Hating New Taxes I Get, but why Hate Green Energy?

Hi All

Yay for DebatePolitics

So I've recently joined this DebatePolitics site and I can already tell this is the place for me

There is a really healthy spectrum of political views on here and I look forward to all the comments have with everyone.

Why the Hate?

However, one thing I've noticed in this particular section of the site (Environment & Climate Issues) that there is huge group of people who not only deny climate change, but also any efforts which would combat the effects.

Now I understand why people wouldn't be happy with the carbon tax element which is usually pushed, but why push against the physical element to it? Such as building, wind farms, solar, tidal and alternative forms of energy, plus also things like coastal defenses, building regulations and other measures which would defend against a rising ocean.

Surely, having new business opportunities is good for the economy and creating defenses against the effects of climate change (even if it may not be necessary) would be at least good to have in case the worst happens?

Doesn't the same kind of facts and evidence, which we also use to measure other well established (but none questioned) fields, also appear to point to the same conclusions?

May as well

Personally, I'm a bit skeptical of the whole dietary field (everything seems to give me cancer these days), but still think it'll be a good idea to eat at least a few more veggies as not only would it not do me any harm, but will probably be good.

Why do climate change deniers at have seemingly oppose every single thing which even slight appears to be inspired by climate change?

If they take off their blinkers, I'm sure there must be a least a few things they can support?

From my experience, those who debate against the AGW cultists have almost to a one mentioned they themselves use "green" energy personally. They are the old conservationist crowd as opposed to the kneejerk environmentalist set of today. It's not that they oppose hydro or solar or wind, what they oppose is the government doing it, controlling it. They, like me, know that behind these government initiatives is a big money power grab.

DDA said:

Why do climate change deniers at have seemingly oppose every single thing which even slight appears to be inspired by climate change?

Click to expand...

To date nobody posting here has ever denied climate change. Its the alleged human culpability for it thats the point at issue

I'm not a denier but it is obvious to me that the issue is a political one since the science isn't settled. I've read both sides of the argument and I'm not convinced by either. Personally I dislike hiding politics behind science and I truly hate the government's involvement in it.

clownboy said:

From my experience, those who debate against the AGW cultists have almost to a one mentioned they themselves use "green" energy personally. They are the old conservationist crowd as opposed to the kneejerk environmentalist set of today. It's not that they oppose hydro or solar or wind, what they oppose is the government doing it, controlling it. They, like me, know that behind these government initiatives is a big money power grab.

Click to expand...

Hmmm I think you've got a point there, there does seem to be a massive almost phobia like reaction to anything the government does these days. Especially from the far left and far right.

I understand the issues of spying, even they can't deny that (anymore), but the way some people are against the government, you'd like these people would refuse to even walk on the road since the government had a hand in it...

Ok, that isn't fair; but if they expect the government to make sure the roads, pavements and other public places of the country is well kept, you'd think they'd expect the government to also make sure the rest of the country's public areas are as well

clownboy said:

From my experience, those who debate against the AGW cultists have almost to a one mentioned they themselves use "green" energy personally. They are the old conservationist crowd as opposed to the kneejerk environmentalist set of today. It's not that they oppose hydro or solar or wind, what they oppose is the government doing it, controlling it. They, like me, know that behind these government initiatives is a big money power grab.

Click to expand...

I am sort "old school" at 58. The gang of hooligans I hang out with at the golf course are all sort old school themselves. (50-80 years old) We love talking about, and sharing info on the new technologies that are out there. We see better things coming in the future. But, we also want to do it in a way that doesn't cost jobs, and doesn't need endless years of taxpayer subsidizing. If a product works, the people will use it.

fmw said:

I'm not a denier but it is obvious to me that the issue is a political one since the science isn't settled. I've read both sides of the argument and I'm not convinced by either. Personally I dislike hiding politics behind science and I truly hate the government's involvement in it.

Click to expand...

Interesting...assuming for a second climate change was true after all, what do you think should be done? I can't imagine that business would be willing to spend money on things which have no financial benefits to them.

