Politics

[Cackalacky]

Some of you (particularly Cacky) might find this interesting-- How Culture Wars Hijack Science Discussions:

The National Science Foundation recently proposed removing the true/false evolution question from its survey of scientific knowledge altogether, because they found “giving the correct answer to that question doesn’t cohere with giving the right answer to the other questions in NSF’s science-literacy inventory.” As Kahan continues, “What that tells you, if you understand test-question validity, is that the evolution item isn’t measuring the same thing as the other science-literacy items.” While the other scientific knowledge questions did cohere, the NSF researchers found that their evolution question was instead measuring cultural identifiers, especially “the significance of religiosity in their lives.” Given the fraught cultural history behind the evolution debate, it makes a great deal of sense that a question that has been explicitly framed, by both sides, as an irreconcilable conflict between science and religion would come to be determined by attitudes towards religion.

What was a more surprising result, to me at least, was that “as their level of science comprehension increases, individuals with a highly secular identity become more likely to say ‘they believe’ in evolution; but as those with a highly religious identity become more science literate, in contrast, they become even more likely to say they don’t.” This result is repeated on climate change, “as their score on one or another measure of science comprehension goes up, Democrats become more likely, and Republicans less, to say they ‘believe’ in human-caused global warming.”

As Kahan takes pains to emphasize, then, arguments over evolution and climate change are absolutely not matters of scientific education, or knowledge vs. ignorance. They’re culture wars. One can obtain an “impeccable” Ph.D. studying paleontology, or practice neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins, and still answer an evolution true/false question in the negative. Likewise, one can enthusiastically and indignantly affirm evolution’s truth while not having the first idea of how to explain genetic mutations.

Kahan emphasizes that “we must disentangle competing positions on climate change from opposing cultural identities, so that culturally pluralistic citizens aren’t put in the position of having to choose between knowing what’s known to science and being who they are.” And, “you must take pains not to confuse understanding evolutionary science with the ‘pledge of cultural allegiance’ that ‘I believe in evolution’ has become.” Rod Dreher recently made a similar point regarding conservatives and environmentalism.

As I pointed out last week, antibiotic resistance is one area of real public concern and true danger where the public seems to have a decent grasp on how it happens. Well, recent red-state icon Chick-fil-A, whose corporate purpose is “to glorify God,” has announced that it will source all of its sandwiches from antibiotic-free chickens. Mixing antibiotics into the feed of livestock to get them to grow faster is a significant source of the antibiotic resistance scientists and public heath experts are so worried about. Fast food chains directing their substantial purchasing power against this practice would be a significant, concrete step in the right direction. And insofar as such efforts are burdened with blue-state culture war baggage, science will only be set back.

Kahan closes with an example of a Florida project where broad public support was marshaled across Democratic and Republican counties to address sea-level changes and climate effects. And in his experience, “the culturally pluralistic, and effective form of science communication happening in southeast Florida doesn’t look anything like the culturally assaultive ‘us-vs-them’ YouTube videos and prefabricated internet comments with which Climate Reality and Organizing for American are flooding national discourse.” Red staters can be just as polarizing in their culture war salvos. Both sides should conduct their cultural arguments in the open, and stop hiding behind science.

None of this surprises me as evolution (highly polarizing to the religious) and climate change (highly polarizing due to politics) are the two subjects in which this occurs. I agree with the idea of disentangling beliefs versus evident fact based knowledge. It is dangerous to "believe" something without a basis or relying on others for information. This is exactly the power of the scientific method as it lets a person, such as myself be able to rely on knowledge obtained from others because the information obtained is peer-reviewed, confirmed, re-tested, etc. so there is a high probability that what is put forward is repeatable and a part of reality. I have posted two extensive posts on climate change already and I could do the same for evolution but it will most likely fall on deaf ears.

