The war on private jets continues...

denverpilot

denverpilot

Tied Down
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
55,483
Location
Denver, CO
Display Name
Display name:
DenverPilot
You just wait, once per-mile taxation of cars is implemented, someone is going to grab all those GPS tracks too. For the good of the planet, of course!
 
For the good of their wallets, you mean. FTFY.

Big biz selling Eco-books and running global "carbon credit" clearinghouses.

What do you suppose the minimum transaction price is on a carbon credit? I've never tried to buy one.

Maybe I should try to buy just one. Would I get a little piece of money... Ahem... Paper I could frame like small businesses and their first dollar bill they made?

I bet one could make a fortune selling "limited edition carbon credits" in a little "My first carbon credit" picture frame on late-night infomercial TV!

Perhaps the Franklin Mint may already be ready to make "genuine replicas" too? ;)
 
zaitcev said:
You just wait, once per-mile taxation of cars is implemented, someone is going to grab all those GPS tracks too. For the good of the planet, of course!
Click to expand...

Well, the light squared GPS interference ought to help then...
 
denverpilot said:
What do you suppose the minimum transaction price is on a carbon credit? I've never tried to buy one.
Click to expand...
I actually saw a short demo of Cessna's GreenTrak program last week and it seems like they were talking about $13/ton. I'm not sure how they calculate how much a gas weighs, though.
 
Everskyward said:
I actually saw a short demo of Cessna's GreenTrak program last week and it seems like they were talking about $13/ton. I'm not sure how they calculate how much a gas weighs, though.
Click to expand...

If'n ya wanna talk about it I'm available for a consultation. :) Hey, I sell gas for a living...
 
Everskyward said:
I actually saw a short demo of Cessna's GreenTrak program last week and it seems like they were talking about $13/ton. I'm not sure how they calculate how much a gas weighs, though.
Click to expand...

I am all for efficient use of resources, but I can't help but have the feeling that this whole business of creating, buying, selling, tracking carbon credits is solely about lining the pockets of eco-terrorists at the point of the spear of political correctness.
 
SCCutler said:
I am all for efficient use of resources, but I can't help but have the feeling that this whole business of creating, buying, selling, tracking carbon credits is solely about lining the pockets of eco-terrorists at the point of the spear of political correctness.
Click to expand...
Actually Cessna is being proactive in developing a way to track carbon emissions in their airplanes because buying carbon offsets is being proposed for airplanes flying in Europe and they want to be ahead of the curve.
 
SCCutler said:
I am all for efficient use of resources, but I can't help but have the feeling that this whole business of creating, buying, selling, tracking carbon credits is solely about lining the pockets of eco-terrorists at the point of the spear of wealth and income redistribution.
Click to expand...


There fixed it for ya. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
For the good of their wallets, you mean. FTFY.

Big biz selling Eco-books and running global "carbon credit" clearinghouses.

What do you suppose the minimum transaction price is on a carbon credit? I've never tried to buy one.

Maybe I should try to buy just one. Would I get a little piece of money... Ahem... Paper I could frame like small businesses and their first dollar bill they made?

I bet one could make a fortune selling "limited edition carbon credits" in a little "My first carbon credit" picture frame on late-night infomercial TV!

Perhaps the Franklin Mint may already be ready to make "genuine replicas" too? ;)
Click to expand...

There's a booth at SFO selling carbon credits to offset your flight. I haven't stopped to ask. I doubt I could keep my comments PG.

SCCutler said:
I am all for efficient use of resources, but I can't help but have the feeling that this whole business of creating, buying, selling, tracking carbon credits is solely about lining the pockets of eco-terrorists at the point of the spear of political correctness.
Click to expand...

One name - Al Gore

Anthony said:
There fixed it for ya. ;)
Click to expand...

Yup.
 
SCCutler said:
I am all for efficient use of resources, but I can't help but have the feeling that this whole business of creating, buying, selling, tracking carbon credits is solely about lining the pockets of eco-terrorists at the point of the spear of political correctness.
Click to expand...

It's all about making a trading market and making sure the traders make money.....