RetiredUSN said:

I am sort "old school" at 58. The gang of hooligans I hang out with at the golf course are all sort old school themselves. (50-80 years old) We love talking about, and sharing info on the new technologies that are out there. We see better things coming in the future. But, we also want to do it in a way that doesn't cost jobs, and doesn't need endless years of taxpayer subsidizing. If a product works, the people will use it.

Click to expand...

I find a 58 year old using the phrase "old school" charming ^^. I agree with you about not needing to subsidize a product that works, it's why oil subsidies annoys me so. However, what do think when it comes to things like Dams or other things which aren't "products" so to speak?

DDA said:

Interesting...assuming for a second climate change was true after all, what do you think should be done? I can't imagine that business would be willing to spend money on things which have no financial benefits to them.

Click to expand...

We've had climate change for billions of years. There is no question that it happens. Business will adapt to provide whatever people demand. It has always been that way. If people want to spend more for alternative energy than fossil energy, business will provide it. So far people are content with fossil fuel and there isn't enough demand for alternatives to get business involved. Business is driven by profit and even potential profit. It knows when and how to achieve that. I assume that as fossil fuels become more rare and expensive, business will get in gear to provide alternatives.

DDA said:

Interesting...assuming for a second climate change was true after all, what do you think should be done? I can't imagine that business would be willing to spend money on things which have no financial benefits to them.

Click to expand...

Done ?

The climate has been changing all on its own for thousands of years with today being well within post glacial natural variability

That being so then why should we be spending anything at all on it other than for our adaptation to it ?.

fmw said:

We've had climate change for billions of years. There is no question that it happens. Business will adapt to provide whatever people demand. It has always been that way. If people want to spend more for alternative energy than fossil energy, business will provide it. So far people are content with fossil fuel and there isn't enough demand for alternatives to get business involved. Business is driven by profit and even potential profit. It knows when and how to achieve that. I assume that as fossil fuels become more rare and expensive, business will get in gear to provide alternatives.

Click to expand...

Righto, and what about those things where there isn't profit? Right now I'm thinking of the NASA budget which struggles to get funding for satellites which scan the arctic circle.

DDA said:

Hi All

Yay for DebatePolitics

So I've recently joined this DebatePolitics site and I can already tell this is the place for me

There is a really healthy spectrum of political views on here and I look forward to all the comments have with everyone.

Why the Hate?

However, one thing I've noticed in this particular section of the site (Environment & Climate Issues) that there is huge group of people who not only deny climate change, but also any efforts which would combat the effects.

Now I understand why people wouldn't be happy with the carbon tax element which is usually pushed, but why push against the physical element to it? Such as building, wind farms, solar, tidal and alternative forms of energy, plus also things like coastal defenses, building regulations and other measures which would defend against a rising ocean.

Surely, having new business opportunities is good for the economy and creating defenses against the effects of climate change (even if it may not be necessary) would be at least good to have in case the worst happens?

Doesn't the same kind of facts and evidence, which we also use to measure other well established (but none questioned) fields, also appear to point to the same conclusions?

May as well

Personally, I'm a bit skeptical of the whole dietary field (everything seems to give me cancer these days), but still think it'll be a good idea to eat at least a few more veggies as not only would it not do me any harm, but will probably be good.

Why do climate change deniers at have seemingly oppose every single thing which even slight appears to be inspired by climate change?

If they take off their blinkers, I'm sure there must be a least a few things they can support?

Click to expand...