Whiskey, we had a great exchange in the God, Jesus, Bible thread and I learned a ton regarding philosophy, and this article touches on another aspect of some of those topics discussed in that thread. As a scientist/engineer, the limitations of the method are well known and we readily admit there is a point at which testing and material observations are not valid. I cannot say the same for educated people (religious or not) who do not understand the method or its limitations or accept that, even religiously speaking, there is a point at which the leap of faith must be made. It is my opinion though that I will stake my claim in the portions of reality that can be confirmed via scientific method and logic and if I cannot move past it (such as our discussion about the meaningfulness of a necessary being), then I will remain positively agnostic about it.

For me the biggest issue that goes un-addressed in his article is how one reconciles materialistically-obtained facts with one's dogma, or more simply, firmly-held belief structures. I think a scientifically literate person is more able to assimilate the new knowledge, compared to one with a firmly held dogma. That is the biggest road block to avoiding the culture wars IMO for all people and all belief structures. The fact that evolution can conflict with the idea that man was specially created by a creator can cause a significant amount of cognitive dissonance. That does not make it any less true though and people who politicize the teaching of it (as is currently on-going in my state right now) are doing a disservice to the idea, the knowledge obtained, and its future dissemination.

Likewise, the extreme politicization of climate change (on both sides) is crushing progress and development of net-positive or net-neutral technologies that could be beneficial and profitable.

Anyway, my two cents.

Great article.

 

[ACamp1900]

Quite a few have touched on underlying issue of party lines and such:

Funny story, over the weekend I was in Palm Springs for a Bach. Party (College buddy is killing himself, er... getting married, next month)

So my HS best friend is there as well (same college circles) and we both grew up total hard lined Dems (which he still very much is).

He starts going off on 'simple minds' who blame the POTUS for everything, and very much voiced his frustration on people ‘who just hear crap from friends, family and 'news sources' and spew it back as fact’... he firmly believed people like this shouldn't be voting. He drops numerous points along the lines of, "People need to realize the Pres is really a figure head anyway and nut up and try working at the local level to get things changed… whining about it helps NOTHING." Cited examples of people blaming Obama for things that are really local and state problems/issues. I was fine with his opinion until…..

Maybe five minutes later someone else mentioned Reagan as the 'last great President' and he went off... ‘Reagan put crack in the ghettos’... ‘crime went wild in urban centers, he was a horrible President.’… ‘Republicans are racist’…

Despite all the talk, it obviously just came down to defending the dems’ BS and attacking the right. Hold the party line. Period.

I felt it fit into the current discussion and I came away thinking, “yeah... he's pretty the American voter in a nut shell... excuse making, rationalizing and hypocrisy.” Honestly, those of strong party affiliations are just lying to themselves for the most part imo.

As has been said numerous times... the party system stinks to all hell and gone.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Whiskey, we had a great exchange in the God, Jesus, Bible thread and I learned a ton regarding philosophy, and this article touches on another aspect of some of those topics discussed in that thread. As a scientist/engineer, the limitations of the method are well known and we readily admit there is a point at which testing and material observations are not valid. I cannot say the same for educated people (religious or not) who do not understand the method or its limitations or accept that, even religiously speaking, there is a point at which the leap of faith must be made. It is my opinion though that I will stake my claim in the portions of reality that can be confirmed via scientific method and logic and if I cannot move past it (such as our discussion about the meaningfulness of a necessary being), then I will remain positively agnostic about it.

I didn't intend to "call you out" by posting the article above. I've gone on record many times stating that I see no inherent conflict between religion and science, and that no reasonable person can doubt the supremacy of empiricism when it comes to describing the material universe. I believe in (theistic) evolution, and based on the evidence I've seen, anthropogenic global warming is probably occurring. So I don't think there's any substantive disagreement between us here.

For me the biggest issue that goes un-addressed in his article is how one reconciles materialistically-obtained facts with one's dogma, or more simply, firmly-held belief structures. I think a scientifically literate person is more able to assimilate the new knowledge, compared to one with a firmly held dogma. That is the biggest road block to avoiding the culture wars IMO for all people and all belief structures. The fact that evolution can conflict with the idea that man was specially created by a creator can cause a significant amount of cognitive dissonance. That does not make it any less true though and people who politicize the teaching of it (as is currently on-going in my state right now) are doing a disservice to the idea, the knowledge obtained, and its future dissemination.

