[lug] Anyone else hate to get rid of old equipment?

[dio2002 at indra.com]

> First, I believe that everyone should start out skeptical about any new
> idea.  Anyone have issues with that?

nope

> At first I had trouble understanding why all the 3rd world and 'up and
> coming country's' like India and China would buy into it, then I
> realized that they were going to get billions or trillions of dollars to
> help them develop there economies in a green way.

i'm skeptical already.  that's a pretty blanket statement.  show me some
numbers. what exactly are they buying into specifically so we can be clear
here and how many billions of dollars?  where is it coming from?  us?  if
they are indeed getting money it ain't coming from you via your tax
dollars is it?  if so, where how?  how exactly are they taking that money
and greening their countries because i'm assuming if it wasn't coming out
of your pocket, you wouldn't care b/c everyone should be able to spend
their own money as they see fit right?  in fact if such money's are being
spent, it might actually be a good thing if a country decided to invest in
it's own green infrastructure.  ever actually been to india or china?  not
passing through stepping out on the tarmac to catch a connecting flight
(like one of our ex presidential candidates that claimed to have intimate
knowledge of intl affairs based on said tarmac tiptoeing) but actually
getting into the countryside to see how the majority of the populations
live closer to earth and how their lives are impacted by variables out of
their control?  how much of the current earth population lives like that
vs you and I?

fwiw, i think you're starting your debate from a very weak starting point
with little factual, shall i say scientific basis. one that leaves me
skeptical of your biases ;)

> All the scientists
> would loose massive grant money if it were to be proved untrue.

All?  what does all represent?  that's a pretty blanket statement.  so
what you're saying is that some majority, no that would be "all"
scientists in this field fear losing massive grant money.  but that can't
be so because you are using examples of 'other' scientists that don't
agree with 'all' of these scientists so their must be some dissension in
the ranks of 'all' those scientists which means there is no such thing as
'all' the scientists.  or is there? ;).

fwiw, i find it hard to believe that the entire planet is being held
hostage by a bunch of scientists working in collusion to fool the other
5.99999 billion people on the planet so they can keep their grant money. 
basically, you're kind of shooting your own starting premise in the foot
with your own statements.

i'm thinking if all those scientists "got found out", they could go work
for bp or something and make a mutha load finding ways to prevent the
destruction of the environment right? ;)

> With
> global warming ALL governments get to extract more control (power) over
> their citizens).  Big business wins as they get to build the green
> technology.  The power companies win as they get to replace their old
> plants with newer 'green' plants that probably employ less people, and
> the get the PUC's to pass rate hikes to pay for it.    I am not claiming
> conspiracy, just a bunch of groups looking after there own interests.

you were readily willing to proclaim conspiracy in the scientific world,
but you sort of stopped short here with big business and govt?  why stop
now - is it b/c these two groups have such a brilliant track record of
working in your best interests? ;)

i've understood the facts you just presented almost completely opposite of
the way you presented them.  imho (and it's only my *opinion* based on
what i've seen in the places i've lived and to people i've talked to that
are closer to the industry including the utility guys when they've come
out to the house) big business wasn't and generally has never been
interested in green anything UNLESS they've been forced to do it.  no big
utility in *this* country to my knowledge has been a leader in doing
anything green without some incentive on their own volition.  generally,
it's all about status quo and NOT investing in new infrastructure since
they can use the one they have and in general green technologies have been
more expensive for consumers.  iirc, locally excel finally started getting
into wind power farms up north because incentives made it feasible and b/c
i think a certain percentage of wind power was mandated for them by the
govt.  otherwise, they wouldn't have done it.  ironically, i believe it's
turning out to be quite a boon for them.  were those incentives funded by
my tax dollars i'm not sure.  maybe the breaks were in tax deductions
which means i didn't give them anything, they just payed less.

i guess i've never seen any utility jump at this on their own is my point.

other countries i've lived in *do* embrace alternate / green technologies
both from a consumer and business standpoint but it's because it
represents a better business model and because there is demand for the
product.  it's not rate gauging.  there's a genuine progression forward
with the newer technologies.  i'm sure it's profit driven but you collect
a paycheck every day right?  you can't say profit is good only where it
works for you.  if it's responsible and it makes sense and earns a profit
BFD.  fwiw, denmark, norway and sweden come to mind as leaders across the
pond.  specifically with wind.

regarding rate hikes, i can't say i've personally every experienced a
utility / energy based rate hike rate hike related to the "greenifying" of
my grid.  have you?  where are the examples?  but i can say i certainly
feel like i've been scammed in terms of gas prices related to shortages. 
people in california (enron) were held hostage when power outages, caused
shortages that were then sometimes artificially manipulated.  that had
nothing to do with going green did it?

i guess i'd like you to cite some examples of how green companies are
holding the public at large?  without any, we haven't even started the
debate yet and your biases are fairly obvious.

otoh, i have cited a few examples of traditional mom and pop NON GREEN
utilities gauging folks at will.

to wrap up, my experience on the planet based on observation leads me to
believe that any way a business / utility can make some coin off of it's
customer base, it's going to.  and as we've seen with bp (different but
related topic) that also includes getting away with whatever it can
without performing due dilligence in the absence of some kind of
oversight.  history appears to prove there's no incentive to do otherwise.

you can't claim that green business is or will be evil and absolve non
green business which clearly has already displayed those tendencies.  it
don't jive with your debate.

