What I found profoundly interesting was the unanticipated consequence of E,On, Germany’s largest energy supplier splitting into two firms, base load generation and renewables generation and putting the base load sector on the market.
Hard over believers in renewable energy will crow about the success of their policy demands. Rational thinking folks will understand the failure of the policy. From the article:
“E.ON accepts that there is no longer any future for coal and nuclear power in Germany, as this is the will of the federal government and the German public. That is indeed suicidal for Germany as a location for business, and E.ON knows it. The forced shutdown of nuclear power plants, without compensation, and the loss-intensive relegation of coal and gas power plants to serve as uneconomical back-up power plants for the most-unstable renewable energies, has left a deep impression on the bottom lines of German power producers.”
As a result of the German government’s energy policies, base load production is not turning to COAL and away from gas. The resultant failure to meet CO2 goals are already obvious. Germany has failed since 2000 to meet its reduction goals. German electric energy prices have doubled and more. Some German industries heavily reliant upon electric energy have moved or are considering moving to areas with lower priced energy — Texas for one.
So looking back at the policies goals of reducing CO2 emissions, the opposite is occurring, and the German (and several other EU nations) economy is suffering unduly.
An interesting real world case study. We must keep observing the EU to forecast possible future problems.
Jerry Critter, is this comment in response to my reference above or the previous comment thread?
If it in response to this reference, please define the problems and their costs for your set of alternatives. Otherwise we will just discuss undefined hypotheticals defined only in our minds.
I don’t really have a set of solutions. Unless I am mistaken, I assumed that the problem you discussed in your comment was global warming and Germany’s energy solution to help mitigate it.
I am just commenting that it seems to me that you are suggesting that we should do nothing because all solutions have problems (mainly economic?). I am just pointing out that doing nothing has problems too, even if we don’t know what they are.
We agree again. In the EU policy issue, many predicted the eventual results. Their predictions have been closer to reality than those proposing the policies. If the pattern continues without changing policies the economic future for Germany is not good.
Germany has greater amounts of renewable energy sources than nearly any other country, at the same time their harmful atmospheric pollution has gone up. That was not the anticipated results.
Simultaneously their electricity power rates have sky rocketed. The only thing saving their economy is they pretty much controlled the EU policy, but that will not continue. Natural economic competition will change the pattern, and policy push back and economic survival will cause even more policy revolt from the poorer EU countries.
Finally, what happens to German energy production if Russia, China, or an OPEC country or a company from any other competitor buys the base load portion from E.On?
like some of my other efforts, it’s a linked news aggregation with some commentary, generally on fossil fuels and the environment, with a focus on fracking….i intend to update it once a week going forward, and as time permits add backdated posts over the past two years from my previously emailed newsletters on the subject…
I was reading an interesting article about Alexander Hamilton on the Jacobin Magazine site, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/reading-hamilton-from-the-left/, written by Christian Parenti. It brought back to mind a seeming contradiction that I have often wondered about whenever hearing a reference to the Federalist Society, an organization which describes itself as being, “…a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.” http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/.
Am I wrong in thinking that the Federalist Society represents an almost wholly antithetical position vis a vis government than did the original Federalists as exemplified by Alexander Hamilton?
I don’t think I could sort out what the Federalists believed. Certainly John Marshall believed in an “activist court.”
But I note that the “Federalist Society” is insane if they think they can sort out the difference between saying what the law “is” and what it “should be” or if they think :their guys on the Court don’t make stuff up in order to reach the decision that suits their political interests.
ILSM, I am only observing. Here’s an even later article re: the EU policies: http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-europe-plans-to-ditch-green-laws-clean-air-rules/
“Sources told EurActiv that Commissioners were handed a secret document yesterday at their weekly meeting. The document, outlining a list of bills to be killed off by Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans, was taken back from the Commissioners, after it was read and discussed.
A leaked version of the work programme, which emerged today, appeared to confirm the environmental laws, and 78 other pieces of pending legislation, would be scrapped.”
The EU has been a leader in this policy area, and we have been a follower by about a decade or so. Looking across the Atlantic we can see how that policy action resolves in real world economic results.
Our current administration is following the EU too closely without observing the results.
EMichael – Clearly you don’t believe green laws are the cause of Europe’s economic problems. Do you think they have nothing at all to do with it, possibly some contribution? If not the green laws, then what…in your opinion. I know austerity measures have been named as part of the problem.
