except when there are solar pannels or wind turbines involved! These same people are the ones that are making it more expensive, and therefore undesireable to get into wind or solar farms. They will also complain when we have to revert back to candles due to a lack of electricity because burning candles give off carbon! We will all then be in the dark. There is no perfect solution for our energy needs, unfortunatly they will not accept anything less than perfect.

I can see logic on both sides of this issue but I also know that I dont want to go back to a time when there was no electricity or when electricity was not reliably sent to the homes. Cap and Trade will not stop those who have issues with the placement of these wind or solar farms from throwing up roadblocks at every turn and thus slowing down the conversion over to renewable, homegrown energy. As usual, the biggest loosers are the regular citizens. We will be paying through the nose for electricity that would be cheaper if there were no Cap and Trade OR if those who are standing in the way of renewable energy would GET OUT OF THE WAY. I dont think blaming "Big Electricity" is reality in this case. It is "concerned" conservationists and people who want a view who are stand in the way!



Edited to delete bad link

 

[sylvie]

Sylvie--when talking about crop subsidies, you do realize that farmers are subsidized TO grow corn and soybeans? They get payments when their income drops below a certain per-bushel price. They USED to be paid to not grow it in order to not flood the market, but that changed a while back. It's crazy.

I saw a cartoon of an artist explaining to a customer that the government was paying him to not paint pictures of corn, LOL.

 

[Tallman]

Sylvie--when talking about crop subsidies, you do realize that farmers are subsidized TO grow corn and soybeans? They get payments when their income drops below a certain per-bushel price. They USED to be paid to not grow it in order to not flood the market, but that changed a while back. It's crazy.

I saw a cartoon of an artist explaining to a customer that the government was paying him to not paint pictures of corn, LOL.

Question:

How does a farmer double his income?

Answer:

He puts up another mailbox!