$100B

[Titanic]

Well just put the solar panels in non-habitable environments, ie deserts.

Perfect, oh wait. The resistance in the transmission lines will cause too much voltage drop and you'll need to move closer to the panels to get enough power from them. Electricity doesn't like to travel more than around 600 miles.

I'm not a scientist so I didn't know that, but I'm sure there will be technologies in the future to combat this. Add onto this that solar power will quite often be a personal contributor (ie on peoples houses/flats) and will not be the only source of renewable (wind/geothermal etc..)

[Phatscotty]

Did I hear that Hillary Clinton pledged that the US (and other "rich nations" but we know what that means) would give third world countries $100B a year for global warming issues???? So its not enough to redistribute wealth in our own country - we need to redistribute it globally? What a fucking idiot administration we have.

I can't wait till November 2010 the seat losses are gonna make 1994 look small!

There is a label for this and it is Socialism - that's not me using scarewords that's the truth.

If we accept global warming is a problem which quite a few people do. Than we need to help less developed nations develop in cleaner means, otherwise we get a whole new dirty economy.

Asto your label of "socialism" I don't think you know what it means. There is a difrence between government aid and investment and government ownership of the means of production.

as we raise the debt ceiling? something doesn't add up, and it isn't just you Baron....

[Phatscotty]

Well just put the solar panels in non-habitable environments, ie deserts.

Perfect, oh wait. The resistance in the transmission lines will cause too much voltage drop and you'll need to move closer to the panels to get enough power from them. Electricity doesn't like to travel more than around 600 miles.

I'm not a scientist so I didn't know that, but I'm sure there will be technologies in the future to combat this. Add onto this that solar power will quite often be a personal contributor (ie on peoples houses/flats) and will not be the only source of renewable (wind/geothermal etc..)

typical.......

[2dimes]

Well just put the solar panels in non-habitable environments, ie deserts.

Perfect, oh wait. The resistance in the transmission lines will cause too much voltage drop and you'll need to move closer to the panels to get enough power from them. Electricity doesn't like to travel more than around 600 miles.

I'm not a scientist so I didn't know that, but I'm sure there will be technologies in the future to combat this. Add onto this that solar power will quite often be a personal contributor (ie on peoples houses/flats) and will not be the only source of renewable (wind/geothermal etc..)

There will be lots of things in the future. Possibly nice lakes streams and ponds where there used to be housing.

The best current solution is a solar system on each building and plugging in your electric car in to those systems when you are not driving it. For some reason people are against that. I think it has to do with the cost to install the system on your building, if it's a single family house it can range from 10 to 30 thousand dollars. Then you have to buy the electric car.

About a decade ago I nearly invested in a geothermal plant being built in Nevada. So far no electricity. I know eventually it will function but I never imagined it would take so long. There were several geothermal plants in Califonia that have run out of steam. There's one that they are trying to inject with water, I don't know the current status on that one.

The biggest problem with all these somewhat viable forms of generation is economic. The people that can afford to develop a generation station want a maximum return on their investment. Nuke is the way to go right now followed by some form of carbondioxide producing combustion powered unit.

So we either shut off our lights and computer, cough up more monies to clean up the generation or keep complaining that someone needs to do something while not bothering.

[vodean]

Whos polluting today? Per capita, as continents, which is highest? Where is there thick smog every morning? Who uses leaded gas? who has no hybrids?

[snufkin]

Whos polluting today? Per capita, as continents, which is highest?

By country the highest carbon dioxide pollution per capita seems to be the USA..

..but I think it would be Australia by continent and capita - although it isn´t very useful information since they only are responsible for less than 1.5 % of the worlds pollution.

[Baron Von PWN]

Did I hear that Hillary Clinton pledged that the US (and other "rich nations" but we know what that means) would give third world countries $100B a year for global warming issues???? So its not enough to redistribute wealth in our own country - we need to redistribute it globally? What a fucking idiot administration we have.

I can't wait till November 2010 the seat losses are gonna make 1994 look small!

There is a label for this and it is Socialism - that's not me using scarewords that's the truth.