> Who losses?  The middle class.  They have to pay higher rates as
> dictated by the PUC's.  They have to pay for the 3rd W.C.'s to develop
> green infrastructure.  All products and services go up in price.  Gas
> prices go way up.

i agree the middle class gets reamed a lot.  but i'm about 100% sure sure
they're not paying for the third world's green infrastructure.  i'm not
sure where you're getting this from so some specific examples would really
help me understand your base premise here.

i'd also like to say that if you're equal to or above middle class, your
standard of living is probably a *lot* better than 5+ billion people on
this planet most who never see any of your tax dollars and live in utter
squalor as well as being the beneficiary of the negative by products of
your over consumption.  when i say "your", i mean i, you, me, we and
everyone else that is reading this right now.

generally speaking, middle classers probably don't need to be complaining
about classes lower than them.  relatively speaking they are extremely
privileged.  but i wonder why they never get all up in arms about the
machine that sits higher than them on the totem pole or take a closer look
at how they themselves might actually be screwing the next guy lower on
the totem pole.

> Some points I would like to see discussed:

we can't even get here until we get past the basics above b/c there are
too many holes in the first part.

> So in essence, I don't trust the raw data, and without that, garbage
> in->garbage out.

that was kind of my thought about about your entire opening dialogue. 
just saying.

> And I am concerned with anything that will cut my standard of living in
> half or worse.

i think this is fairly revealing.  i didn't even have to address anything
else above.  imho, this sentence reveals great bias / preference before
you even enter any debate.  you've stated very clearly that you have a
strong motivation to maintain your standard of living and a set limit of
what you would be willing to settle for.  that's a roadblock to any
unbiased discussion.  whether you want to or not, it's highly likely
you're going to find some way to protect, defend and uphold that notion at
all costs - your predefined level of standard of living - and that is
going to influence how you approach the topic of global warming / CO2,
etc.  based upon what i've already read, there is enough bias in most
everything you said that is built upon the foundation of this one sentence
to leave holes in all your statements or anything else you're going to
provide as fact or evidence, because you will have likely chosen the
sources as those that will support your motivation.  something to think
about.

> Remember Cap and Tax is just the start.
> What if we spend 30 Trillion dollars and it turns out to be a naturally
> occurring event.  How do we get the money back?

blah blah blah.  this all comes back to standard of living which somehow
is being tied to the CO2 emissions. which means the issue has nothing to
do with CO2 emissions but your *personal* comfort and consumption level
and choices regardless of how it impacts anybody else aka as it's
*impersonal* impact.  it's strikes me as quite selfish.

name me some of your money the govt did take of yours that benefited you? 
do you drive on a paved road?  if you don't want to pay taxes i'm cool
with that.  try to organize a meeting with your neighbors, pool your money
together to build a road out to the main connector road and report back
how well that goes.  name me a product you bought with your own money that
you liked? ever buy something you didn't like and wish you had never
bought and couldn't return?  you didn't get the money back did you?  you
win some you lose some.  you've made the same mistakes others have.  it's
ok.  life goes on.  part of the standard of living you hold on to tightly
is a result of your tax dollars.  eh?

> Don't believe the above?  What would it take to get back to 1850 carbon
> emissions levels?  Kill off 80% of the population?

i'm all for anybody that supports the idea of population control as long
as they're willing to be one of the 80% to stand first in line ;)  as long
as the 80% in line come from some other country you don't have to look in
the eye, it seems to be a popular notion.


> I did see one scientist who was in the warming camp that said that
> instead of trying to reduce emissions, we should be looking for ways to
> deal with the effect of climate change.

analogy: instead of trying to prevent cancer, lets just try to deal with
the effects.  instead of trying to prevent obesity, lets just staple our
stomachs and deal with the diabetes, stroke, cancer, heart attacks. dual
approach seems feasible to me?  in terms of health care, prevention is
less costly by a large a margin.  for a dude that cares about tax dollars,
something tells me prevention would make you a lot happier than dealing
with the effects later.

fwiw, dealing with the shat after it hits the fan *is* actually how we
mostly deal with things already.  don't take care of yourself or something
and then expect somebody else to take care of it.  your kind of
crosstalking here.

> I have a lot more questions but this should be a good start.  If anyone
> has any ideas where to move this debate (if it actual starts), I would
> love to here them.

you need to supply some answers before we can explore your list of questions.

> And I am not above being convinced.  But pictures of glaciers calving
> into the ocean are not convincing as if they did not do  that, all the
> oceans would be solid ice, as glaciers continually move to the sea.  And
> according to 'Deadliest Catch' the sea ice went much further south last
> year than it had for many years.

i can only suggest that you read a few of the other emails including my
earlier one.  people that seem to be global warming doubters look at water
only in terms of changing from ice to water to cloud to rain and think
BFD? but there are so many other life sustaining processes and
relationships affected by that cycle. they're not "exciting" enough for
the news and for most people to give a ratsass about. but i wish people
would become more aware of them b/c those are actually the things that you
need to be worried about.

i also get the feeling your views are 1st world centric.  there's an
entire different set of environments out there that most of the world
lives in.  you need to take that into account when you're factoring your
standard of living into this equation.  go travel a bit (and add some CO2
to the atmosphere) flying there to grab a taste of what it's like.  if
you've already traveled, travel some more or get off the beaten path.

i will give you this though, you were honest about your need for x
standard of living.  i appreciate that.  you have to know yourself and
what your needs are before you can enter a discussion.