jb943’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  YEAH World Citizen, Cash for BIKES!!!!On Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers! posted 1 week, 3 days ago 29 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I think they are overblowing the consequences of cap and trade. Comparing cap and trade to Challenger? What? Puleeze. I didn't hear about any Challenger type explosion in Europe when they implemented C&P. Perverse incentives are always created by any policy, with the most perverse currently being the complete lack of a carbon policy. It should always be explained within the context of just how perverse compared to the benefits. I don't think their points about the forest or the HCFCs are very good, because values obviously change under a carbon market, so that's fine. The point about how carbon offsets could create an incentive to produce more HCFCs just to make a profit is something to consider. However, they don't explain at all how they expect their idea of rebates to consumers would keep an incentive for energy efficiency, now what are they talking about? Because as stated in the video, that's a contradiction. Maybe this is the problem of listening to lawyers and not economists.On EPA demands attorneys remove video critical of cap-and-trade posted 1 week, 5 days ago 28 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Mature was the operative word I was using. A mature industry, like nuclear, should be able to stand on it's own without subsidies. Renewables are a nascent industry and if we want them, they need subsidies -- just like any other industry in the history of industries. Renewables are dropping fast in price, just like you would expect a growing industry to do, and at little risk. I mean, are you really arguing against solar? Investing in solar should be a no-brainer by now -- solar is utilizing the largest power source available to us, a nuclear plant remotely located 93 million miles away. If nuclear in the US needs an "investment" to get started again, a second chance if you will, and it truly is all you claim it is, then it should be able to attract private investment capital, no problem -- but it hasn't done so because it doesn't hold up under scrutiny...as far as I know. I don't think it would be wise to have that investment risk fall on taxpayer shoulders.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month, 1 week ago 162 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  STK and MAX8806 -- Lovins's central point is that nuclear costs more than cheaper, more readily available competitors -- like renewables and micropower. It's not a nuclear vs. coal world no more. If you put a price on carbon, it will help nuclear be more competitive, but it will also make renewables and micropower more competitive, so nuclear still loses. He's not cherry picking facts -- those are big IF's listed in the MIT study. Yes, IF all of those IF's were in place, THEN nuclear would be competitive. Not current reality. What are we arguing for or against anyway? Subsidies? For nuclear? A mature industry? Just put a price on carbon and let the best technologies win.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month, 1 week ago 162 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The message is garbled, but I like the attempt at perspective. I thought the impact of the tsunami would have been much less had the mangrove ecosystems been preserved as a buffer, most were destroyed due to shrimp farming, so I'm not sure it's totally scientifically flawed. Still garbled though...

  On Rogue 9/11 ad isn’t from WWF -- and its science is bogus posted 2 months, 1 week ago 3 Responses