Professor Hal Lewis Joins The Global Warming Policy Foundation

[Bfgrn]

BFGRN your objection to anything but green energy stupidity is just because you hate the western world, and wish to put it back in the dark ages via eliminating all rational sources of energy. Why are you this way?

I was raised to clean up after myself. I don't like being a janitor for corporations that dump their waste on us and get rich making the rest of us poor. They do it by subverting and undermining free market rules. It is called cost externalization, which is really socialism, where the rich take from the poor. It costs American taxpayers about 4 trillion dollars.

Why are you a socialist?

 

[Bfgrn]

But all this environmental dogmatism is just due to an elitist propaganda campaign to destroy the developed world and the people in it.

It's not some great natural law, it's just a well funded propaganda campaign to justify totalitarian energy policy and scarcity alarmism so people will accept democide.

tom, good environmental policy IS good economic policy. NONE of the dirty fuels could compete in a true free market. Their inefficiencies and waste are being subsidized by taxpayers. THAT is not dogma, it is fact.

Your rant exposes that you are no liberal, and you have been brainwashed, that's too bad.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

tom, good environmental policy IS good economic policy. NONE of the dirty fuels could compete in a true free market. Their inefficiencies and waste are being subsidized by taxpayers. THAT is not dogma, it is fact.

Your rant exposes that you are no liberal, and you have been brainwashed, that's too bad.

Why does green energy require extra taxes on carbon fuels and subsidies on green bullshit then?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I was raised to clean up after myself. I don't like being a janitor for corporations that dump their waste on us and get rich making the rest of us poor. They do it by subverting and undermining free market rules. It is called cost externalization, which is really socialism, where the rich take from the poor. It costs American taxpayers about 4 trillion dollars.

Why are you a socialist?

I am for some epa protections, but only of real pollutants.

Carbon Dioxide is not a real pollutant. In fact, it's an organic gas crucial to all plant life. Why do you hate plants.

 

[cancel2 2022]

tom, good environmental policy IS good economic policy. NONE of the dirty fuels could compete in a true free market. Their inefficiencies and waste are being subsidized by taxpayers. THAT is not dogma, it is fact.

Your rant exposes that you are no liberal, and you have been brainwashed, that's too bad.

That is just woolly minded rubbish, finite resources need to directed towards optimum solutions. Nuclear power is the only real solution in the short to medium term. Fourth generation reactors are the future.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071109191903.htm

 

[Bfgrn]

Why does green energy require extra taxes on carbon fuels and subsidies on green bullshit then?

It doesn't, just end the corporate welfare and subsidies. In a REAL free market, the dirty fuels will be GONE.

Do you understand that cap & trade is a free market action? It forces dirty fuel producers to internalize their REAL costs.

 

[Bfgrn]

That is just woolly minded rubbish, finite resources need to directed towards optimum solutions. Nuclear power is the only real solution in the short to medium term. Fourth generation reactors are the future.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071109191903.htm

I am open to nuclear energy. But there are REAL concerns that have to be addressed. We just saw the results of 'drill baby drill'

And the same people that are pushing 'drill baby drill' are pushing fracking for natural gas, the NEXT environmental disaster.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

It doesn't, just end the corporate welfare and subsidies. In a REAL free market, the dirty fuels will be GONE.

Do you understand that cap & trade is a free market action? It forces dirty fuel producers to internalize their REAL costs.

Id be fine with ending corporate subidies for our existing fuels. That doesn't mean i want new subsidies on green hokum.

No. Cap and trade is creation of a fictitious carbon credits market. it's a totalitarian abstraction.

 

[Bfgrn]

Id be fine with ending corporate subidies for our existing fuels. That doesn't mean i want new subsidies on green hokum.

No. Cap and trade is creation of a fictitious carbon credits market. it's a totalitarian abstraction.

Cap and Trade: Case Study in Evolution of Republican Extremism

Building on Mr. Kurtz's post about the outrageous Georgia Rep, it's worth noting that cap-and-trade is exhibit A, conclusive proof in the case of the Republican party's lurch into lunacy.