My take on the article was slightly different. I think the American political left, by claiming empiricism for "its side" and thereby politicizing science, does significant harm to our ability to reach consensus on thorny issues like global warming. The data make it clear that, even for highly educated people, identity politics tend to trump scientific data (no matter how objectively obtained), so we need to make damned sure we aren't politicizing empiricism. It's simply counter-productive.

Likewise, the extreme politicization of climate change (on both sides) is crushing progress and development of net-positive or net-neutral technologies that could be beneficial and profitable.

Agreed.

Honestly, those of strong party affiliations are just lying to themselves for the most part imo.

Partisanship is a mental disability.

 

[Cackalacky]

I didn't intend to "call you out" by posting the article above. I've gone on record many times stating that I see no inherent conflict between religion and science, and that no reasonable person can doubt the supremacy of empiricism when it comes to describing the material universe. I believe in (theistic) evolution, and based on the evidence I've seen, anthropogenic global warming is probably occurring. So I don't think there's any substantive disagreement between us here.

No worries there. I did not think you were calling me out. I just added my own perspective. I had never thought about it like the author laid it out so I appreciate you posting the article. Many people, particularly Americans (based on the article and the NSF report) do see a significant conflict. I think this is a big issue. It will be problematic if we as a nation cannot come to a consensus on controversial ideas/concepts.

My take on the article was slightly different. I think the American political left, by claiming empiricism for "its side" and thereby politicizing science, does significant harm to our ability to reach consensus on thorny issues like global warming. The data make it clear that, even for highly educated people, identity politics tend to trump scientific data (no matter how objectively obtained), so we need to make damned sure we aren't politicizing empiricism. It's simply counter-productive.

While I agree that either side of the political spectrum should stop politicizing scientific issues, and I acknowledge that the left has claimed the side of empiricism, the right has done significant harm to "its side" by denial of certain truths and empirically derived evidence 1) because it conflicts with deeply-held religious beliefs, 2) it is framed as anti-business, and 3) it is politically convenient/inconvenient (whatever the wind may be).

I just want to see an honest public discourse and a public value in knowledge.

 

[chicago51]

I get the whole evolutionary conflict with religion. Quite frankly I don't give a rats rear end what someone believes on the issue.

What does climate science have to do with religion? I think I know the Bible at least the new trestmant fairly well. I don't see it.

By the way while I believe climate is a serious issue we are all going to regret one day I don't agree with how the Democrats have handled.

We ought to be looking at the German model. They are generating a lot of power from localized solar panels on homes. Despite being one of the more cloudy countries in Europe on average they generate 10 percent of solar power and are on pace for 25 percent by 2030 ish.

The Democrats have done little to support localized green policies. Many of the centralized green companies where risky start ups that failed and wasted tax payer subsidies, yes some worked out but it may have not been worth the cost.

With the green technology we have an opportunity to have more localized sources of electricity. Centralized power regardless of its type rather it be nuclear, fossil fuel, or green results in contrentated wealth for the power companies many of whom have natural monopolies and with that concentrated political power.

Also a more widespread and localized grid is more resillant to problems such as weather, and accidents. A severe by power outage is less likely to occur with a more energy diverse and more localized sources of energy.

We are always going to need centralized power plants but the more localized we can make electricity the better.

 

[magogian]

We ought to be looking at the German model. They are generating a lot of power from localized solar panels on homes. Despite being one of the more cloudy countries in Europe on average they generate 10 percent of solar power and are on pace for 25 percent by 2030 ish.

Hilarious.

You mean the German green energy revolution that has created electricity prices triple that of the US?

You mean that German green energy revolution that has created such unreliable and expensive power source that Germany has been forced to bring on line multiple, dirty coal power plants?

That German green energy revolution that has caused increased carbon emissions?

Yes, by all means, let's look there.

 

[T Town Tommy]

The Benghazi attack is a big old yawn for me......Don't care.