If green laws have not been a problem, have they helped the EU economic problems? It seems like it must be one or the other.
EM, C’mon just a little more specificity, please. Remember President Obama’s “promise” that under his energy plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”? He and EPA are trying to make that happen. Just like in Germany?
And I have to tell you, the idea of spending(like Germany) 220 euros a year per household to build a modern, clean energy capability (and to clean up their toxic fossil fuel sites) while moving towards the inevitable future(we’ll just forget about climate change here) seems like a bargain.
Every US household right now is paying around $15 a year just to support the fossil fuel industry. Not to build a modern energy system. Not to clean up our toxic fossil fuel sites. Not to move towards the inevitable future.
So every household is saving $265 a year over the average German household. Let me know how many people would not rather spend $5 a week to get away from the past and move towards the future.
EM, 220 Euros = $275, and $275 divided by $15 is 18.3, so from your own numbers we see the average German family paying over 18 times more to move to coal generation of electricity. BTW, the coal they are using is some of the dirtiest. Where’s that modern clean energy capability?
Therefore your question: “…how many people would not rather spend $5 a week to get away from the past and move towards the future. ” is a non sequitur.
Joel, your example of German electric power being 100% generated via renewables is an interesting PROBLEM with the current renewable technology. What that actually says is that at the same time 100% of the base load was idling along and being paid for by customer overcharges or Government subsidy.
While we’re talking about subsidies, most of the German renewables were paid for by Government subsidy raising taxes for the average German family.
To summarize just the high points of the policy impacts we see higher electricity rates and taxes, dirtier generation, higher prices with energy dependent industries looking at moving, and extremely unreliable electric power, all of this in a quest for some mythical Green Dream not supportable with today’s technology.
All of this was predicted and warning warnings issued, but the Dream prevailed into policy. We are following the same Green Dream path without recognizing the potholes in that path.
The cost of household electricity will rise by as much as 40 per cent by the end of the decade because of the Government’s green energy policies.
Official figures — initially withheld by ministers — show an alarming increase in the price of electricity caused by generous subsidies to wind farms as well as other policies.
An average household is expected to pay as much as £250 more for electricity – mainly through consumer subsidies – to pay for the Government’s green energy schemes, while an electrically heated house could be as much as £440 a year worse off.
And by 2030, when thousands of planned offshore wind turbines are finally operating, the burden will be even greater, the numbers show. The average household could be paying an extra 60 per cent for electricity – equivalent to £350 more a year.
Medium-sized businesses will be hit very hard, according to the new data. On average such companies will see electricity bills rise by more than £500,000 a year – a cost likely to be passed on to consumers. “
Of course, while all the costs and subsidies of renewables are used to mount the case against them, nobody talks about the giant subsidy of coal and oil that results from ignoring the negative externalities of dumping the byproducts of fossil fuel burning. The planet is being hit very hard, according to the new data. On average, global temperatures are expected to rise by 2-4°C by the end of the century, a cost that will be passed on to all of Earth’s inhabitants.
Joel, I don’t want to make this about Climate Change, so i will ignore the temp increase estimate.
This comment is just false: “… nobody talks about the giant subsidy of coal and oil that results from ignoring the negative externalities of dumping the byproducts of fossil fuel burning.” 1) There’s a whole “Green” industry whose aim is to curtail or close the fossil fuel segment of the world’s economy,
2) On top of that we have nearly every developed country’s government is setting policies according to the wishes of that “Green” industry’s wishes.
3) Our President and many of his executive agencies have established policies to curtail growth in the fossil fuel industry.
Today, some of those policies include financial/tax incentives to change in the “Green” direction. Perceptions have changed as to the value of having a viable and efficient fossil fuel industry, but perceptions are not science. Perceptions as EM just voiced are not based upon science but emotion.
My point in citing these articles was to point out that consequences are not always good when we implement policy on emotion and perceptions which are not necessarily supported by the current science. Perceptions and emotion leads us to implement policies without considering the negative and/or unintended consequences. This has lead to a new term in may EU countries, Energy Poverty, where a growing percentage of the population is forced to decide to “heat or eat”.
Science totally disagrees with everything you say.
Scientist hired by the fossil fuel industry looking at a tiny part of the glove in a tiny time scale using severely restricted data sources agree with you, but even they have to concentrate on cherry picked data and ignore trends.