I'm just old enough to remember when policies like cap-and-trade were quintessentially conservative. As an econ undergrad in the 1980s, cap-and-trade was the leading light in a suite of then radical, new, market-based regulatory ideas propounded by right-of-center economists. These new market-based approaches, they argued, would achieve superior amelioration of environmental problems without the heavy-handed inefficiencies of the "command-and-control" limits embraced by liberals in the 1970s. During my undergrad years, and the the years after, there was a decent debate about the policy and economic merits of the competing approaches to regulation. I imagine someone with Lexis Nexis could even find historical documents (Galaxy Quest!) of elected Republicans advocating cap-and-trade approaches as a conservative alternative to old-fashioned, unfair "liberalism."

Fast forward to 2009, and I confess I still find myself amazed that the conservative policy won the argument. No less a liberal lion than Henry Waxman is the champion of this market-based approach to controlling carbon emissions. The new liberal president speaks sincerely of his understanding of and appreciation of the benefits of markets in economics and policy. Organizations like the Sierra Club, that 25 years ago would have treated cap-and-trade suspiciously, now whole-heartedly endorse it. Self-avowed, card carrying liberals like Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein (my heroes) unself-consciously trumpet this formerly conservative approach to environmental policy. So, the Republicans won, right? Champagne corks are popping in John Boehner's office and the AEI executive suite, right?

Ironically, while their proposals were winning in the marketplace of ideas, the Republican party has abandoned the field of competition and retreated into an extremism that would probably shock even the 1964 edition of Barry Goldwater. Where you might have seen someone like Jack Kemp endorsing cap-and-trade as a sexy new idea 25 years ago, now the very same policy approach is crazy communism to today's Republicans. The policy hasn't changed, but the Republican party sure has. What was once a center-right party looking for innovative new ideas (like cap-and-trade), it is now a right-of-everyone-but-the-lunatics rump, mistrustful of any and all public policy and clinging only to the irrational scraps that feed their hysterical, anti-scientific state of denial. Kind of sad, really.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Cap and Trade: Case Study in Evolution of Republican Extremism

Building on Mr. Kurtz's post about the outrageous Georgia Rep, it's worth noting that cap-and-trade is exhibit A, conclusive proof in the case of the Republican party's lurch into lunacy.

I'm just old enough to remember when policies like cap-and-trade were quintessentially conservative. As an econ undergrad in the 1980s, cap-and-trade was the leading light in a suite of then radical, new, market-based regulatory ideas propounded by right-of-center economists. These new market-based approaches, they argued, would achieve superior amelioration of environmental problems without the heavy-handed inefficiencies of the "command-and-control" limits embraced by liberals in the 1970s. During my undergrad years, and the the years after, there was a decent debate about the policy and economic merits of the competing approaches to regulation. I imagine someone with Lexis Nexis could even find historical documents (Galaxy Quest!) of elected Republicans advocating cap-and-trade approaches as a conservative alternative to old-fashioned, unfair "liberalism."

Fast forward to 2009, and I confess I still find myself amazed that the conservative policy won the argument. No less a liberal lion than Henry Waxman is the champion of this market-based approach to controlling carbon emissions. The new liberal president speaks sincerely of his understanding of and appreciation of the benefits of markets in economics and policy. Organizations like the Sierra Club, that 25 years ago would have treated cap-and-trade suspiciously, now whole-heartedly endorse it. Self-avowed, card carrying liberals like Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein (my heroes) unself-consciously trumpet this formerly conservative approach to environmental policy. So, the Republicans won, right? Champagne corks are popping in John Boehner's office and the AEI executive suite, right?

Ironically, while their proposals were winning in the marketplace of ideas, the Republican party has abandoned the field of competition and retreated into an extremism that would probably shock even the 1964 edition of Barry Goldwater. Where you might have seen someone like Jack Kemp endorsing cap-and-trade as a sexy new idea 25 years ago, now the very same policy approach is crazy communism to today's Republicans. The policy hasn't changed, but the Republican party sure has. What was once a center-right party looking for innovative new ideas (like cap-and-trade), it is now a right-of-everyone-but-the-lunatics rump, mistrustful of any and all public policy and clinging only to the irrational scraps that feed their hysterical, anti-scientific state of denial. Kind of sad, really.

Listen fool, you can say slavery was free market too because there was a slave market. The government has no right to marketize emissions of organic and harmless gasses.

Soon we will have to purchase carbon credits to breathe, then if you can't, you must die. I guess this would be the "free market final solution" to poor people.