Then the Administration succeeded with you cacky. When is the death of an American Ambassador and three other Americans acceptable? The events happened... the politics came in to play when this Administration tried to cover up what actually happened. And their hopes to drag out any investigation in to the events appears to have succeeded with some. I would believe that most people, including me, would want to know what happened. The families of the dead deserve that... whether you or I don't.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Freedom of Information Act requests are a typical way of getting information from government agencies/administrations. Your post makes it sound like some extraordinary measures were taken to peel away. That does not appear to be the case. People much higher in the food chain have already been linked to the Benghazi talking points, including Ms. Rice who delivered them during interviews. This isn't really a bombshell.

The issue here is that the Administration did not turn over these documents to Congress when it was originally asked for them. Why? The emails are pretty self explanatory. It took a federal judge to force them to turn the docs over through a FOIA request. The bobmbshell is the emails show the direct link to the White House and the attempts to cover up the actual events. That's what is important.

 

[NDFANnSouthWest]

Carney got his ass handed to him today.

 

[T Town Tommy]

We've got to get away from this **** of blaming the party in power every time someone attacks Americans. We should be standing united like we did following 911. An attack like Benghazi is an attack on America. Hillary Clinton didn't attack the Benghazi Embassy. Obama didn't order an attack on our own embassy. Susan Rice didn't provide weapons. We were attacked by terrorists.

Does anyone else think the America haters have figured out how to use their attacks to influence American elections? If you don't like the policy of the United States party in power, then attack some soft American target so Americans can begin the blame game and throw out the bums whose policy you oppose.

I think the runners of the world showed more courage than our politicians. Runner after runner competing in this year's Boston Marathon mentioned the fact that they would not be intimidated by what happened last year. No word games. No blaming other Americans. No political grandstanding. Just courage and determination not to be intimidated. Our politicians should take notice and do the same when America is attacked.

I agree that we should stand united. But when the Administration lied to the families of the dead, as well as the rest of the country, in order to preserve their seat in power, we all Americans should be demanding answers. I am thankful for a press that won't stop asking questions in search of the truth. Unfortunately, it appears a liberal media doesn't want to do their jobs here. Same with the IRS and the NSA scandals. Sadly, a US Ambassador lost his life, as well as three other Americans. Attacks on embassies happen all the time. Covering up the truth behind them, regardless of who is in power is something completely different. As far as the IRS and NSA scandals, those two can reach you and I as individuals. That doesn't scare you? It does me. I personally know one of the biggest targets of the IRS scandal and what the government has done to her is atrocious. We should be demanding answers... not waiting for the government to turn their eyes on us before we do either.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Carney got his ass handed to him today.

He should have. He repeatedly lied to the press about the whole issue and now his name shows up as receiving emails about blaming a video to protect the political interest of the Pres. He should have to answer, especially to the families of the victims.

 

[NDFANnSouthWest]

He should have. He repeatedly lied to the press about the whole issue and now his name shows up as receiving emails about blaming a video to protect the political interest of the Pres. He should have to answer, especially to the families of the victims.

Oh i think it was deserved. He is a wezzel.

 

[Cackalacky]

Then the Administration succeeded with you cacky. When is the death of an American Ambassador and three other Americans acceptable? The events happened... the politics came in to play when this Administration tried to cover up what actually happened. And their hopes to drag out any investigation in to the events appears to have succeeded with some. I would believe that most people, including me, would want to know what happened. The families of the dead deserve that... whether you or I don't.

Make no mistake. No administration will ever succeed with me for many reasons. The partisan attack of a possible coverup over one of 25 embassy bombings over the last 3 decades is WAY DOWN ON THE TOTEM POLE of the gushing red ledger that is our government's foreign policy. I apologize if you think my dismissive attitude toward the USA's SOP is shocking.

I think as long as our international SOP is an interventionist one "securing" our interests abroad, things like this will happen.

 

[chicago51]

Hilarious.

You mean the German green energy revolution that has created electricity prices triple that of the US?

You mean that German green energy revolution that has created such unreliable and expensive power source that Germany has been forced to bring on line multiple, dirty coal power plants?