I am trying to figure out how “Our President and many of his executive agencies have established policies to curtail growth in the fossil fuel industry” when subsides for this industry were $12.5 billion a year when he took office and are now over $20 billion a year.
And if cost to the public is so important, let’s throw in all the money spent on the invasion of Iraq, which was all about oil. For that matter, let’s throw in all the money spent in the ME over the past four decades or so, cause that is all about oil too.
EM, I usually just ignore your comments. They have so little value or facts associated with them. So show where: “Science totally disagrees with everything you say.” Quote everything that I said and then the science which refutes it.
“My point in citing these articles was to point out that consequences are not always good when we implement policy on emotion”
We agree on that. Fortunately, the case against fossil fuel burning and for green energy isn’t based on emotion.
” and perceptions which are not necessarily supported by the current science.”
Heh. Judging from your many posts on many threads concerning the current science of climate change, which have been discredited over and over again by myself and others, it is clear you have no working idea of the current science.
Joel, you continue to bring up climate science in an energy comment. I will not bite. As a reminder my articles were about government policies an their unintended consequences in Germany. You guys have as usual changed the subject and argued without any factual backup.
What science supported the German decision to shut down their nuclear plants? What Green science supported the German decision to build dirty coal power plants? What Green science supported raising the rise of German and UK electricity prices by large percentages. What Green science predicted the huge increase in the “energy poor”?
Many examples exist of predictions of negative impacts from the nuclear and renewable energy policies, including what we see today in prices and increase in numbers of the “energy poor”.
EM, it was you that needed the understanding of science. Why so angry and emotional?
RJS, it might be fear of radioactive wild life, but the article you referenced actually supported my contention of emotionalism: “… to give an idea of how strict the regulations really are, experts say that a person would have to eat 13 kilograms of contaminated meat to get the same low-level radioactive effects of being on a transatlantic flight. “
“Joel, you continue to bring up climate science in an energy comment.”
LOL! Again, you demonstrate your ignorance of science, CoRev. Climate change is all about, and only about, energy. And deciding what sources of energy humans will use will affect the energy in the air, ground and water that drives climate change.
Beyond your incomprehension of how planetary energy movement is at the core of the discussion of both climate change and fossil vs alternative energy sources, my larger point is that your demonstrated ignorance on climate change, displayed over many threads on this blog, completely discredits you. You are a clock that has struck 13; nothing since can be trusted.
“I will not bite.”
Nah. You cannot bite.
” You guys have as usual changed the subject and argued without any factual backup.”
dont belittle human emotional responses, CoRev…those who panic first escape the danger, while those who attempt to determine the rational response to it are eaten by the tiger…
Is this our energy future? http://notrickszone.com/2014/12/05/top-renewable-energy-expert-warns-of-collapsing-euro-energy-supply-germanys-energy-policy-suicidal/
What I found profoundly interesting was the unanticipated consequence of E,On, Germany’s largest energy supplier splitting into two firms, base load generation and renewables generation and putting the base load sector on the market.
Hard over believers in renewable energy will crow about the success of their policy demands. Rational thinking folks will understand the failure of the policy. From the article:
“E.ON accepts that there is no longer any future for coal and nuclear power in Germany, as this is the will of the federal government and the German public. That is indeed suicidal for Germany as a location for business, and E.ON knows it. The forced shutdown of nuclear power plants, without compensation, and the loss-intensive relegation of coal and gas power plants to serve as uneconomical back-up power plants for the most-unstable renewable energies, has left a deep impression on the bottom lines of German power producers.”
As a result of the German government’s energy policies, base load production is not turning to COAL and away from gas. The resultant failure to meet CO2 goals are already obvious. Germany has failed since 2000 to meet its reduction goals. German electric energy prices have doubled and more. Some German industries heavily reliant upon electric energy have moved or are considering moving to areas with lower priced energy — Texas for one.
So looking back at the policies goals of reducing CO2 emissions, the opposite is occurring, and the German (and several other EU nations) economy is suffering unduly.
An interesting real world case study. We must keep observing the EU to forecast possible future problems.
Don’t all “solutions” have problems including the solution of doing nothing? Potential problems is not a reason to do nothing.
Jerry Critter, is this comment in response to my reference above or the previous comment thread?