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
 
denverpilot said:
... Political correctness and paper "credits" won't un-burn the Jet-A...
Click to expand...
No, but if there is a finite number of carbon credits available, and if everybody emitting carbon has to secure the appropriate number, then there is a finite amount of carbon emitted, and that amount can be limited. As scarcity for those credits increases, the cost of carbon increases, thus making alternative energy sources more economically viable, e.g. it becomes easier to find private investors to fund the building of nuclear power plants because the investors are more assured that the product of their plant will be price-competitive.

It's common to confuse carbon credits with carbon offsets. The purpose of a carbon offset is to, effectively, "un-burn the jet-a", or at least to cause an effect that results in a corresponding reduction of carbon emissions elsewhere. It's not too hard to imagine how it is possible to make an investment that results in a reduction in the production of carbon, e.g. funding a wind farm or efficiency improvements.
-harry
 
Folks, here is how this works:


  1. Large conglomerate needs to expand to new markets. They notice lots of interest in Cause X.
  2. Fund a public interest group that espouses Cause X.
  3. Hire a lobbying firm.
  4. Lobbying firm hires polling firm.
  5. Group issues Cause X proclamations on web site.
  6. Conglomerate feeds subordinate and "partnered" media organizations (IOW, owned by the conglomerate) who run with the "news" about Cause X.
  7. Polling firm calls 150 old ladies and then makes awesome PowerPoint supporting Cause X.
  8. Lobbying firm provides briefs to key members of legislative and executive branches on need for immediate action on Cause X.
  9. Media organizations produce free (with "grant money" provided by conglomerate) Classroom Resource Kits about Cause X.
  10. Create and target ads on key opinion demographic conduits. Write letters and Guest Editorials and place in media outlets.
  11. Spend lavishly on "events' for high profile spokespeople (Hollywood actors, race car drivers, former athletes) to 'educate" them on Cause X.
  12. Convince key legislators to hold public hearings on Cause X. Link Cause X to the fate of Motherhood, Families, America, Freedom, Righteousness, Air, or some other unassailable Public Good.
  13. Press Lobbying Firm to assure key swing votes that new facilities might appear in key districts *if* Cause X is supported.
  14. Congress Passes Law to Address Cause X.
  15. Congress appropriates funds to address Cause X.
  16. Executive creates bureaucracy to address Cause X.
  17. Executive appoints key personnel in positions in the new bureaucracy.
  18. legislators return home, triumphant in addressing Cause X. Conglomerate funnels money for reelection campaign. new facility opens with 200 jobs to produce widgets that will address Cause X.

The sad part is, the enviro-types learned this from the defense types. Replace "Cause X" with "Threat Y" above and see how it flows.

Now, I plan on retiring to Antarctica to hide after revealing how It Really Works.

:redface:


 
mantakos said:
No, but if there is a finite number of carbon credits available, and if everybody emitting carbon has to secure the appropriate number, then there is a finite amount of carbon emitted, and that amount can be limited. As scarcity for those credits increases, the cost of carbon increases, thus making alternative energy sources more economically viable, e.g. it becomes easier to find private investors to fund the building of nuclear power plants because the investors are more assured that the product of their plant will be price-competitive.

It's common to confuse carbon credits with carbon offsets. The purpose of a carbon offset is to, effectively, "un-burn the jet-a", or at least to cause an effect that results in a corresponding reduction of carbon emissions elsewhere. It's not too hard to imagine how it is possible to make an investment that results in a reduction in the production of carbon, e.g. funding a wind farm or efficiency improvements.
-harry
Click to expand...

You meant to say that the cheaper energy sources will become as insanely expensive as the alternatives, thus ensuring shortage.

Right?
 
dmccormack said:
Folks, here is how this works:...
Click to expand...
Note that the above flow works similarly when "Cause X" emerges which threatens the market of "Large Conglomerate".

Cause X could be "our product causes cancer" or "it makes our customers go cross-eyed" or "it changes the planet's climate".

