How much are you willing to pay to fight "Global Wamring"?

Question

How about $10,800 per year every year? Are you (or your parents) willing to spend this per year to fight an unproven theory? If so, can you cover my portion of the lie?

http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-17-2007/0004664103&EDATE=

Answer 1

I would like to see my tax dollars go to the environment, care of people, and the care of animals instead of going into someones pocket that has a lot more money that I do.

Answer 2

Since the Earth is actually cooling, I guess I would pay some money to have some heaters outside so I can start wearing shorts again in April.

Answer 3

notta penny .and not a minute of my time.

Answer 4

$0 is what I'm willing to pay.

Answer 5

I'd pay .25 just to get Al Gore and his nutjob followers to shut the h**l up and stop making up ****.

Answer 6

You mean, "Global Cooling?"  Maybe the same amount as I would for Al Gore inventing the internet.

Answer 7

I would not willingly pay a singe red cent.  Governments know this, and that is why they want to impose taxes (i.e. government extortion).  I would, however, be willing to pay a reasonable amount to address the consequences of the inevitable effects of global warming.

Answer 8

Your money would be much better spent feeding the hungry and providing fresh water where it is needed.

Millions die from the lack of food and fresh water every year---- NO ONE has yet died from GW.

"According to the U.S. Department of Energy, wind power costs about 8 cents per kilowatt, while solar thermal power costs 13 to 17 cents. But power from wind farms fluctuates with every gust and lull."

Traditional coal, or gas power costs 3.9-5.5 cents per kilowatt.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:C...

So the switch to solar can range as high as THREE TIMES MORE COSTLY than coal or natural gas.

So how does a $1000 electric bill per month sound?

and here is the 2008 US Budget--- notice that 54% of the budget is ENTITLEMENTS and WELFARE programs!

http://budget.house.gov/charts/slide1.pd...

Answer 9

Zip, zero, zilch, nada.

Though I will chip in to deport Al Gore to Mars.

Answer 10

Nothing. But I'll tell you what I will do. I'll reuse as many products as I can instead of throwing them away. I'll take my own shopping bags into the grocery to not have to deal with plastic bags. I'll do my best to conserve energy by combining errands and saving electricity whenever I can. I'll use water sparingly.  And the funny thing is, with exception to the shopping bag part, all these things were done by my grandparents/great-grandparents. Even my parents were less wasteful than most folks today.  Maybe the old folks had the right idea after all. Their world was cleaner than ours.

Answer 11

If you are looking for absolute proof about AGW, you don't understand how science works.  AGW is a theory, with overwhelming evidence supporting it.  The IPCC third assessment, of climate change studies, has been called the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific paper in history.   In science, that's about as good as it gets.  

The article that you reference makes the statement:  "it is not currently feasible to

substitute contribution of alternative energy sources in the near-term"

Why isn't it feasable?   I don't agree with that.

We have good enough technology now to make big steps in that direction.  Wind power costs about one fourth to install as nuclear.  Photovoltaics will be at grid parity in just a few years.  In fact, one company is already there.

"Nanosolar’s founder and chief executive, Martin Roscheisen, claims to be the first solar panel manufacturer to be able to profitably sell solar panels for less than $1 a watt. That is the price at which solar energy becomes less expensive than coal.  

With a $1-per-watt panel,” he said, “it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems.

According to the Energy Department, building a new coal plant costs about $2.1 a watt, plus the cost of fuel and emissions, he said."

http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/c...

This article shows how to have 69% solar electric  grid by 2050.  While I disagree with some of the specifics, it is generally a sound plan.  It would use solar thermal and concentrating solar PV power plants in the southwest, using less land than now used for coal mining.

Scientific American  A Solar Grand Plan

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...



"The greatest obstacle to implementing a renewable U.S. energy system is not technology or money, however. It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative—and one that can fuel transportation as well. Forward-looking thinkers should try to inspire U.S. citizens, and their political and scientific leaders, about solar power’s incredible potential. Once Americans realize that potential, we believe the desire for energy self-sufficiency and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will prompt them to adopt a national solar plan"

But we don't have to rely entirely on this proposal.  Wind and geothermal and biomass to

methane and other alternatives can contribute sustantially.  

"I'd put my money on the sun & solar energy.  What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that."  Thomas Edison, 1931

http://www.setamericafree.org/blueprint....

A Blueprint For U.S. Energy Security

Here's how we can achieve energy independence, while cleaning up the environment, without ruining the economy.  

"In recent months, PG&E has signed deals for more than a gigawatt of electricity — enough to light more than 750,000 homes — with solar power plant developers. Such power purchase agreements can take more than a year to hammer out and the permitting and construction of a solar power station can take another three to five years."