If we accept global warming is a problem which quite a few people do. Than we need to help less developed nations develop in cleaner means, otherwise we get a whole new dirty economy.

Asto your label of "socialism" I don't think you know what it means. There is a difrence between government aid and investment and government ownership of the means of production.

as we raise the debt ceiling? something doesn't add up, and it isn't just you Baron....

Your post seems completly unrelated to anything I was saying. Care to explain?

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[Phatscotty]

Did I hear that Hillary Clinton pledged that the US (and other "rich nations" but we know what that means) would give third world countries $100B a year for global warming issues???? So its not enough to redistribute wealth in our own country - we need to redistribute it globally? What a fucking idiot administration we have.

I can't wait till November 2010 the seat losses are gonna make 1994 look small!

There is a label for this and it is Socialism - that's not me using scarewords that's the truth.

If we accept global warming is a problem which quite a few people do. Than we need to help less developed nations develop in cleaner means, otherwise we get a whole new dirty economy.

Asto your label of "socialism" I don't think you know what it means. There is a difrence between government aid and investment and government ownership of the means of production.

as we raise the debt ceiling? something doesn't add up, and it isn't just you Baron....

Your post seems completly unrelated to anything I was saying. Care to explain?

Baron

we need to help less developed nations develop in cleaner means

I will speak for the USA. We do not currently have the money it takes to help less develpoed nations develope in cleaner means. It only seems unrelated to you because you are unable to multi-task your thoughts and pretend that givens and pre-requisites do not exist in a factual statement.

The title of the thread 100 billion is where you start. That is how you know what I am talking about. We don't have the money, since if we had it, we would not be borrowing more, hence the raising the debt ceiling. It doesn't add up, because the money isn't there.

[tdans]

yea.. what Scotty said..

[Phatscotty]

Baron, you can't follow along if you don't try to stay somewhat current on the material as it pertains to the threads you choose to troll on
Democrats to lift debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion, fear 2010 backlash
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30417.html

And the Maryland Democrat confirmed that the anticipated increase could be as high as $1.8 trillion — nearly twice what had been assumed in last spring’s budget resolution for the 2010 fiscal year.

Yesssssssssss, here is 100 billion for undeveloped countries.......

Insane

[Baron Von PWN]

Baron, you can't follow along if you don't try to stay somewhat current on the material as it pertains to the threads you choose to troll on
Democrats to lift debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion, fear 2010 backlash
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30417.html

And the Maryland Democrat confirmed that the anticipated increase could be as high as $1.8 trillion — nearly twice what had been assumed in last spring’s budget resolution for the 2010 fiscal year.

Yesssssssssss, here is 100 billion for undeveloped countries.......

Insane

See often in discussion it helps when you back up your statements with some kind of context, in that way I can know what you are refering to. If you had said something allong these lines in the first place I would'nt have to ask you to explain yourself when you choose to drop a random scentence somewhere.

In my earlier post I was mainly responding to what was said about socialism, and how this is not socialism and simply foreing aid.

[comic boy]

Baron, you can't follow along if you don't try to stay somewhat current on the material as it pertains to the threads you choose to troll on
Democrats to lift debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion, fear 2010 backlash
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30417.html

And the Maryland Democrat confirmed that the anticipated increase could be as high as $1.8 trillion — nearly twice what had been assumed in last spring’s budget resolution for the 2010 fiscal year.

Yesssssssssss, here is 100 billion for undeveloped countries.......

Insane

The 100 billion that is being banded around is a proposed fund contributed to by the G20 nations
( not just the USA ) and to be in place by 2020.

[rockfist]

Historically when the G20 gives money what percentage of that comes from the US?

[comic boy]

Historically when the G20 gives money what percentage of that comes from the US?

Just under 20% .
In Sept 2009 the G20 agreed to Finance the International Monetry Fund to the extent of $509 billion, the breakdown ( Billions ) was ;

European Community $150
USA $100
Japan $100
China $50
Others $10 each

[MeDeFe]

You better put in a "B" after each of those numbers before someone makes fun of your post, comic.