If it in response to this reference, please define the problems and their costs for your set of alternatives. Otherwise we will just discuss undefined hypotheticals defined only in our minds.
(I am referring to this thread)
I don’t really have a set of solutions. Unless I am mistaken, I assumed that the problem you discussed in your comment was global warming and Germany’s energy solution to help mitigate it.
I am just commenting that it seems to me that you are suggesting that we should do nothing because all solutions have problems (mainly economic?). I am just pointing out that doing nothing has problems too, even if we don’t know what they are.
We agree again. In the EU policy issue, many predicted the eventual results. Their predictions have been closer to reality than those proposing the policies. If the pattern continues without changing policies the economic future for Germany is not good.
Germany has greater amounts of renewable energy sources than nearly any other country, at the same time their harmful atmospheric pollution has gone up. That was not the anticipated results.
Simultaneously their electricity power rates have sky rocketed. The only thing saving their economy is they pretty much controlled the EU policy, but that will not continue. Natural economic competition will change the pattern, and policy push back and economic survival will cause even more policy revolt from the poorer EU countries.
Finally, what happens to German energy production if Russia, China, or an OPEC country or a company from any other competitor buys the base load portion from E.On?
for anyone interested, i have started another blog…
http://focusonfracking.blogspot.com
like some of my other efforts, it’s a linked news aggregation with some commentary, generally on fossil fuels and the environment, with a focus on fracking….i intend to update it once a week going forward, and as time permits add backdated posts over the past two years from my previously emailed newsletters on the subject…
I was reading an interesting article about Alexander Hamilton on the Jacobin Magazine site, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/reading-hamilton-from-the-left/, written by Christian Parenti. It brought back to mind a seeming contradiction that I have often wondered about whenever hearing a reference to the Federalist Society, an organization which describes itself as being, “…a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.” http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/.
Am I wrong in thinking that the Federalist Society represents an almost wholly antithetical position vis a vis government than did the original Federalists as exemplified by Alexander Hamilton?
Jack
I don’t think I could sort out what the Federalists believed. Certainly John Marshall believed in an “activist court.”
But I note that the “Federalist Society” is insane if they think they can sort out the difference between saying what the law “is” and what it “should be” or if they think :their guys on the Court don’t make stuff up in order to reach the decision that suits their political interests.
How do you get “rational thinkers” (whatever that may be) on the other side from “believers in renewable energy”?
Do you read the “New American” tea paerty rag?
ILSM, I am only observing. Here’s an even later article re: the EU policies: http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-europe-plans-to-ditch-green-laws-clean-air-rules/
“Sources told EurActiv that Commissioners were handed a secret document yesterday at their weekly meeting. The document, outlining a list of bills to be killed off by Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans, was taken back from the Commissioners, after it was read and discussed.
A leaked version of the work programme, which emerged today, appeared to confirm the environmental laws, and 78 other pieces of pending legislation, would be scrapped.”
The EU has been a leader in this policy area, and we have been a follower by about a decade or so. Looking across the Atlantic we can see how that policy action resolves in real world economic results.
Our current administration is following the EU too closely without observing the results.
Yeah, the struggles in Europe(which strangely enough are in areas without any economic control of their economy) are caused by green laws.
geez
EMichael – Clearly you don’t believe green laws are the cause of Europe’s economic problems. Do you think they have nothing at all to do with it, possibly some contribution? If not the green laws, then what…in your opinion. I know austerity measures have been named as part of the problem.
If green laws have not been a problem, have they helped the EU economic problems? It seems like it must be one or the other.
They are unimportant to the economic condition of Europe(or parts of it).
Just another page of the Heritage playbook from CoRev.
CoRev, that you are an observer I have never doubted.
Ilsm,
With a teeny tiny microscope that allows him to restrict observing what he does not want to observe.
How can the green laws, which are economic in part, not affect the economy in one way or the other? If they have no impact, why bother with them?
Jerry,
Think on the scale of the green laws versus GDP. And if you really care, realize that not all regulations always affect economies negatively.
EM, C’mon just a little more specificity, please. Remember President Obama’s “promise” that under his energy plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”? He and EPA are trying to make that happen. Just like in Germany?
” . . .“electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”?. . . Just like in Germany? ”
Hmm.
