Castanet

underscore wrote: And to top it off, a lot of "green" ideas aren't green at all (ie electric cars and car recycling programs aren't green at all)

This car looks pretty good.
Ask yourself why it was not allowed to be distributed all over Canada ... in the future though ..

SurplusElect wrote:When was the last war fought on behalf of "the green companies"?

What countries military machine and foreign policy was last directed at "Green energy resource security"?

Yes, there are larger "Green Companies" out there. However, the smallest energy companies dwarf the largest "Green" companies 1000 fold. There is exponentially more money to be made by prolonging fossil fuel dependance and casting doubt on "call to action" clean up efforts.

Nobodies dies for "good solar panel position real estate". Who dies over controlling the middle east?

The answer is obvious.

Exactly. Well said Surplus!

SmokeOnTheWater wrote:This car looks pretty good.
Ask yourself why it was not allowed to be distributed all over Canada ... in the future though ..

1) The range of electric cars is extremely limited
2) The world is already having a hard enough time meeting electric demands, electric cars would only increase this (and not all electric plants are easy on the environment)
3) The batteries in electric cars contain all kinds of nasty chemicals. Not only is this messy in an accident, but the batteries only last 5-7 years and then you need new ones which means more nasty chemicals.

underscore wrote:1) The range of electric cars is extremely limited
2) The world is already having a hard enough time meeting electric demands, electric cars would only increase this (and not all electric plants are easy on the environment)
3) The batteries in electric cars contain all kinds of nasty chemicals. Not only is this messy in an accident, but the batteries only last 5-7 years and then you need new ones which means more nasty chemicals.

I understand but wonder which is worse .. electric dams or tar sands, bitumen, crude oil and pipelines.
All are not the best for sure. But tar sands, bitumen, crude oil are more money for the corporations. No ? More pollution too. Shouldn't we try everything we can to find an alternative ? No money in trying to find an alternative perhaps ?

SmokeOnTheWater wrote:I understand but wonder which is worse .. electric dams or tar sands, bitumen, crude oil and pipelines.
All are not the best for sure. But tar sands, bitumen, crude oil are more money for the corporations. No ? More pollution too. Shouldn't we try everything we can to find an alternative ? No money in trying to find an alternative perhaps ?

In my view tar sands and bitumen is a lot worse than electric dams, unfortunately, environmentalists tends to work just as hard to shut down new dams as they do new pipelines. And then they lobby the government sucessfully to turn prime dam sites into parks so that these new dams will never be able to go ahead.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

Ask yourself, is Germany a country that has historically succumbed to corporate pressure when it came to public policy, or is it a country that has historically lead the way for developing the worlds future.

SurplusElect wrote:When was the last war fought on behalf of "the green companies"?

What countries military machine and foreign policy was last directed at "Green energy resource security"?

Yes, there are larger "Green Companies" out there. However, the smallest energy companies dwarf the largest "Green" companies 1000 fold. There is exponentially more money to be made by prolonging fossil fuel dependance and casting doubt on "call to action" clean up efforts.

Nobodies dies for "good solar panel position real estate". Who dies over controlling the middle east?

The answer is obvious.

This is just pure nonsense. More straw man arguments. No one dies due to lies told by the AGW fraudsters so therefore the answer is "obvious"? What? No only billions upon billions of taxpayer money is bilkef by the green liars for this fraud. If it ever got big enough then trust me, preople wil start being killed, especially whistle blowers exposing this fraud for what it truly is.

logicalview wrote:nonsense. straw man lies fraudsters green liars fraud fraud

Little hypocritical aren't we?

SmokeOnTheWater wrote:This car looks pretty good.
Ask yourself why it was not allowed to be distributed all over Canada ... in the future though ..

The reason has been explained a few times in the past on Castanet, and I realize you are relatively new here, so I will repeat it again: Zenn cars can only go 50 km/h, and most provinces don't allow cars on the road that cannot reach the minimum highway speed.

Little hypocritical aren't we?

Nope. Thanks for trying to understand.

StraitTalk wrote:Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

Ask yourself, is Germany a country that has historically succumbed to corporate pressure when it came to public policy, or is it a country that has historically lead the way for developing the worlds future.

You know, Ontario has offered amazing incentives for people to build PV panels there. They were paying 60 cents/kWh (you and I pay under 10 cents) for selling the solar power to the grid. This was a really great program until everyone discovered how good it was, resulting in huge losses for the government (far more people signed on than they anticipated).

Glacier wrote:You know, Ontario has offered amazing incentives for people to build PV panels there. They were paying 60 cents/kWh (you and I pay under 10 cents) for selling the solar power to the grid. This was a really great program until everyone discovered how good it was, resulting in huge losses for the government (far more people signed on than they anticipated).

This was also the case (huge losses for the government) in France and Australia and every other jurisidiction that this program was introduced into. What amazed me was that the bureaucrats couldn't see it coming. The shysters in the solar energy businesses that convinced the bureaucrats in these countries and provinces to implement these subsidized programs made off like bandits, and then like companies like Solyndra, that the Obama administration funded to the tune of $500 million in taxpayer cash, they went under as soon as the programs were ended, as they were completely and totally unsustainable. Its funny how whenever you hear the word "sustainability" from a greenie, they usually are talking about a program that is completely economically unsustainable. But these shysters were the "good" kind, as they were green energy guys, so no gullible teenagers are going to camp for months in parks illegally to protest this massive fleecing of taxpayers in the name of greed.

logicalview wrote:No one dies due to lies told by the AGW fraudsters so therefore the answer is "obvious"? What?

500,000 Iraqi's are not killed on behalf of "Al Gores business plan".

They are killed on behalf of Standard Oil's business plan.

The minute the likes of Al Gore and David Suzuki can command armies and get countries to invade countries is the same minute I start to think that "green companies" have more to lose that oil companies.

If people truly want to be environmentally friendly, maybe we should look more to Sweden:

http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/recycling/ ... rom-norway

Highlights:
- Only 4% of waste ends up as garbage, everything else is recycled (I'm looking at you Alberta)
- That 4% of waste then gets incinerated to generate electricity
- They're so efficient that they aren't generating enough garbage to use as fuel, so Norway is paying them to take garbage to use as fuel
- Recycled plant/food waste is apparently used to generate biogas which they use to power cars

There are plenty of efficient, environmentally forward ways to generate power. Look at Hydro, Solar, Wind and Nuclear. Then there are programs like the above mentioned, essentially taking waste and creating energy with it. The problem is these kinds of programs do not necessarily benefit an economy or corporation, so there is little incentive unless public policy-makers make it happen. Without knowing a lot about how Sweden or Germany run their programs, I am willing to bet their Solar Power programs and Waste Incineration programs are either largely publicly funded or subsidized at the very least.

Look at America, and you had Mitt Romney appealing to the towns that relied on Coal mines for their industry and economy stating that as long as he was President, the coal industry would be "protected", as he was very against any sort of environmentally forward initiatives (despite claiming otherwise at his debates). I'm not about to say there's no room for coal, I'm not am imbecile, but it's attitudes like that which prevent progress. Money stumps everything these days. All you can do is rely on government to make the right choices but unfortunately we're in a point in time where even the idea of spending money in the name of progress that doesn't benefit an economy immediately and definitely is a no-no. Even now, voters are more concerned about money than anything else.