Your worldview is merely a mental disorder. Seek help.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You might at least read my post, I was advocating the development of thorium reactors which have none of those problems. There is also an awful lot of tosh surrounding nuclear waste disposal, I will call your attention to the advances made in the UK in the vitrification of nuclear waste.

http://www.allbusiness.com/nonmetallic-mineral/glass-glass-manufacturing/722088-1.html

You beat me to the punch Tom. I got my start in the hazardous waste field for the company that originated High Temperature Vitrification for recycling USEPA listed hazardous waste. They also negotiated with the director of EPA under the first President Bush the current regulatory standards for recycling hazardous waste. I ended working for 12 years recycling hazardous waste via HTV including 3 years as a research assistant at The Ohio State University.

HTV has been used, and is considered the BDAT (Best Developed Available Technology) for managing both HLW and LLW radioactive waste. HTV combined with deep well/mine injection has proven a safe and affective method for managing radioactive waste. During my period at Ohio State I worked with several other glass scientist for developing borosilicate glass formulations to experiment on HLW simulants so as to evaluate their long term stability. It's a proven technology.

 

[cancel2 2022]

You beat me to the punch Tom. I got my start in the hazardous waste field for the company that originated High Temperature Vitrification for recycling USEPA listed hazardous waste. They also negotiated with the director of EPA under the first President Bush the current regulatory standards for recycling hazardous waste. I ended working for 12 years recycling hazardous waste via HTV including 3 years as a research assistant at The Ohio State University.

HTV has been used, and is considered the BDAT (Best Developed Available Technology) for managing both HLW and LLW radioactive waste. HTV combined with deep well/mine injection has proven a safe and affective method for managing radioactive waste. During my period at Ohio State I worked with several other glass scientist for developing borosilicate glass formulations to experiment on HLW simulants so as to evaluate their long term stability. It's a proven technology.

Tell that to Bfgrn, he seems blissfully unaware of the advances in vitrification technology.

 

[Bfgrn]

Tell that to Bfgrn, he seems blissfully unaware of the advances in vitrification technology.

tom, I may be blissfully unaware of the advances in vitrification technology, partly because I haven't done much research into nuclear power. But your blissful ignorance of the well funded 'echo chamber' created by big polluters is hard to fathom. Add your parroting of environmentalist/leftist conspiracy rhetoric dispels your claim of being a liberal.

Would the advances in vitrification technology change where radioactive materials would be stored? The plan for storage in America is to transport all nuclear waste to one site, Yucca Mountain. IMO, the main hazard in that plan is the waste will have to travel an average of 2000 miles per shipment to Yucca Mountain.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Tell that to Bfgrn, he seems blissfully unaware of the advances in vitrification technology.

To be fair to Bfgrn, most people probably are.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

tom, I may be blissfully unaware of the advances in vitrification technology, partly because I haven't done much research into nuclear power. But your blissful ignorance of the well funded 'echo chamber' created by big polluters is hard to fathom. Add your parroting of environmentalist/leftist conspiracy rhetoric dispels your claim of being a liberal.

Would the advances in vitrification technology change where radioactive materials would be stored? The plan for storage in America is to transport all nuclear waste to one site, Yucca Mountain. IMO, the main hazard in that plan is the waste will have to travel an average of 2000 miles per shipment to Yucca Mountain.

You are correct. That is the main hazard of this technology. HTV only treats the mobility characteristics, and therefore the toxicity characteristics, of the radioactive isotopes. It does not however neutralize the radioactive properties of the waste. What it does do is it covalently bonds these isotopes to the borosilicate ceramic bond which is one of the strongest chemical bonds known to nature. One with geological stability. That's a serious advantage. Once vitrified the isotopes can't dissolve in another solvent and leach away, it cannot volatilize into a vapor, blow of in the wind as a dust or react with other compounds which are mobile. Once it's in the glass it's there to stay. The glass however is highly radioactive. This is managed by encapsulating the vitrified HLW into a large large lead lined reinforce concrete monolith. These monoliths can be transported and stored safely in a deep well mine under Yuca mountain more then a mile under the surface. The chief risk then, as you pointed out, is an accident during transport. Even that is easy to contain. It wouldn't be like Chernobyl where a critical mass of fissile material imploded and sent a plume of radioactive contaminants that reached half way around the world. The radioactive material has been stabilized and it's mobility characteristics essentially eliminated. The chief risk then of an accident in transport would be exposure to radiation people and emergency personnel who come into contact with the material but that's also a risk that can be properly managed to reduce risk to the public to a minimum.