"Large Conglomerate" funds public interest group to deny the problem, hires lobbyists to fight legislation to curtail their problematic activities, media organizations provide free publicity on behalf of Large Conglomerate, the populace learns that Cause X is yet another conspiracy by hippies and soshulizts, and Cause X is mocked on internet forums via declarations full of certitude and dismissive explanations that Cause X is just another example of "how it works".
-harry
 
dmccormack said:
You meant to say that the cheaper energy sources will become as insanely expensive as the alternatives, thus ensuring shortage.

Right?
Click to expand...

ch.gaschart

Ahh, remember the days of wine and roses back in Dec of '08, and the massive shortages and break-down of the social fabric back in June of '08?
-harry
 
mantakos said:
"Large Conglomerate" funds public interest group to deny the problem, hires lobbyists to fight legislation to curtail their problematic activities, media organizations provide free publicity on behalf of Large Conglomerate, the populace learns that Cause X is yet another conspiracy by hippies and soshulizts, and Cause X is mocked on internet forums via declarations full of certitude and dismissive explanations that Cause X is just another example of "how it works".
-harry
Click to expand...

Oh, so it's only untrue when your ox is gored?

:rolleyes2:

Ohh, now I see... :yes:
 
dmccormack said:
How, exactly, does this prove your point?...
Click to expand...
You're drama-queening variation in energy prices using terms like "insanely expensive".

The difference between costs of various energy sources (e.g. coal vs nuclear) is fairly small relative to large short-term fluctuations we see routinely.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
You're drama-queening variation in energy prices using terms like "insanely expensive".

The difference between costs of various energy sources (e.g. coal vs nuclear) is fairly small relative to large short-term fluctuations we see routinely.
-harry
Click to expand...


Even a relatively biased source such as the Lazard report contains this gem:

US Federal subsidies remain an important component of Alternative Energy generation technologies...
Click to expand...
In other words -- "Don't ask how much it really costs."

http://www.cleanenergy.org/images/factsheets/Lazard2009_LevelizedCostofEnergy.pdf

And I see you conveniently use "Coal and nuclear" and drop "wind and solar" from your contradiction.

I know it's hard to remain focused when clawing for a particular political agenda which is no longer ascendent....
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
Oh, so it's only untrue when your ox is gored?

:rolleyes2:

Ohh, now I see... :yes:
Click to expand...
You lost me. What is "untrue", what is "my ox", and how did it get "gored"?

The point is that we like to say "those who say the thing that I don't like to hear are pushing a lie so they can get rich". And sometimes this is true. And sometimes it's true when they're saying the thing we like.

But not everything is a lie. When one guy says "yes" and the other says "no", we can't tell who is telling the truth solely via an understanding that sometimes people lie.

It's a cheat to dismiss the thing you don't want to be true by using a criticism that is only sometimes true.

Sometimes a doctor recommends a treatment only because he wants to charge you the fee. That possibility doesn't prove that you don't have cancer. Sometimes a mechanic recommends a repair because he needs the income. That possibility doesn't prove that your engine is just fine as it is.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
You lost me. What is "untrue", what is "my ox", and how did it get "gored"?

The point is that we like to say "those who say the thing that I don't like to hear are pushing a lie so they can get rich". And sometimes this is true. And sometimes it's true when they're saying the thing we like.

But not everything is a lie. When one guy says "yes" and the other says "no", we can't tell who is telling the truth solely via an understanding that sometimes people lie.

It's a cheat to dismiss the thing you don't want to be true by using a criticism that is only sometimes true.

Sometimes a doctor recommends a treatment only because he wants to charge you the fee. That possibility doesn't prove that you don't have cancer. Sometimes a mechanic recommends a repair because he needs the income. That possibility doesn't prove that your engine is just fine as it is.
-harry
Click to expand...

No kidding -- I passed Logic a while ago.

:rolleyes:

My point is that once a Cause enters the Conglomerate/Government Nexus, it acquires its own life, independent of the truth or lack thereof of the Cause's premise.

Or do you dispute this?
 
dmccormack said:
...In other words -- "Don't ask how much it really costs."...
Click to expand...
The paper you reference says how much it really costs and says how much current benefit is derived from subsidies. You're making an inherently numerical accusation without bringing the numbers, all of which are included in the paper you quoted from.