“For A Brief Moment Last Week, Electricity Prices In Germany Dropped To Zero”
http://www.businessinsider.com/electricity-prices-in-germany-down-to-zero-2014-5
You want me to be specific?
A teeny tiny microscope that only allows you to look at 2% of the problem.
A teeny tiny microscope that only allows you to look at one small period of time.
And I have to tell you, the idea of spending(like Germany) 220 euros a year per household to build a modern, clean energy capability (and to clean up their toxic fossil fuel sites) while moving towards the inevitable future(we’ll just forget about climate change here) seems like a bargain.
Every US household right now is paying around $15 a year just to support the fossil fuel industry. Not to build a modern energy system. Not to clean up our toxic fossil fuel sites. Not to move towards the inevitable future.
So every household is saving $265 a year over the average German household. Let me know how many people would not rather spend $5 a week to get away from the past and move towards the future.
EM, 220 Euros = $275, and $275 divided by $15 is 18.3, so from your own numbers we see the average German family paying over 18 times more to move to coal generation of electricity. BTW, the coal they are using is some of the dirtiest. Where’s that modern clean energy capability?
Therefore your question: “…how many people would not rather spend $5 a week to get away from the past and move towards the future. ” is a non sequitur.
Joel, your example of German electric power being 100% generated via renewables is an interesting PROBLEM with the current renewable technology. What that actually says is that at the same time 100% of the base load was idling along and being paid for by customer overcharges or Government subsidy.
While we’re talking about subsidies, most of the German renewables were paid for by Government subsidy raising taxes for the average German family.
To summarize just the high points of the policy impacts we see higher electricity rates and taxes, dirtier generation, higher prices with energy dependent industries looking at moving, and extremely unreliable electric power, all of this in a quest for some mythical Green Dream not supportable with today’s technology.
All of this was predicted and warning warnings issued, but the Dream prevailed into policy. We are following the same Green Dream path without recognizing the potholes in that path.
And in the UK we have this estimate: http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/electric-prices-to-rise-by-40/
“Don’t say I did not warn you!
The cost of household electricity will rise by as much as 40 per cent by the end of the decade because of the Government’s green energy policies.
Official figures — initially withheld by ministers — show an alarming increase in the price of electricity caused by generous subsidies to wind farms as well as other policies.
An average household is expected to pay as much as £250 more for electricity – mainly through consumer subsidies – to pay for the Government’s green energy schemes, while an electrically heated house could be as much as £440 a year worse off.
And by 2030, when thousands of planned offshore wind turbines are finally operating, the burden will be even greater, the numbers show. The average household could be paying an extra 60 per cent for electricity – equivalent to £350 more a year.
Medium-sized businesses will be hit very hard, according to the new data. On average such companies will see electricity bills rise by more than £500,000 a year – a cost likely to be passed on to consumers. “
Of course, while all the costs and subsidies of renewables are used to mount the case against them, nobody talks about the giant subsidy of coal and oil that results from ignoring the negative externalities of dumping the byproducts of fossil fuel burning. The planet is being hit very hard, according to the new data. On average, global temperatures are expected to rise by 2-4°C by the end of the century, a cost that will be passed on to all of Earth’s inhabitants.
CoRev,
Some day you will post a link from a site not funded by the fossil fuel industry.
But not today.
Joel, I don’t want to make this about Climate Change, so i will ignore the temp increase estimate.
This comment is just false: “… nobody talks about the giant subsidy of coal and oil that results from ignoring the negative externalities of dumping the byproducts of fossil fuel burning.” 1) There’s a whole “Green” industry whose aim is to curtail or close the fossil fuel segment of the world’s economy,
2) On top of that we have nearly every developed country’s government is setting policies according to the wishes of that “Green” industry’s wishes.
3) Our President and many of his executive agencies have established policies to curtail growth in the fossil fuel industry.
Today, some of those policies include financial/tax incentives to change in the “Green” direction. Perceptions have changed as to the value of having a viable and efficient fossil fuel industry, but perceptions are not science. Perceptions as EM just voiced are not based upon science but emotion.
My point in citing these articles was to point out that consequences are not always good when we implement policy on emotion and perceptions which are not necessarily supported by the current science. Perceptions and emotion leads us to implement policies without considering the negative and/or unintended consequences. This has lead to a new term in may EU countries, Energy Poverty, where a growing percentage of the population is forced to decide to “heat or eat”.