That German green energy revolution that has caused increased carbon emissions?

Yes, by all means, let's look there.

Are a subscriber to the financial times becomes I can't access to any of these.

I would like to see the data they used to come up with their claims.

The expense part is probably true mostly and maybe a bit overstated. Green energy is more expensive than fossil fuels as well nuclear power for that matter when you don't factor in the external cost. Our power is so cheap right now because we are not paying the external cost for what 97% of the peer reviewed scientist say is causing irreversible damage to our planet. If we start paying that external cost the prices for alternative sources become competitive. Yes unfortunately it means it is more expensive.

My whole point of the post was never that we could generate all our energy through green methods here in 2014, we cannot. My point as the green technology continues to improve and come down in cost (which always happens with technology) we ought move to have more localized sources of energy as opposed the centralized power method we have.

I think someone who is claims government is horrible and corrupt, would be worried about the corruption from concentrated wealth and political lobbying power that comes from having centralized power generation regardless of the type.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The expense part is probably true mostly and maybe a bit overstated. Green energy is more expensive than fossil fuels as well nuclear power for that matter when you don't factor in the external cost. Our power is so cheap right now because we are not paying the external cost for what 97% of the peer reviewed scientist say is causing irreversible damage to our planet. If we start paying that external cost the prices for alternative sources become competitive. Yes unfortunately it means it is more expensive.

Tell that to the tens of millions who would struggle to heat their homes if the US switched overnight to green energy.

Goldman Sachs says that in 2034 solar power will be on par with fossil fuels in terms of price. That's about when you'll see green energy make sense to average people.

 

[chicago51]

Tell that to the tens of millions who would struggle to heat their homes if the US switched overnight to green energy.

Fair point.

 

[chicago51]

What about a revenue neutral carbon tax. Tax carbon pollution but rebate 100% of the tax revenue back to the American people and businesses.

Yes people are pretty much just getting their money right back but now cleaner energy becomes more competitive quicker than 2030. Private industry will make the switch over.

No more energy subsidies for any type of energy. No more failed Obama green energy stimulus to risky start ups. The energy companies will make the transition themselves if the cost is there.

 

[Cackalacky]

I believe the majority of solar energy in Germany is privately owned. http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/veroeffentlichungen-pdf-dateien-en/studien-und-konzeptpapiere/recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf

Here in the US, particularly Florida privately held energy is illegal...LOL....
Florida Makes Off-Grid Living Illegal – Mandates All Homes Must Be Connected To An Electricity Grid | Collective-Evolution

#Merica$$billsy'all

 

[EddytoNow]

I agree that we should stand united. But when the Administration lied to the families of the dead, as well as the rest of the country, in order to preserve their seat in power, we all Americans should be demanding answers. I am thankful for a press that won't stop asking questions in search of the truth. Unfortunately, it appears a liberal media doesn't want to do their jobs here. Same with the IRS and the NSA scandals. Sadly, a US Ambassador lost his life, as well as three other Americans. Attacks on embassies happen all the time. Covering up the truth behind them, regardless of who is in power is something completely different. As far as the IRS and NSA scandals, those two can reach you and I as individuals. That doesn't scare you? It does me. I personally know one of the biggest targets of the IRS scandal and what the government has done to her is atrocious. We should be demanding answers... not waiting for the government to turn their eyes on us before we do either.

Here's where you and I most disagree. You blame the liberal media. I blame all the media, a media that has been bought and sold to the highest bidder. Where was the conservative media during the Bush administration's attempt to cover up their advance knowledge of threatened attacks prior to 911? The conservative media blamed the previous Democratic president, who had left office 8 months earlier. The media shouldn't be liberal or conservative, it should be unbiased in its attempt to publicize the truth. We haven't had an unbiased media in many years. We need more journalists with the tenacity of Jack Anderson, a reporter who dug for the truth no matter where it led. He was a journalist who actually struck fear in politicians concerned that his next revelation might be about them, and it didn't matter what political party to which they belonged. Unfortunately, the media is more concerned with profits than serving as a neutral watchdog. Advertising dollars and profits have replaced integrity.

 

[Cackalacky]

3.2 Feed-in Tariffs
At today’s prices (see section 4.1) the levelized electricity generation costs of a multimegawatt
PV power plant, let alone a small rooftop PV installation, are not competitive
with those from fossil fuel and nuclear power plants that or older or have been written
off. Therefore, PV power plant operators receive under certain conditions a fixed feed-in
tariff for a period of 20 years, independent of the start-up date. Following the end of
the amortization period, power from PV power plants is less expensive than that from
any other source thanks to the low operating costs and the absence of fuel costs (making
up the so-called “marginal costs”). On the other hand, fossil fuel and nuclear power
plants must continue to purchase fuel and dispose of the waste produced from burning
this fuel in order to generate electricity even after the investment has fully amortized.
2014_APR_10_Recent_Facts_about_PV_in_Germany.docx15.04.14 10 (91)
The German Renewable Energy Act, or EEG, [EEG1, EEG2] stipulates the level of the feein
tariff and grants priority to the feeding in of solar power. The purpose of the feed-in
tariff is to give investors a reasonable return on investment. Tthe gradual degression
built into the EEG is to stimulate a further drop in the levelized cost of energy from PV
plants (see Figure 5)

.

The EEG feed-in tariff for PV power is reduced more rapidly than that for any other renewable
energy source. Newly installed, large-scale plants have already achieved grid
parity in 2011 for domestic consumers. Since then, the feed-in tariff has continued to
drop well below the gross domestic electricity price. Since the beginning of 2012, newly
installed, small rooftop installations also have achieved grid parity.
Grid parity for these installations marks a crucial milestone that was almost utopian just
ten years ago, but it should not suggest any comparison of the levelized cost of energy,
2014_APR_10_Recent_Facts_about_PV_in_Germany.docx15.04.14 11 (91)
or LCOE. The user who consumes self-generated power can by no means consider the
difference between the gross electricity price (for electricity from the grid) and the EEG
feed-in tariff (as an estimated value for the electricity generation costs) as profit. For
one, self-consumption increases the fixed costs per kilowatt-hour withdrawn. When the
connection costs are distributed over a smaller amount of withdrawn electricity, the
kWh cost of the electricity purchased becomes more expensive. Also, the amount of
taxes and charges due for self-consumption can be appreciable, depending on the tax
classification of the system [SFV].
Assuming a constant development of electricity price and remuneration, grid party will
be achieved in 2013 for many industrial customers. July 1, 2013 was an important date
for grid parity. On this day, the remuneration for the electricity generated from newly
installed free-standing PV systems reached a level close to the estimated full costs for
fossil-nuclear electricity [IFNE].

Important facts in brief:
• The only relevant factor for the economic viability of the further PV capacity is the
current feed-in tariff.
2014_APR_10_Recent_Facts_about_PV_in_Germany.docx15.04.14 12 (91)
• As of midyear 2013, the feed-in tariff for electricity from new, large PV systems
dropped below the end user electricity price paid by some of the major industrial
enterprises
• As of midyear 2013, the feed-in tariff for electricity from small PV systems was
less than half of the gross electricity price paid by households.
• As of midyear 2013, the feed-in tariff for electricity from new PV systems mounted
in open spaces was equivalent to the estimated full costs for electricity from
fossil and nuclear plants.

4. Subventions and Electricity Prices
4.1 Is PV power subsidized?
No. The support is provided through a surcharge.
The investment incentives for PV power generation are not supported by public funds.
Whilst fragmentary reports often quote figures relating to past and future PV power
feed-in tariff payments that amount to hundreds of billions and term these “subsidies”,
a true subsidy is provided by public funds. The EEG, on the other hand, makes provisions
for a surcharge in which energy consumers make a compulsory contribution towards
transforming the energy system. This interpretation is also supported by the European
Commission. The surcharge does not correspond to the total remuneration, but rather
the differential costs, calculated as the difference between costs paid (remuneration)
and revenues received (see section 3.5).
On the costs side, the cumulative amount paid for PV power fed into the grid up to and
including 2012 amounted to around 32 billion euros.
To calculate the EEG surcharge, the financial benefits of PV power are determined according
to the market clearing price on the European Energy Exchange (EEX) in Leipzig.
By this method, the benefits of PV power are underestimated systematically. For one, PV
power has long been having the desired effect on this market price, namely that of driving
it downwards (see section 3.4). Second, the market price leaves out the heavy external
costs of fossil fuel and nuclear power production (section 4.2). Considering total
costs of fossil fuel and nuclear power production of ca. 10 €-cts/kWh, the additional
costs of the PV feed-in tariff decline so quickly that the first intersection point occurs
already in 2013 (see Figure 5). However, the new PV systems are those subject to future
policy decisions. Therefore, new PV systems, installed in open spaces, must produce
cheaper electricity than the existing fossil and nuclear power plants, when total costs are
considered. The marginal costs of such systems decrease to zero and thereafter are negative.
2014_APR_10_Recent_Facts_about_PV_in_Germany.docx15.04.14 23 (91)
As it is expected that the external costs of fossil fuels and nuclear power shall soon become
impossible to bear, the increase in RE shall ensure that electricity remains available
at sustainable prices in the long term. Our industrial sector needs better prospects for a
secure energy supply in the future, as do householders.
The electricity policy can learn from the bitter lessons experienced in housing construction
policy. Because comprehensive measures to renovate the existing building stock
have not been undertaken to date, many low-income households must apply for social
funds to be able to pay for their heating fuel. These funds flow, in part, then to foreign
suppliers of gas and oil.
What would be the price to pay if the German energy transformation fails? Without
knowing this figure, it is difficult to make a statement as to the total costs required to
transform our energy supply system.
4.2 Are fossil fuel and nuclear energy production subsidized?
Yes.
Policy makers also influence the price of electricity generated by fossil fuel and nuclear
power plants. Political decisions determine the price of CO2 emission allowances, conditions
for filtering smoke and, where necessary, for the permanent storage of CO2 (carbon
capture and storage, CCS), the taxation of nuclear power as well as insurance and
safety requirements for nuclear power plants.
This means that policy makers decide to what extent today’s energy consumers must
bear responsibility for the elusive risks and burden of producing electricity from fossil
fuel and nuclear sources. When these costs are considered more rigorously, it is likely
that PV power will make the power mix less expensive, while the overall electricity generation
price will be noticeably higher. Until this happens, fossil fuel and nuclear power
will be sold at prices that conceal their external costs (see section 19.9, [DLR], [FÖS1])
and pass the burden on to future generations.
A study from the Forum Green Budget Germany [FÖS2] states: “For decades, the conventional
energy sources of nuclear, hard coal and lignite have profited on a large scale
from government subsidies in the form of financial assistance, tax concessions and other
beneficial boundary conditions. In contrast to the renewable energies, a large portion of
these costs is not accounted and paid for in a transparent manner. Rather, funds are
appropriated from the national budget. If these costs were also to be added to the electricity
price as a ‘conventional energy tariff,’ they would amount to 10.2 cts/kWh, which
is almost three times the value of the Renewable Energy Tariff in 2012.” Up to now subsidies
for the renewable energies have amounted to 54 billion euros. To compare, from
1970 to 2012 subsidies for hard coal amounted to 177 billion euros, for brown coal at
65 billion euros and for nuclear energy at 187 billion euros respectively.”

Just a couple gems from the document I linked to above. Much more in there. The US has no intention of joining the net-neutral or net-positive energy game anytime soon....