Note that we subsidize conventional energy production as well.
And I see you conveniently use "Coal and nuclear" and drop "wind and solar" from your contradiction.
Click to expand...
Because coal is the #1 carbon-based and nuclear the #1 non-carbon based source for power-generation in the US, and because it appears that nuclear is more practical for large-scale power generation.

But if you're interested in the economics of wind and solar generation, you can learn a little about that from that paper you quoted from.
I know it's hard to remain focused when clawing for a particular political agenda which is no longer ascendent....
Click to expand...
I respect the courage it must have taken to make that confession. You're a good man.
-harry
 
dmccormack said:
... My point is that once a Cause enters the Conglomerate/Government Nexus, it acquires its own life, independent of the truth or lack thereof of the Cause's premise...
Click to expand...
That's certainly possible both of the false cause pushed by our proverbial "Conglomerate/Government Nexus" for its own benefit and the true cause denied to avoid consequences that run counter to its interests.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
That's certainly possible both of the false cause pushed by our proverbial "Conglomerate/Government Nexus" for its own benefit and the true cause denied to avoid consequences that run counter to its interests.
-harry
Click to expand...


It seems the Carbon Offset model benefits the powerful quite nicely. So who is against it, exactly?
 
dmccormack said:
It seems the Carbon Offset model benefits the powerful quite nicely.
Click to expand...
Can you prove something good or bad, true or false, based on who benefits from it?

Can you identify any action that doesn't have someone who benefits from it? Does that prove that this action is motivated by a lie perpetrated by that benefactor?

Given that every action has a benefactor, is there any action for which we couldn't make such an accusation?

When an action has a winner and a loser, can we accuse the winner of arguing in favor of it for self-interest any more or less than we can accuse the loser of arguing against it for the same reason?
So who is against it, exactly?
Click to expand...
Many are against. Some are against for reasons of self-interest (e.g. the largest industry on the planet is based on selling carbon energy). Some are against for reasons of political marketing and differentiation ("we are the team of global warming not existing"). Some are very powerful, some not.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
Can you prove something good or bad, true or false, based on who benefits from it?

Can you identify any action that doesn't have someone who benefits from it? Does that prove that this action is motivated by a lie perpetrated by that benefactor?

Given that every action has a benefactor, is there any action for which we couldn't make such an accusation?

Many are against. Some are against for reasons of self-interest (e.g. the largest industry on the planet is based on selling carbon energy). Some are against for reasons of political marketing and differentiation ("we are the team of global warming not existing"). Some are very powerful, some not.
-harry
Click to expand...

In the case of Carbon Offsets, "The Survival of The Planet" is proffered as the only beneficiary. It's for the Children, so it must be good.

A reasonable quality of life with freedom, opportunity, and no imminent threats is what I want to convey to my children -- "Carbon Offsets" don't factor into that calculus.
 
Everskyward said:
Actually Cessna is being proactive in developing a way to track carbon emissions in their airplanes because buying carbon offsets is being proposed for airplanes flying in Europe and they want to be ahead of the curve.
Click to expand...

It's always good to prepare for tyranny. ;)
 
mantakos said:
The difference between costs of various energy sources (e.g. coal vs nuclear) is fairly small relative to large short-term fluctuations we see routinely.
Click to expand...

Investors want growth (slow or fast), traders want volatility. The more connected communications-wise the world becomes and the faster information (correct, incorrect, good, bad) flows, the more volatility until we all adapt and learn to filter out the noise.

We've basically just out-stripped our ability to ignore crap going on, that has always gone on, we just hear about it now... with all our new cheap global communications technology.

No one cared what the weather was like for months/years halfway around the world when cheap communications and transportation didn't exist. No one would speculate on one country's crop prices vs. another in the days before the telegraph, because they had no idea anything had even happened.