Forgot the energy poverty link: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html
This is just one of many for several countries.
Science totally disagrees with everything you say.
Scientist hired by the fossil fuel industry looking at a tiny part of the glove in a tiny time scale using severely restricted data sources agree with you, but even they have to concentrate on cherry picked data and ignore trends.
I am trying to figure out how “Our President and many of his executive agencies have established policies to curtail growth in the fossil fuel industry” when subsides for this industry were $12.5 billion a year when he took office and are now over $20 billion a year.
And if cost to the public is so important, let’s throw in all the money spent on the invasion of Iraq, which was all about oil. For that matter, let’s throw in all the money spent in the ME over the past four decades or so, cause that is all about oil too.
EM, I usually just ignore your comments. They have so little value or facts associated with them. So show where: “Science totally disagrees with everything you say.” Quote everything that I said and then the science which refutes it.
“My point in citing these articles was to point out that consequences are not always good when we implement policy on emotion”
We agree on that. Fortunately, the case against fossil fuel burning and for green energy isn’t based on emotion.
” and perceptions which are not necessarily supported by the current science.”
Heh. Judging from your many posts on many threads concerning the current science of climate change, which have been discredited over and over again by myself and others, it is clear you have no working idea of the current science.
CoRev,
Joel’s last sentence clearly answers your question to me.
Don’t want to add up the real dollar costs of fossil fuel policies to the US? Add up the lives.
Joel, you continue to bring up climate science in an energy comment. I will not bite. As a reminder my articles were about government policies an their unintended consequences in Germany. You guys have as usual changed the subject and argued without any factual backup.
What science supported the German decision to shut down their nuclear plants? What Green science supported the German decision to build dirty coal power plants? What Green science supported raising the rise of German and UK electricity prices by large percentages. What Green science predicted the huge increase in the “energy poor”?
Many examples exist of predictions of negative impacts from the nuclear and renewable energy policies, including what we see today in prices and increase in numbers of the “energy poor”.
EM, it was you that needed the understanding of science. Why so angry and emotional?
could be the germans were tired of living with radioactive wildlife roaming their country, three decades after a nuclear accident 1000 miles away..
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/chernobyl-disaster-leaves-radioactive-wild-boars-roaming-germany-n193596
chernobyl will remain hot for another 10000 years, about 5 times longer than christianity lasted..
RJS, it might be fear of radioactive wild life, but the article you referenced actually supported my contention of emotionalism: “… to give an idea of how strict the regulations really are, experts say that a person would have to eat 13 kilograms of contaminated meat to get the same low-level radioactive effects of being on a transatlantic flight. “
“Joel, you continue to bring up climate science in an energy comment.”
LOL! Again, you demonstrate your ignorance of science, CoRev. Climate change is all about, and only about, energy. And deciding what sources of energy humans will use will affect the energy in the air, ground and water that drives climate change.
Beyond your incomprehension of how planetary energy movement is at the core of the discussion of both climate change and fossil vs alternative energy sources, my larger point is that your demonstrated ignorance on climate change, displayed over many threads on this blog, completely discredits you. You are a clock that has struck 13; nothing since can be trusted.
“I will not bite.”
Nah. You cannot bite.
” You guys have as usual changed the subject and argued without any factual backup.”
Projecting much, CoRev?
Joel, 🙂 Maybe some other day. We just discussed Climate Change. You had your chance then.
CoRev,
No input on the external costs of fossil fuel energy on the US?
dont belittle human emotional responses, CoRev…those who panic first escape the danger, while those who attempt to determine the rational response to it are eaten by the tiger…
EM, nope, not my interest.
RJS, ;-), fight or flight?
I see.
So costs mean nothing?
Or is that only when you are talking about energy costs in Germany and England?
I would think Heritage has given you a playbook concerning $1 Trillion in external energy costs(plus 5000 dead, 100,000 wounded).
Oh, wait.
The playbook says “not my interest”.
Cretin.
Naked Capitalism provides important coverage of changes to multi employer pension plans in the just passed Cromnibus bill: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/12/cromnibus-pension-provisions-gut-forty-years-policy-allow-existing-pensions-slashed.html
They failed (so far!) to gut SS so sneak in to weaken private pension obligations won by collective bargaining. Despicable as it is bi partisan .
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/29/ipcc_ar5_decadal_tempavg.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg