Spectrum
Aug 29, 01:42 PM
Because it's not required, and not the law. If Apple was not complying with current EPA regulations, they'd be investigated by the US Government. Greenpeace is asking them to go beyond current laws, which are quite stringent as is.
But if they really are environmentally conscious, they have no risk at all in releasing this information. If it is good news, it would bolster their standing. Put them at number one in the Eco-company category. Free publicity. So: what is stopping them?
But if they really are environmentally conscious, they have no risk at all in releasing this information. If it is good news, it would bolster their standing. Put them at number one in the Eco-company category. Free publicity. So: what is stopping them?
Multimedia
Oct 26, 01:55 PM
I highly doubt this will be a simple swap.Simple swap has already been tested and confirmed to work in early September by Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6). The Clovertowns are quite expensive,Not really. The 2.66GHz Clovertown lists @ $1172 vs. $851 for both the 2.33GHz Clovertown and the 3GHz Woodie. Since Apple charges +$800 for a 3GHz Dual Woodie, this means they will likely charge only +$1100 for the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown - total $3599. Hardly expensive at all. I'd say they are going to be a bargain and LESS EXPENSIVE when you look at the per core price of $450 - or PLUS $275 for each of four more cores.not to mention slower in terms of raw clock speed, so expect it to be a high priced upgrade.2.66GHz is not significantly slower than 3GHz - especially when the workload can be shared among many more.
Clarification: If Apple asks for +$1400 or $3999 they will still sell like hotcakes and be a huge hit. So NO they are not going to be TOO Expensive because there is no such thing as too expensive in this market.
I feel like I am having to explain this market to home user drop-ins who have nothing to do with why we need these 8-core Mac Pros. So they are oblivious to why anyone would even want one much less pay so much for one.
Clarification: If Apple asks for +$1400 or $3999 they will still sell like hotcakes and be a huge hit. So NO they are not going to be TOO Expensive because there is no such thing as too expensive in this market.
I feel like I am having to explain this market to home user drop-ins who have nothing to do with why we need these 8-core Mac Pros. So they are oblivious to why anyone would even want one much less pay so much for one.
Phil A.
Aug 29, 02:51 PM
The one thing that struck me on the report is the amount of marks given to companies who have committed to a timescale. For example, Apple have committed to removing all BFRs but given no timescale and are marked as "bad". Dell have committed to removing all BFRs by 2009 and are marked "Good". Don't get me wrong, it's good that companies are giving time scales, but they don't really mean jack until they're implemented (the UK committed to the Kyoto protocol and will miss it's commitments by miles), and I think it's a bit misleading to give any company full marks simply because they have given a date that may be missed. I would have preferred to see those marked as Partially Good because clearly a commitment isn't as good as actually delivering on promises.
Apple OC
Mar 15, 08:34 PM
how can they NOT design for the possibility of coolant failure in the holding basin and put it also within a containment vessel? especially if, as you imply, there are some spent rods in it pretty much at any time.
They just did not predict a tsunami of this scale causing the situation we are now faced with.
Unfortunately it takes something like this to correct mistakes moving forward. That being said ... this will get fixed.
This Nuclear Disaster has now been confirmed as the worst since Chernobyl and is far from being resolved.
I wish the heros working on this all the best.
They just did not predict a tsunami of this scale causing the situation we are now faced with.
Unfortunately it takes something like this to correct mistakes moving forward. That being said ... this will get fixed.
This Nuclear Disaster has now been confirmed as the worst since Chernobyl and is far from being resolved.
I wish the heros working on this all the best.
Heavyhitter504
Mar 18, 11:31 AM
I actually paid for MyWi and I only use it to tether my iPad. I use it instead of (not in addition to) my iPhone and only when wifi is not available.
This is what I do, I'm on the "unlimited" plan and I haven't received any text or email regarding the warning about tethering, i hope it's because I dont surpass the 5 gb cap
This is what I do, I'm on the "unlimited" plan and I haven't received any text or email regarding the warning about tethering, i hope it's because I dont surpass the 5 gb cap
Warbrain
Oct 8, 07:52 AM
Not sure if this is linked yet but it's a good read:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/10/08/gartner-declares-android-a-second-place-winner-in-2012-why/
I personally don't see Android coming anywhere near Apple or RIM because their focus is so splintered and erratic. You're going to end up with the same issue as before - different interfaces on different devices. The only upside will be the uniform system.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/10/08/gartner-declares-android-a-second-place-winner-in-2012-why/
I personally don't see Android coming anywhere near Apple or RIM because their focus is so splintered and erratic. You're going to end up with the same issue as before - different interfaces on different devices. The only upside will be the uniform system.
ciTiger
Apr 20, 09:20 PM
Flame wars... :D
I know we can't all get along but what's the point of discussing something again and again and... :rolleyes:
Might as well be happy with what you got :apple:
I know we can't all get along but what's the point of discussing something again and again and... :rolleyes:
Might as well be happy with what you got :apple:
charliehustle
Feb 27, 08:56 PM
It's a bit rich calling people delusional and then coming out with with wish list statements as if they're bound in volumes of 'The Future History of Smartphones vol ll'
The Android market has potential, but only for as long as lazy phone manufacturers, who have never learned how to do operating systems and software, are happy to grab a freebie. This situation is the same as you or me going to a fair and picking up a free dev copy of some new software... and then running a business off its capabilities. No license fee! That's the attraction.
