[SATLUG] off-topic Solar-PV discussion
dkowis at shlrm.org
Thu May 27 08:45:23 CDT 2010
On 5/27/2010 8:06 AM, Borries Demeler wrote:
>> Where does CPS get it's money? Where do the Feds get their money?
>> You'll end up paying for the subsidized items eventually. Rather, all of
>> us will end up paying for your PV system, whether we want to or not...
> I'd much rather pay for solar panels than for oil-spill cleanups and damage from
> climate crisis, and the damage caused by mercury toxification from coal-burning
> power plants, not to speak of consequences of CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere.
I don't have any right to tell you what you have to do with your money,
and neither should the government. At least when it comes to things not
specifically enumerated as federal powers. (State governments are
governed by their constitutions, and as such people living there will be
subject to different rules.)
I don't think we should have to pay for oil-spill cleanups through
taxes. If the companies were fully responsible for their actions,
perhaps they'd have more incentive not to screw up. Under current
Federal Law, they are only on the hook for $75,000,000. Taxes on barrels
of oil imported to the country are supposed to keep a $1,000,000,000
fund available to have the federal government foot the rest of the bill.
Recently, the democrats tried to pass legislation that would raise the
$75,000,000 to $10,000,000,000 but the republicans blocked it. Now,
legislation has been proposed to quadruple the tax on the oil to raise
the federal government's responsibility to $5,000,000,000. Socialized
risk, privatized reward, and paying off legislators.
As for the supposed consequences of CO2 'enrichment' of the atmosphere:
I cannot accept any climate science that has been published by
scientists that admit to forging the data and basically lying about
their research. Making any laws or legislation fixing a supposed problem
we don't completely understand is only being used as an excuse to get
government to support companies that lobby it by making changes to the
market in their favor.
A few reads:
All this being said, I think the best way to protect our environment is
to make individuals responsible for what they do. I can't barf out tons
of nasty black smoke into my back yard because I share the air around my
property with my neighbors. I can't dump gallons of $TOXIC_WASTE into my
back yard because it'll leech into the water supply, which we all share.
If I could ensure that all this would be contained on my property, then
I could do whatever I want.
Making people take responsibility for their actions is the best way to
ensure that they don't ruin things we all share, and they've got
incentive not to ruin things they own, because, well, they own them and
ruining it reduces it's value and usefulness. Unless, of course, they're
building a waste disposal facility with the express purpose of
handling/processing/storing these waste products.
If BP had been on the hook for the entirety of the damages they caused,
might they have done something different? Might there have been better
security/safety at the plant to prevent the explosion in the first place?
Someone mentioned Freakonomics and here's someone else talking about it
too, an interesting read at least: http://mises.org/daily/3825
More information about the SATLUG