"The solar thermal industry is in its infancy but utilities like PG&E (PCG), Southern California Edison (EIX) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE) have signed several contracts for solar power plants and negotiations for gigawatts more of solar electricity are ongoing."

http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/

Lots of stories at Green Wombat about progress already underway with solar power plants and much more.

"Solar energy is the great leveler (unlike oil, which has been the great divider) between the haves and the have nots). No one owns the sun. It can't be drilled or mined or tied up in financial derivatives. It is the only energy source in the world that is primarily free at its source and universally available to consumers. And the closer a nation is situated towards the equator - and the bigger their deserts - the better the technology works." (See Here Comes the Sun, February 17, 2007, Commentary, Chipstocktrader.com)

"There are areas in Denmark and Germany who use more than 40 percent of their electricity from wind.   From what I have read, they are less concerned about the intermittency than we are in the United States even though we aren't at 1 pecent yet.   Why?   Because we are told by the fossil fuel guys, hey, can't use wind, can't use solar, what about the intermittency.   If wind gets up to 40 percent of the electricity we use and solar gets up to 40 of the electricity we use, the other percents of electricity we need can be made up from the fossil fuel plants that are still there.  If they are run less at full power, they can last a long time.  That can be your electricity `battery.'"

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/...

A large part of our economic problems can be traced to our oil dependency.  Look at all the angst and turmoil, in the world, connected with oil.   Our military cost of protecting oil shipments is around $100 billion annually.  It contributes $300 billion to our trade deficit annually.

Environmental and health and health costs from pollution are estimated in the hundreds of $billions

annually.  Tax credits and subsidies to the fossil fuel industries are estimated as high as $80 billion annually.   You don't see these costs because you don't pay for them at the gas pump. They are hidden costs.   If you did you would be paying an estimated $8 more per gallon.  That's what you are paying and are unaware of.

The Iraq war which, as we all know, cannot be disconnected from oil issues, is costing over a $trillion dollars.  

Green Wombat comments of Abu Dhabi solar project and Torresol ambitions in U.S. southwest.

"The irony is too rich to leave unsaid: A leading oil producer invests billions in carbon-free energy while a leading consumer of fossil fuels - the United States - continues to subsidize Big Oil while while offering only tepid support for green technology."

"It is inevitable that climate change will foster the rise of renewable energy - the only question is which countries and companies will profit from the new energy economics. It is entirely possible that the U.S. will trade energy dependence of one kind - on Middle East oil - for another - on Middle East and European solar technology - in the era of global warming. It’s no coincidence that most of the solar energy companies with contracts to build utility-scale power plants in California and the Southwest have overseas roots - Ausra hails from Australia, BrightSource was founded by American-Israeli pioneer Arnold Goldman, Solel is based in Israel and Abengoa is headquartered in Spain."

It's time we woke up and made this our own homegrown growth story, which will boost the economy and create jobs.

We already have the industries willing to forge ahead, they need the support of a govt. that supports what they are trying to do.

Industry is realizing both the need for new thinking and technology and the economic benefits they represent.

"Hamilton Sundstrand, a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. [NYSE: UTX], and US Renewables Group have formed a new entity, SolarReserve, to commercialize the concentrated solar power tower technology and corresponding molten salt storage system developed by Rocketdyne. This renewable technology will enable utility-scale solar power generation. It is designed to meet a utility's needs with a single installation capable of producing up to 500 MW of peak power."

"Due to the unique ability of the product to store the energy it captures, this system will function like a conventional hydroelectric power plant, but with several advantages. We will have the capability to store the sun's energy and release it on demand. This product is more predictable than water reserves, the supply is free and inexhaustible, and the environmental impact is essentially zero."

Lee Bailey, managing director of US Renewables Group (USRG)

They will sell this heat storage system to solar thermal power plant developers.  Molten salt only loses 1% of it's heat in 24 hours, so is an excellent way to store energy.  

Cap and trade is an issue in itself, and is probably not what most environmentalists or climate scientists would recommend.  The Blueprint for U.S. Energy Security, above, recommends a carbon tax.  At least read the article, to understand their reasoning.

Mass production of Plug in Hybrid cars would save a huge amount of oil.  The average

American driver would get 100mpg overall, assuming a 40 mile range on battery power alone.

The technology is already here.  

http://www.pluginpartners.org/

A new book worth checking out:

http://www.earththesequel.com./

"Krupp and Horn have turned the doom and gloom of global warming on its head. Earth: The Sequel makes it crystal clear that we can build a low-carbon economy while unleashing American entrepreneurs to save the planet, putting optimism back into the environmental story."

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City

And I would say $10,000 a year per family is absurd.   Economist or not.