 

[connor_in]

Brit Hume, others slam Rutgers mob’s ‘sickening’ shut-uppery of Condoleezza Rice | Twitchy

Condoleezza Rice Pulls Out Of Rutgers Commencement - Business Insider

SMDH...How sad

Apparently the protesters are racist and sexist

 

[Bluto]

Brit Hume, others slam Rutgers mob’s ‘sickening’ shut-uppery of Condoleezza Rice | Twitchy

Condoleezza Rice Pulls Out Of Rutgers Commencement - Business Insider

SMDH...How sad

Apparently the protesters are racist and sexist

Yeah...this type of bait and switch stuff is pretty stupid. I guess being pissed because someone you know maybe had their ass shot off or got blown up in a war that the administration she was a key cog in and which we now know made stuff up to justify said war isn't a good enough reason for not wanting to have her speak at a commencement? This isn't about ideas it's about actions taken and decisions made. Has she come out and apologized for her role in or condemned the decisions that were made which lead to those needless deaths? Don't think so.

 

[chicago51]

I'm really pumped the Senate is actually going to vote in the next month or so on an amendment that would basically override the 1976 Buckley case saying that campaign money is free speech as well as the more recent Supreme Court cases.

I seriously doubt it will get the 2/3 vote needed but I'm glad the issue of money in politics will get some serious debate. Maybe even be a big issue in the mid term elections.

 

[Bluto]

I'm really pumped the Senate is actually going to vote in the next month or so on an amendment that would basically override the 1976 Buckley case saying that campaign money is free speech as well as the more recent Supreme Court cases.

I seriously doubt it will get the 2/3 vote needed but I'm glad the issue of money in politics will get some serious debate. Maybe even be a big issue in the mid term elections.

This and climate change are the two biggest issues of our time in my opinion.

 

[chicago51]

This and climate change are the two biggest issues of our time in my opinion.

Money in politics is our climate change problem. It was the same with the tobacco companies in the 70s until the facts became so overwhelming.

Yea I think everyone agrees the government is corrupt and both parties are mostly corporatist.

At least the Democratic Party is trying to do something about it. I think money in politics is the original sin of government.

The Republicans who often run on a corrupt government platform have proposed little to deal with corruption in government. Rand Paul and a few others have talked about term limits. I would say though that if you did term limits then politicians would need work when they are finished. Don't many politicians take lobbying jobs when they leave DC? Wouldn't this only get worse with term limits. If you have a bunch of inexperience politicians it ends up being the lobbyist who know best how to get things done.

I think the right's idea of term limits can work but if you don't get the money out of politics and don't do something about corporate lobbyist I see the problem getting worse not better.

I hear a lot from the "right" about the special interest in the Democratic Party and I agree. So let's do something about it. It looks like Senate Democrats are trying to. So I think they are on the right side of the issue here.

 

[connor_in]

Yeah...this type of bait and switch stuff is pretty stupid. I guess being pissed because someone you know maybe had their ass shot off or got blown up in a war that the administration she was a key cog in and which we now know made stuff up to justify said war isn't a good enough reason for not wanting to have her speak at a commencement? This isn't about ideas it's about actions taken and decisions made. Has she come out and apologized for her role in or condemned the decisions that were made which lead to those needless deaths? Don't think so.

"What difference at this point does it make?"

 

[Cackalacky]

Full Report | National Climate Assessment

The National Climate Assessment has just been released. This report deals only with the United States and is MASSIVELY DETAILED. It is the most comprehensive report yet to date and has been scrutinized to death before publication.

The report is incredibly thorough, going through each line of reasoning, each thread of evidence, step by step. But I would say that the part of this report that is of most individual interest—that is, what you personally will want to check out—is the section on regional impact of climate change. Here, you can see how global warming will impact where you live.

Sectors affected by climate changes include agriculture, water, human health, energy, transportation, forests, and ecosystems. … The United States produces nearly $330 billion per year in agricultural commodities. This productivity is vulnerable to direct impacts on crops and livestock from changing climate conditions and extreme weather events and indirect impacts through increasing pressures from pests and pathogens. Climate change will also alter the stability of food supplies and create new food security challenges for the United States as the world seeks to feed nine billion people by 2050.

National Climate Assessment: Report details impacts of global warming on the U.S.

I urge everyone to spend time reading this. It took me most of last night to get through it but it is incredibly well done.

 

[connor_in]

 

[Cackalacky]

 

[GoIrish41]

wrong bird. it should be an ostrich with its head in the ground.