Not to add a religious bent, but as a historical perspective on the problem of rumors and information flying too fast, Matthew 24:6 comes to mind...
http://bible.cc/matthew/24-6.htm
 
dmccormack said:
In the case of Carbon Offsets, "The Survival of The Planet" is proffered as the only beneficiary. It's for the Children, so it must be good.
Click to expand...
The planet was happy when sea levels were hundreds of feet higher than than are today, and it was happy when sea levels were hundreds of feet lower. The planet was happy when Manhattan was under a mile of glacial ice. Quality of life for "Mother Earth" is not a significant concern.

On the other hand, given our historical propensity for building cities on coastlines, it seems reasonable to guess that rising sea levels, increasingly volatile weather, and changing weather patterns will have a significant economic impact.

F' the polar bears, this is primarily a $$$ issue.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
The planet was happy when sea levels were hundreds of feet higher than than are today, and it was happy when sea levels were hundreds of feet lower. The planet was happy when Manhattan was under a mile of glacial ice. Quality of life for "Mother Earth" is not a significant concern.

On the other hand, given our historical propensity for building cities on coastlines, it seems reasonable to guess that rising sea levels, increasingly volatile weather, and changing weather patterns will have a significant economic impact.

F' the polar bears, this is primarily a $$$ issue.
-harry
Click to expand...

You need to keep up -- even fellow alarmists have agreed Gore's 20' sea level rise is "highly unlikely."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9025302

And who --precisely -- of any significant credibility -- has linked "increasingly volatile weather" to any "global warming" marker (other than a political critter)?

Puh-leeze...
 
dmccormack said:
You need to keep up -- even fellow alarmists have agreed Gore's 20' sea level rise is "highly unlikely."
Click to expand...
I don't recall mentioning Gore or a "20' sea level rise" or a time-frame in which that might happen.

You have "disproven" a statement I didn't make by quoting text that suggests that sea level rise will be slower than what somebody else suggested.
And who --precisely -- of any significant credibility -- has linked "increasingly volatile weather" to any "global warming" marker (other than a political critter)?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure whether you're asking for clarification of something I've said or again seeking to disprove something I didn't say. In particular, are you calling into question that rising average temperatures will impact weather or are you once again disputing something I didn't say, namely that a particular instance of volatile weather experienced in the past can be linked to global warming?
-harry
 
dmccormack said:
And who --precisely -- of any significant credibility -- has linked "increasingly volatile weather" to any "global warming" marker (other than a political critter)?

Puh-leeze...
Click to expand...

Nobody can say whether a particular weather occurrence is or is not due to rising CO2 levels and the resultant changes in climate. However, a predicted result of CO2-induced climate change (or even increased temperatures not due to CO2) is more energetic weather, i.e. more storms of greater energy. Color me simple, but that seems to be what we've been seeing in the US of late. For example, I've never heard of two tornado systems in one year destroying two metropoli. There has been plenty on other parts of the world too.

But no, I can't prove the tornadoes are a result of climate change.
 
steingar said:
But no, I can't prove the tornadoes are a result of climate change.
Click to expand...

According to certain media outlets, that's the cause of the increase in tornadoes this year.

Speaking of spinning out of control, this thread seems to be headed in the direction of the Spin Zone :hairraise:
 
wsuffa said:
According to certain media outlets, that's the cause of the increase in tornadoes this year.

Speaking of spinning out of control, this thread seems to be headed in the direction of the Spin Zone :hairraise:
Click to expand...

what increase in tornadoes? seems like nothing more than a shift to me. so far in Kansas we have had only one confirmed touchdown this year, although that might change after today.

we certainly have seen an increase in tornadoes hitting large population centers this year, but that is just random and tragic.
 
tonycondon said:
what increase in tornadoes? seems like nothing more than a shift to me. so far in Kansas we have had only one confirmed touchdown this year, although that might change after today.

we certainly have seen an increase in tornadoes hitting large population centers this year, but that is just random and tragic.
Click to expand...

I just report what I read....
 
wsuffa said:
I just report what I read....
Click to expand...

and i have no quantitative data to back up my assertion. just noting that here in tornado alley we have been tornado free while places to the south and east of us who are typically tornado free have gotten hit hard this year.

in 2009 when i moved here in the middle of february i heard the sirens 2 of the first 3 weeks I was in town.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top