[comic boy]

You better put in a "B" after each of those numbers before someone makes fun of your post, comic.

I already stipulated that the figures were Billions

[Phatscotty]

Baron, you can't follow along if you don't try to stay somewhat current on the material as it pertains to the threads you choose to troll on
Democrats to lift debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion, fear 2010 backlash
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30417.html

And the Maryland Democrat confirmed that the anticipated increase could be as high as $1.8 trillion — nearly twice what had been assumed in last spring’s budget resolution for the 2010 fiscal year.

Yesssssssssss, here is 100 billion for undeveloped countries.......

Insane

See often in discussion it helps when you back up your statements with some kind of context, in that way I can know what you are refering to. If you had said something allong these lines in the first place I would'nt have to ask you to explain yourself when you choose to drop a random scentence somewhere.

In my earlier post I was mainly responding to what was said about socialism, and how this is not socialism and simply foreing aid.

Oh, so because you don't pay attention to the subjects you participate in, I should list all of my sources?

[MeDeFe]

You better put in a "B" after each of those numbers before someone makes fun of your post, comic.

I already stipulated that the figures were Billions

It's not 100% clear. Possibly 73.4%, but certainly no higher, most probably the clearness is in the vicinity of 67.82%.

[Baron Von PWN]

Oh, so because you don't pay attention to the subjects you participate in, I should list all of my sources?

Not neceseraly your sources just some kind of argument. Your "point" didin't make much sense since the US isin't shouldering the cost allone and the cost will be over several years, so the debt factor made no sense to me. Also my post was mostly about the his use of the word Socialism and why this is worthwhile effort, you know the topic at hand, not the US debt burden.

[rockfist]

My post was about the US debt burden. International aid is socialism and its stupid as hell. My point is we are borrowing money and raising taxes to give away money not even within our own country.

[Baron Von PWN]

My post was about the US debt burden. International aid is socialism and its stupid as hell. My point is we are borrowing money and raising taxes to give away money not even within our own country.

"Did I hear that Hillary Clinton pledged that the US (and other "rich nations" but we know what that means) would give third world countries $100B a year for global warming issues???? So its not enough to redistribute wealth in our own country - we need to redistribute it globally? What a fucking idiot administration we have.

I can't wait till November 2010 the seat losses are gonna make 1994 look small!

There is a label for this and it is Socialism - that's not me using scarewords that's the truth"


No mention of debt burden in there, seems to mostly be a rant about "socialism" . The whole idea is to co-operate with developing nations so they develope cleaner industires. If we want them to develope cleaner industries, well we have to give a little too. There will be significant investment on their part as well since western aid can't do it allone. The developing nations don't want to be riduculously polluted either they just need some help getting there. You can allready see this in china, they have invested allot in clean industry it is true they are still very polluted but they are making efforts to change .

[radiojake]

My post was about the US debt burden. International aid is socialism and its stupid as hell...

Ah, so it's ok for the U.S to take whatever resources and goods they want from the third world (and use of the cheap labour) but it's a different matter when it's about helping them out..
.
I understand

[comic boy]

My post was about the US debt burden. International aid is socialism and its stupid as hell. My point is we are borrowing money and raising taxes to give away money not even within our own country.

And the vast amount of ' International aid ' that the USA has provided to murderous regimes in order to secure corporate business and influence , thats ok in your book is it ?
Untied aid to assist the people of the third world = Socialist so must be wrong.
Tied aid , targeted to help US corporate interests,to assist dictators regardless of consequence = Capitalist and must therefore be good.
That seems to be the point you are making and not only is it disgusting in the extreme but it displays an astonishing example of dogma obscuring the common good

[vodean]

Whos polluting today? Per capita, as continents, which is highest?

By country the highest carbon dioxide pollution per capita seems to be the USA..

..but I think it would be Australia by continent and capita - although it isn´t very useful information since they only are responsible for less than 1.5 % of the worlds pollution.

except thats not PER CAPITA. The US ends up paying over 40%, usually. Its just over 100B per YEAR!! Per capita, im pretty sure is Asia. in terms of volatile chemicals, its probably Africa.