The real problem is one of perception. Knowing everything that I just described about an available technology that's affective, safe and works for radioactive waste, would you still want those vitrified monoliths of HLW being transported through your town? My guess is that most people on here would prefer that it did not go through their home towns. That's a problem.

It's the same problem with permitting hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities or oil refineries. We all know that these are essential facilities that we need but not one of us wants to live near one.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I am for some epa protections, but only of real pollutants.

Carbon Dioxide is not a real pollutant. In fact, it's an organic gas crucial to all plant life. Why do you hate plants.

Jesus gawd. Not only are you a paranoid delusional but now you're just talking like a garden variety idiot. Any human produced compound that is is excess of natures ability to recycle it trough natural processes and which can have deleterious affects on our biosphere is by definition a pollutant. Including carbon dioxide.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That is just woolly minded rubbish, finite resources need to directed towards optimum solutions. Nuclear power is the only real solution in the short to medium term. Fourth generation reactors are the future.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071109191903.htm

That's debatable. LPG also has potential as an energy source to bridge the technology gap. Particularly here in the US and Canada where there are literal underground lakes of the stuff.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I am open to nuclear energy. But there are REAL concerns that have to be addressed. We just saw the results of 'drill baby drill'

And the same people that are pushing 'drill baby drill' are pushing fracking for natural gas, the NEXT environmental disaster.

That's a valid point. We sure as hell don't want the "Drill Baby Drill" type of people determining energy policy as the consequences for fucking up are to dire. This would have to be public/private sponsorship for developing either technology further. The private sector can do what it does best in developing the product for the market so as to optimize productivity and profits. The government can regulate the technology to assure it's safety.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Cap and Trade: Case Study in Evolution of Republican Extremism

Building on Mr. Kurtz's post about the outrageous Georgia Rep, it's worth noting that cap-and-trade is exhibit A, conclusive proof in the case of the Republican party's lurch into lunacy.

I'm just old enough to remember when policies like cap-and-trade were quintessentially conservative. As an econ undergrad in the 1980s, cap-and-trade was the leading light in a suite of then radical, new, market-based regulatory ideas propounded by right-of-center economists. These new market-based approaches, they argued, would achieve superior amelioration of environmental problems without the heavy-handed inefficiencies of the "command-and-control" limits embraced by liberals in the 1970s. During my undergrad years, and the the years after, there was a decent debate about the policy and economic merits of the competing approaches to regulation. I imagine someone with Lexis Nexis could even find historical documents (Galaxy Quest!) of elected Republicans advocating cap-and-trade approaches as a conservative alternative to old-fashioned, unfair "liberalism."

Fast forward to 2009, and I confess I still find myself amazed that the conservative policy won the argument. No less a liberal lion than Henry Waxman is the champion of this market-based approach to controlling carbon emissions. The new liberal president speaks sincerely of his understanding of and appreciation of the benefits of markets in economics and policy. Organizations like the Sierra Club, that 25 years ago would have treated cap-and-trade suspiciously, now whole-heartedly endorse it. Self-avowed, card carrying liberals like Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein (my heroes) unself-consciously trumpet this formerly conservative approach to environmental policy. So, the Republicans won, right? Champagne corks are popping in John Boehner's office and the AEI executive suite, right?

Ironically, while their proposals were winning in the marketplace of ideas, the Republican party has abandoned the field of competition and retreated into an extremism that would probably shock even the 1964 edition of Barry Goldwater. Where you might have seen someone like Jack Kemp endorsing cap-and-trade as a sexy new idea 25 years ago, now the very same policy approach is crazy communism to today's Republicans. The policy hasn't changed, but the Republican party sure has. What was once a center-right party looking for innovative new ideas (like cap-and-trade), it is now a right-of-everyone-but-the-lunatics rump, mistrustful of any and all public policy and clinging only to the irrational scraps that feed their hysterical, anti-scientific state of denial. Kind of sad, really.

Yup and it's why I'm no longer a Republican. It's become the party of plutocrats and their ruby throated American vassals.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Jesus gawd. Not only are you a paranoid delusional but now you're just talking like a garden variety idiot. Any human produced compound that is is excess of natures ability to recycle it trough natural processes and which can have deleterious affects on our biosphere is by definition a pollutant. Including carbon dioxide.

But your alarmist scenario isn't the case with Co2. SOrry.