ChairmanMeow said:

Admit it, we're a lot more fun than an econ class

---

Believe me, I wish you guys were.  But it's simply not the case

teknix said:

The populace are sheep that are going to be flocked regardless, might as well set them in the appropriate direction, imo. I think this is more of a case of being manipulated than being lied to. Social Engineering 101, for a good cause.

---

Quote:

Wiccan_Seeker said: See you guys in the Mormon food line I guess, where your hungry ass will get fed listening to dozens of Biblical references to I Told You So.

---

LO-Fucking-L if you sincerely think that that or something like that is going to happen in our lifetime.

teknix said:

I think in some circumstances it's for the best. if 10% of the people that wiccan preaches this shit too believe it, and invest in alternative energies because of this, is there really any harm done?

---

Quote:

If anything its helping them and us in the long run.

---

Quote:

This is a very debatable topic, I can't really say your wrong, just give my own opinion on the matter...

---

Quote:

Its actually one of the reasons I don't speak out against religion. Of course the extremist and fanatics excluded.

---

teknix said:

You judge for yourself, that's the whole point. No one makes you believe anything. It there for you to do as you will.

---

AlphaFalfa said:

This video is worst case scenerio.

Some of what it says is downright

10 years? Try at least 25 most likely 50.

I am an environmental and resource studies major, researched plenty on oil depletion. The studies are far from being concrete, it is incredibly difficult to make any assumption about the current amount of oil that exists in reserves. This guy is one in a sea of experts on the subject...I have read some statistics that show we will have enough oil for atleast 100 years from now, some say 75, others 50. And yes there is always the everyone run we have 10 years left AHHHHHHH crowd.

For example, some thing usually missed out by these doomsayers, are things like changes in the global climate are beginning to give us access to shipping routes that we never had before, particularly in the north pole. There is quite a lot of projected reserves in the north pole, numbers are still difficult to tell, but we always never searched due to no shipping ability. Now we do have this and just about one year or two ago, companies began to explore and exploration takes years many times in such a new type of landscape such as the north pole. Remember the north pole isnt just ice, it is ice covering land.

Also, the extensive methane reserves in the north pole or arctic are another energy sources that is already liquified and has alot of capacity to act as a ready example of alternatives.

Honestly, I dont feel like researching about this, I did a whole semester on this crap and right now my primary interest is my health.

---

Drilling on the north pole...

Quote:

Less Bang for your Buck: Sure, the government can create jobs. They can use our taxpayer dollars to hire workers to dig holes and fill them back up. But if there’s no net gain in productivity and wealth, the job is a waste. For instance, we could replace all of the world’s mechanized agriculture equipment with hoe wielding farmers, and that would create jobs. But it would also significantly reduce productivity and efficiency. The economic reasoning for switching from more efficient machinery to less efficient human capital is such a baseless plan any politician suggesting it would be laughed out of office.

Yet that is the exact premise of the green jobs boondoggle. The government wants to mandate and subsidize labor intensive, inefficient, and expensive power sources. But the problem is that if it takes more labor and capital to produce renewable energy, there is a net cost to the economy. Proponents of wind and solar argue this is a good thing. Apparently they forgot the there’s-no-free-lunch-lesson you learn in Economics 101. Government spending will create some jobs to build windmills and solar panels and work at biomass plants but this diverts labor, capital and materials from the private sector that could be used more efficiently to create even more jobs. In effect, government subsidized green jobs destroy jobs elsewhere.

Cap and trade, while not part of the green stimulus, is being marketed as such. Because of higher energy prices, some jobs will be destroyed completely while others will move overseas where carbon capping isn’t in their country’s agenda and therefore the cost of production is cheaper. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that, for the average year over the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses will be 1.1 million greater than without a cap and trade bill. By 2035, there is a projected 2.5 million fewer jobs.

Green Stimulus Already Failing: Thus far, the effort to create or save jobs with a green initiative hasn’t been very successful. In Baltimore, for instance, stimulus dollars have been spent to patch roads, install newer furnaces and painting rooftops white to conserve energy. According to the Washington Post’s Alec MacGillis, none of these projects, as well as others, have created a single job. Another example is in the state of Indiana, where companies have “weatherized 82 homes out of its three-year goal of 25,000, and reported zero new jobs from the spending.”

Learning from Europe’s Mistakes: A research institute located in Germany recently released a study on the economic impacts of that country’s green energy initiative. Commissioned by the Institute for Energy Research (IER), the report finds with per worker subsidies for solar industry jobs are as high as $240,000.

Spain is a country President Obama says the U.S. should replicate when it comes to energy policy, saying, “they’re making real investments in renewable energy.” But real investments aren’t necessarily good investments. Another IER-commissioned study coming out of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid by Gabriel Calzada found that, for every green job created, 2.2 jobs in other sectors have been destroyed. Furthermore, Spain’s government spent $758,471 to create each green job and used $36 billion in taxpayer money to invest in wind, solar, and mini-hydro from 2000-2008. The country’s unemployment rate is currently at 19.4%.

The economically rational way to create jobs and expand green energy is to allow them to compete freely in the market, end dependence on the government, and eliminate regulatory barriers to entry. Like all energy sources, green energy should be able to live or die on its own two feet.

In time and with the proper policies in place, renewable energy might be inexpensive and efficient. If the private sector can create wealth by hiring green laborers for renewable energy projects (absent federal handouts), it will do so. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s “Project No Project” lists all the renewable energy plans not moving forward and the groups that are opposing them. The NIMBY, regulatory litigation problems make it difficult, not just for renewable sources, but all sources of energy stifle real job creation and economic growth. To fix this Congress and the administration should:

---

teknix said:

I think in some circumstances it's for the best.

---

AlphaFalfa said:

Remember the north pole isnt just ice, it is ice covering land.

---

starfire_xes said:

so, we are running out of oil, but are we running out of energy?  Ask someone who is trained engineer/physicist you will hear.  'No'  because there is absoloutely no shortage of energy. fucking idiots like Gore would have you believe otherwise....

---

AlphaFalfa said:

Wow I sure am glad me and you will never meet.

"I've heard this apocalyptic bilge my entire life."

Your ignorance is almost as bad as you lude temper and lack of creativity in your writing.

Suckers?? hahaha

---

Quote:

Remember the 1930's...do you recall that almost 25% of americans were out of work and not to mention the thousands that were not even considered workers such as country folk, small town gold miners, and the biggest, the farmers....unemployment rate in america was probally more around 75-90% of the population.

---

Quote:

How is this not apocalypse, you sorry excuse for a political argumentative being?

---

Quote:

Some things in life a FUCKING baffling. Stop insulting people and move on with your life already, your crushing the shroomery vibe.

---

AlphaFalfa said:

Wow I sure am glad me and you will never meet.

"I've heard this apocalyptic bilge my entire life."

Your ignorance is almost as bad as you lude temper and lack of creativity in your writing.

Suckers?? hahaha

Remember the 1930's...do you recall that almost 25% of americans were out of work and not to mention the thousands that were not even considered workers such as country folk, small town gold miners, and the biggest, the farmers....unemployment rate in america was probally more around 75-90% of the population.

How is this not apocalypse, you sorry excuse for a political argumentative being?

Some things in life a FUCKING baffling. Stop insulting people and move on with your life already, your crushing the shroomery vibe.

---