Hello, and welcome to DP!
I think you misunderstand what most of the skeptics think.
I do not think anyone hates green energy, but forcing people to use a higher cost energy
before it is ready, is effectively the same as taxation.
Most of the alternative energies are only beginning to be suitable replacements for our energy requirements.
Solar, wind, tidal, ect, produce energy, but not necessarily when and where it is needed.
The density of the energy is also a factor.
We can likely do electric cars, but Ships, Trackers, and Jets, are still a long way off.
Storage is the answer, and hydrocarbon storage is currently the best looking.
Audi just created diesel fuel from air and water
Currently the cost of man made fuels, is about the same as $100 a barrel oil.
The price of oil is much lower than that now, but will come back up.
Since most modern refineries could make their own feedstock, the price of the energy
for that feedstock will set the price ceiling for oil.
We will transition to these alternatives, but when the people choosing them, do so because
it is organically the lower price.
The market will work, it just needs time.
The urgency from the IPCC is misplaced and unnecessary.
The sensitivity of CO2 appears to be at the low end of the predictions,
and the warming is mostly affecting nighttime lows.
We have warmed, and some of it is very likely from Human activity.
Contrary to what has been said the Sea level rise has not accelerated.
(Sea levels have been rising for many centuries, at roughly the same rate.)
The most likely result from the added CO2, is an expansion of the plant hardiness zones north.
The expansion of the zones will not be painless, but also not quick.
(an example might be apple orchards, the next tree cycle would be a variety that could only be grown 100
mile south before.)

flogger said:

To date nobody posting here has ever denied climate change. Its the alleged human culpability for it thats the point at issue

Click to expand...

And also that an apocalypse will start within the next decade that will wipe out humanity.

DDA said:

Hmmm I think you've got a point there, there does seem to be a massive almost phobia like reaction to anything the government does these days. Especially from the far left and far right.

I understand the issues of spying, even they can't deny that (anymore), but the way some people are against the government, you'd like these people would refuse to even walk on the road since the government had a hand in it...

Ok, that isn't fair; but if they expect the government to make sure the roads, pavements and other public places of the country is well kept, you'd think they'd expect the government to also make sure the rest of the country's public areas are as well

Click to expand...

It's different over here - we have more than one government so to speak. People are far more trusting of LOCAL government, which btw is the most democratic, and it is they who build the roads and public utilities. Folks trust state government a little less, and the federal government not at all. Pretty much when you hear hatred towards government from a US citizen, they are almost always referring to the FEDERAL government.

flogger said:

Done ?

The climate has been changing all on its own for thousands of years with today being well within post glacial natural variability

That being so then why should we be spending anything at all on it other than for our adaptation to it ?.

Click to expand...

Everyone accepts that the Earth is constantly changing, however, what we're talking about are the changes which is happening/will happen because of the release of all the co2 which humans are releasing into the atmosphere. Remember the issues with aerosols? The damage to whole in the ozone layer still hasn't recovered. At least then we accepted it then changed so now it at least it isn't getting worse now. We know for a fact that what we put into the air can have an effect already.

The only difference now is that people not only deny the aerosols (co2 in this case) is having an affect, but refuse to do anything about it.

DDA said:

I find a 58 year old using the phrase "old school" charming ^^. I agree with you about not needing to subsidize a product that works, it's why oil subsidies annoys me so. However, what do think when it comes to things like Dams or other things which aren't "products" so to speak?

Click to expand...

I support the government subsidizing research of technologies, and immediately sharing the information gained through the research.....not pick and choose who the information goes to.

I'm not really sure what you mean about oil subsidies. How is oil subsidized? Because they use the same tax breaks that are afforded to any other industry?

Dams are win & lose situation. Low cost energy, but can seriously affect the "bio".

clownboy said:

It's different over here - we have more than one government so to speak. People are far more trusting of LOCAL government, which btw is the most democratic, and it is they who build the roads and public utilities. Folks trust state government a little less, and the federal government not at all. Pretty much when you hear hatred towards government from a US citizen, they are almost always referring to the FEDERAL government.

Click to expand...

Yes I think the local government is more democratic than its federal counter-part, however, how can a country deal with what is not only a national issue but a global issue, when people can only trust their local government.

As a result, answers which everyone agrees with, like creating new industries to grow the economy as well as tackle climate change, can't get done.

DDA said:

Everyone accepts that the Earth is constantly changing, however, what we're talking about are the changes which is happening/will happen because of the release of all the co2 which humans are releasing into the atmosphere. Remember the issues with aerosols? The damage to whole in the ozone layer still hasn't recovered. At least then we accepted it then changed so now it at least it isn't getting worse now. We know for a fact that what we put into the air can have an effect already.

The only difference now is that people not only deny the aerosols (co2 in this case) is having an affect, but refuse to do anything about it.

Click to expand...

