Gas + central heating in my house. Because fuck paying that much in electricity. Currently thinking of having solar panels fitted.
Hi James
Mar-18-2017 11:56
wotyzoid
it's not house
Registered: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
society holds itself to ransom with its wants.
Perhaps
quote:
huh? people's consumption habits don't change by whether the grid is publically or privately owned, except if there's a marked difference in price. and, if you removed the profit-motive from energy generation, there's a good chance you could provide lower prices to the regular people. which in turn would increase energy usage and co2 production. or, the government could keep prices artificially high in order to keep a lid on consumption, and the end user would be in the same position they were in under the capitalists; essentially showing that they are just as deserving of green tape as the owners of capital.
This is where you're wrong. If the grid is publicly owned ,that's correct, we all pay for the green tape also. Costs would essentially be lower, but we'd also have a direct say in energy policy and where to take it. There's 30, 000 people to argue ethics as opposed to 12 greedy motherfuckers in a board. You're overlooking a shit ton of factors. I thought I was the simple minded guy in the room.
Originally posted by wotyzoid
This is where you're wrong. If the grid is publicly owned ,that's correct, we all pay for the green tape also. Costs would essentially be lower, but we'd also have a direct say in energy policy and where to take it. There's 30, 000 people to argue ethics as opposed to 12 greedy motherfuckers in a board. You're overlooking a shit ton of factors. I thought I was the simple minded guy in the room.
well at least we agree you're the simple one. you keep going off on unrelated commie tangents and when questioned, you just move onto some more.
quote:
its priorities are monetary, if it was publicly funded it would be cyclic
what is this supposed to mean and what does it have to do with co2 pollution?
___________________
Mar-18-2017 14:09
wotyzoid
it's not house
Registered: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well at least we agree you're the simple one. you keep going off on unrelated commie tangents and when questioned, you just move onto some more.
what is this supposed to mean and what does it have to do with co2 pollution?
What? I thought we were talking about taxation and morality. It's very easy to brush off what I'm saying as commie tangents and not address any of it, but i'm just refuting what you said. Where is the nobility in turning a profit?
Originally posted by wotyzoid Costs would essentially be lower, but we'd also have a direct say in energy policy and where to take it. There's 30, 000 people to argue ethics as opposed to 12 greedy motherfuckers in a board. You're overlooking a shit ton of factors. I thought I was the simple minded guy in the room.
He's already explained how energy costs being lower is a bad thing for environmentalism.
Your argument also contains the critical failure of assuming the voting public are all pro-environmentalism. People are inclined to be selfish and myopic on this subject, as I have already pointed out and Trance-MB has already demonstrated.
If we were taxed for pollution directly and it came out to be essentially the same cost it would be ideal. If it costed less it would still be better, it's all about putting the resources in the hands of the people.
Portugal’s investment in modernizing its electricity grid in 2000 has come in handy. Like in many countries, power companies owned their own transmission lines. What the government did in 2000 was to buy all the lines, creating a publicly owned and traded company to operate them. This was used to create a smart grid that renewable energy producers could connect to (encouraged by government-organized auctions to build new wind and hydro plants). In 2010, the New York Times reported on Portugal’s renewable energy push that started in earnest in 2005: Five years ago, the leaders of this sun-scorched, wind-swept nation made a bet: To reduce Portugal’s dependence on imported fossil fuels, they embarked on an array of ambitious renewable energy projects — primarily harnessing the country’s wind and hydropower, but also its sunlight and ocean waves…. Nearly 45 percent of the electricity in Portugal’s grid will come from renewable sources this year, up from 17 percent just five years ago.
'To force Portugal’s energy transition, Mr. Sócrates’s government restructured and privatized former state energy utilities to create a grid better suited to renewable power sources. To lure private companies into Portugal’s new market, the government gave them contracts locking in a stable price for 15 years — a subsidy that varied by technology and was initially high but decreased with each new contract round.'
Mar-18-2017 15:59
wotyzoid
it's not house
Registered: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
No faith in human beings. Of course their prime minister had to entice private companies to build the things, but the gornment still bought the lines of the grid, which are publicly owned. How else are you supposed to get things done under capitalism? Its like you're saying, "yeah they did this but with means you are arguing against." Well, no shit, I'm arguing against the whole fucking thing.
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: Hugging Whales And Saving Trees
quote:
Originally posted by wotyzoid
No faith in human beings.
Why do you say that? Just because I'm inclined to apportion some blame to people for their own faults, rather than 12 'greedy bastards' in a boardroom?
quote:
Originally posted by wotyzoid
Of course their prime minister had to entice private companies to build the things, but the gornment still bought the lines of the grid, which are publicly owned. How else are you supposed to get things done under capitalism? Its like you're saying, "yeah they did this but with means you are arguing against." Well, no shit, I'm arguing against the whole fucking thing.
Yes, but you're not really making an argument against the whole thing, you're just making some random and bizarre statements.
Mar-18-2017 17:34
wotyzoid
it's not house
Registered: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
You guys are attacking my ideas I'm just trying to substantiate them. My whole thing is any natural resource should be publicly owned. Oil, coal, wind, the ocean. The fact that they aren't is why you run into problems. Like trance-m was venting, lies as they may be, things of that nature happen everyday, all day.
