True that and I don't believe that the government has any business in legislating the energy consumption of it's people.
I meant they could do it by passing laws so that you can't buy things like inefficient appliances and things like that. They already have laws like that in most places, I don't see any problem making them stricter.
I meant they could do it by passing laws so that you can't buy things like inefficient appliances and things like that. They already have laws like that in most places, I don't see any problem making them stricter.
Well that is legislation passed to make corporations and manufactorers comply with conservation, which to a certain extend I support, not the general public.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
My support of Ron Paul is my realism. The reality that the US can longer operate as it has and that Ron Paul is the only candidate who openly admits to this and is the only one willing to address the problem.
The problem with these energy policies is that they are unrealistic. They are based off the theory that people will reduce consumption by 10%. You cannot base an energy policy off of that because you cannot control people's consumption. You need to creat a policy that has the ability to grow as consumption will and can provide energy, free of interruption, to meet the demand. A policy based on conservation and renewable energy sources cannot meet that. That is where the need for a consistant source comes in to pick up the slack for renewables. That source is nuclear. It may not be as clean as solar, wind, etc... but it is far more reliable and can be the back up to periods when renewables fall short of demand because of weather, ie windless days, nighttime, and/or cloudy/rainy days or fall short because they simply lack the ability to generate enough kilowatts to meet demand.
ha! ... well ... one person's realism is another's idealism i suppose ...
i share the same sentiments with regards to how we live ...
again - we cannot continue to grow our consumption rates - it is absolutely unsustainable ... only the energy companies in the world want you to do so ...
change your lightbulbs, unplug appliances and adjust your thermostat 2 degrees in each season and see how much you can conserve just as simply as that ... there are so many solutions in front of us to save 10% ... it is sooo easy and will end up saving us all money ... the only thing standing in its way is a lack of will and understanding ...
ha! ... well ... one person's realism is another's idealism i suppose ...
i share the same sentiments with regards to how we live ...
again - we cannot continue to grow our consumption rates - it is absolutely unsustainable ... only the energy companies in the world want you to do so ...
change your lightbulbs, unplug appliances and adjust your thermostat 2 degrees in each season and see how much you can conserve just as simply as that ... there are so many solutions in front of us to save 10% ... it is sooo easy and will end up saving us all money ... the only thing standing in its way is a lack of will and understanding ...
i agree with you that we should conserve and i do all that I can in that aspect but it is unrealistic to think that the majority of the population will follow suit. You cannot base an energy policy on the idea that a large majority of the population will volunteraly reduce their consumption by 10%. The only way to effectively do that would be through government intervention and legislation and I am completely oppossed to that idea.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
i agree with you that we should conserve and i do all that I can in that aspect but it is unrealistic to think that the majority of the population will follow suit. You cannot base an energy policy on the idea that a large majority of the population will volunteraly reduce their consumption by 10%. The only way to effectively do that would be through government intervention and legislation and I am completely oppossed to that idea.
why would you be opposed to it? ... are you in favour of smoking bans? ... speed limits? ... if you are against it then maybe we charge consumers the TRUE cost of energy as opposed to the subsidized costs - i'm pretty sure that will create the drop in consumption we expect ...
here is a plan - obviously, it's just a plan for ontario - but you can get an idea of what i am talking about ...
why would you be opposed to it? ... are you in favour of smoking bans? ... speed limits? ... if you are against it then maybe we charge consumers the TRUE cost of energy as opposed to the subsidized costs - i'm pretty sure that will create the drop in consumption we expect ...
here is a plan - obviously, it's just a plan for ontario - but you can get an idea of what i am talking about ...
I am opposed to smoking bans in private businesses. I am not oppossed to speed limits because a speeding reckless driver is a danger to other on the road. I am oppossed to seat belt and helmet laws because if you want to be stupid enough to ride a motorcycle without a helmet or drive a car without a seatbelt that should be your perogotive. Also I would gladly support the ending of government subsidizing energy. Let the consumer pay for the true cost.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
uhh ... did you read these consultants credentials? ... also, they highlight the same problematic site as the papers you mentioned ...
Credentials are nice....but if someone with an agenda is paying for the dance, credentials don't mean much.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Credentials are nice....but if someone with an agenda is paying for the dance, credentials don't mean much.
i suppose if they did it for free - it would be more valid ... in any case - none of your literaturd counters what they say ... (based on the 4 i read) ...
Comments
I meant they could do it by passing laws so that you can't buy things like inefficient appliances and things like that. They already have laws like that in most places, I don't see any problem making them stricter.
Well that is legislation passed to make corporations and manufactorers comply with conservation, which to a certain extend I support, not the general public.
ha! ... well ... one person's realism is another's idealism i suppose ...
i share the same sentiments with regards to how we live ...
again - we cannot continue to grow our consumption rates - it is absolutely unsustainable ... only the energy companies in the world want you to do so ...
change your lightbulbs, unplug appliances and adjust your thermostat 2 degrees in each season and see how much you can conserve just as simply as that ... there are so many solutions in front of us to save 10% ... it is sooo easy and will end up saving us all money ... the only thing standing in its way is a lack of will and understanding ...
i agree with you that we should conserve and i do all that I can in that aspect but it is unrealistic to think that the majority of the population will follow suit. You cannot base an energy policy on the idea that a large majority of the population will volunteraly reduce their consumption by 10%. The only way to effectively do that would be through government intervention and legislation and I am completely oppossed to that idea.
why would you be opposed to it? ... are you in favour of smoking bans? ... speed limits? ... if you are against it then maybe we charge consumers the TRUE cost of energy as opposed to the subsidized costs - i'm pretty sure that will create the drop in consumption we expect ...
here is a plan - obviously, it's just a plan for ontario - but you can get an idea of what i am talking about ...
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/Climate/Ontario/Smart_Generation_summary.pdf
I am opposed to smoking bans in private businesses. I am not oppossed to speed limits because a speeding reckless driver is a danger to other on the road. I am oppossed to seat belt and helmet laws because if you want to be stupid enough to ride a motorcycle without a helmet or drive a car without a seatbelt that should be your perogotive. Also I would gladly support the ending of government subsidizing energy. Let the consumer pay for the true cost.
i suppose if they did it for free - it would be more valid ... in any case - none of your literaturd counters what they say ... (based on the 4 i read) ...
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php
if properly sited - issues related to birds and other wildlife are minimal ... assuming audobon society is legit source ...