I guess you missed the part where the the ozone layer is ok ? Even Nasa and the NOAA agreed that they were reading the it wrong................initially.

https://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/ozone-the-hole-that-always-was/

DDA said:

Yes I think the local government is more democratic than its federal counter-part, however, how can a country deal with what is not only a national issue but a global issue, when people can only trust their local government.

As a result, answers which everyone agrees with, like creating new industries to grow the economy as well as tackle climate change, can't get done.

Click to expand...

Why is it the job of government to create new industries?

DDA said:

Yes I think the local government is more democratic than its federal counter-part, however, how can a country deal with what is not only a national issue but a global issue, when people can only trust their local government.

As a result, answers which everyone agrees with, like creating new industries to grow the economy as well as tackle climate change, can't get done.

Click to expand...

You tackle climate change by moving south when the ice age returns.

DDA said:

Everyone accepts that the Earth is constantly changing, however, what we're talking about are the changes which is happening/will happen because of the release of all the co2 which humans are releasing into the atmosphere. Remember the issues with aerosols? The damage to whole in the ozone layer still hasn't recovered. At least then we accepted it then changed so now it at least it isn't getting worse now. We know for a fact that what we put into the air can have an effect already.

The only difference now is that people not only deny the aerosols (co2 in this case) is having an affect, but refuse to do anything about it.

Click to expand...

CO2 is a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas who's only measurable effect on our biosphere has been a greening of the arid regions of our planet over the last 3 decades of satellite observation. If it had the effect on temperatures advocates allege then we should currently be seeing the highest temperatures since the last ice age given the CO2 is undeniably the highest its been since that time. The fact that this is currently nowhere near the case and that todays conditions are pretty much average for the last 10,000 years suggests this warming effect of CO2 has been grossly overstated.

The rest of the agenda is just politics masquerading as science sadly. You see that with the deliberated conflation of CO2 with particulate pollution

Climate News
[h=1]Bankers Reaping the Rewards of German Green Energy Instability[/h] Guest essay by Eric Worrall Bloomberg reports that energy traders are increasingly using computers, to try to keep up with wild price changes in the volatile German energy market. Looking for Volatility? Try Germany’s Shift to Renewable Energy Germany’s shift to renewable energy has created a power market so volatile that humans are having trouble…

DDA said:

I find a 58 year old using the phrase "old school" charming ^^. I agree with you about not needing to subsidize a product that works, it's why oil subsidies annoys me so. However, what do think when it comes to things like Dams or other things which aren't "products" so to speak?

Click to expand...

All 'green energy' projects everywhere depend on subsidies - often disguised by tax breaks of fiddled pricing systems. The taxpayers and the energy customers (mostly the same people of course) end up paying the bills.

I don't hate either issues mentioned in hte Op, though I do disagree on many of the details that are pertinent to our "solutions".. at least the "solutions" put forth by the administration.

the thing about green energy is.. well.. it's simply not as efficient as traditional energy sources right now.... fossils fuels are quite amazing in how efficient they are
i'm certain one day green energy will be badass... but that day is not today.... we're making strides, but we've got work to do still

now, as i see it.. a best course of actions would be to invest in R&D, while utilizing traditional sources.. eventually phasing in new energy sources as they come of age. .... the worst course of action ,to me, is to punish and curtail use of traditional energy sources before "green" energy becomes a viable replacement... and even worse course, is to hide being politics during the whole thing.
there's no sense is intentionally doing damage when the alternative isn't ready yet.

as far as i'm aware, there are no climate change deniers... there are plenty of manmade climate change deniers , though ( I'm not a denier, though i do think the treehuggers have overstated their case.. most likely for political/ideological reasons.)

RetiredUSN said:

I guess you missed the part where the the ozone layer is ok ? Even Nasa and the NOAA agreed that they were reading the it wrong................initially.

https://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/ozone-the-hole-that-always-was/

Click to expand...

This is why I love this site ^^

Well I looked at your link and although it had links seemingly from nasa they didn't take me to any nasa sites.

Unlike here, where you have nasa scientists explaining how they discovered the hole in the ozone layer and how it was being caused by the chemicals in aerosols