The saved costs derived from having much lower in-house dev costs and shorter route to market make Android a gift. But not without major issues. CylonGlitch [above] makes this very valid point:
"... as many as 40 models of Android devices will ship, . . . "
"How the heck is a developer supposed to support that many different devices? Even if there were 5 different screen resolutions, it would be hard to optimize your app for each. Now different RAM configurations, different CPU's, different everything, OUCH."
It's a ludicrous state of affairs. A wet dream for the armchair geek maybe, but for the non geek buyer, the proposition is entirely different. It already gives me a headache just thinking about it.
With the iPhone, Apple have demonstrated one of the oldest marketing principles still holds true in the 21st Century. If you give people three models to choose from with two colour options, you make the proposition simpler.
But all other manufacturers are still depending on the old marketing model of offering a bewildering array of models to try and catch the entire market. Now, that model has failed already - because it doesn't work. The market is automatically diluted. So why are they still using it?
speedriff [also above] has decided Steve Jobs is a "douche" because he's being "hardheaded" over Flash, while "Other manufacturers are giving AMOLED screens and are getting better and better."
Apple make more profit from all their products than anyone else. One way they do this is by waiting until they can demand a very high proportion of a large enough production of a component [NAND flash memory, screens etc] at the most competitive price, or can manufacture in-house [CPUs]. That's not just good business, it's vital for long term survival.
Wait until June this year and we'll see the new iPhone with a longer [HD aspect ratio] OLED screen. And HTML5 is the future. in reality, Adobe are better candidates for the 'douche' epithet here. If Flash had fewer issues, maybe Apple would add it.
What you need to understand is that Apple is better at seeing, predicting and exploiting the WHOLE picture, than any other company in this game. And anyone who seriously thinks a disparate group of not for profit developers and a market full of lazy manufacturers with a 19th Century sales mentality are going to win this one, is simply not even looking at it properly.
You obviously have no formal education when it comes to the world of finance, so I'm not sure why you're even making comments about such things.
The simple fact that Apple has to make $23 billion more in revenue compared to Google, just so they can have $2.7 billion more in gross profit is nothing to brag about.
Go do more homework.
The Android market has potential, but only for as long as lazy phone manufacturers, who have never learned how to do operating systems and software, are happy to grab a freebie. This situation is the same as you or me going to a fair and picking up a free dev copy of some new software... and then running a business off its capabilities. No license fee! That's the attraction.
The saved costs derived from having much lower in-house dev costs and shorter route to market make Android a gift. But not without major issues. CylonGlitch [above] makes this very valid point:
"... as many as 40 models of Android devices will ship, . . . "
"How the heck is a developer supposed to support that many different devices? Even if there were 5 different screen resolutions, it would be hard to optimize your app for each. Now different RAM configurations, different CPU's, different everything, OUCH."
It's a ludicrous state of affairs. A wet dream for the armchair geek maybe, but for the non geek buyer, the proposition is entirely different. It already gives me a headache just thinking about it.
With the iPhone, Apple have demonstrated one of the oldest marketing principles still holds true in the 21st Century. If you give people three models to choose from with two colour options, you make the proposition simpler.
But all other manufacturers are still depending on the old marketing model of offering a bewildering array of models to try and catch the entire market. Now, that model has failed already - because it doesn't work. The market is automatically diluted. So why are they still using it?
speedriff [also above] has decided Steve Jobs is a "douche" because he's being "hardheaded" over Flash, while "Other manufacturers are giving AMOLED screens and are getting better and better."
Apple make more profit from all their products than anyone else. One way they do this is by waiting until they can demand a very high proportion of a large enough production of a component [NAND flash memory, screens etc] at the most competitive price, or can manufacture in-house [CPUs]. That's not just good business, it's vital for long term survival.
Wait until June this year and we'll see the new iPhone with a longer [HD aspect ratio] OLED screen. And HTML5 is the future. in reality, Adobe are better candidates for the 'douche' epithet here. If Flash had fewer issues, maybe Apple would add it.
What you need to understand is that Apple is better at seeing, predicting and exploiting the WHOLE picture, than any other company in this game. And anyone who seriously thinks a disparate group of not for profit developers and a market full of lazy manufacturers with a 19th Century sales mentality are going to win this one, is simply not even looking at it properly.
You obviously have no formal education when it comes to the world of finance, so I'm not sure why you're even making comments about such things.
The simple fact that Apple has to make $23 billion more in revenue compared to Google, just so they can have $2.7 billion more in gross profit is nothing to brag about.
Go do more homework.
Scarlet Fever
Oct 26, 03:19 AM
JUST IMAGINE A COMPUTER IN WHICH EACH PIXEL IS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE PROCESSOR.
sounds awesome :D
but with my macbook containing 1,024,000 pixels, will you fund it for me please? :p
sounds awesome :D
but with my macbook containing 1,024,000 pixels, will you fund it for me please? :p
xwk88
Oct 7, 12:45 PM
Erm.. you're being closed minded.
tim duncan family.
tim-duncan-derrick-rose-2010-
Tim Duncan Family Pictures.
domestic violence,
Duncan family ASG photo.
Spurs Tim Duncan Family
NBA Family Picture Day with
Tim Duncan#39;s Wife Amy Duncan
rickdollar
Apr 13, 12:57 AM
I need more information before I can form an opinion about this.
Sorry, this is MacRumors. No rational statements are allowed. It's in the rules.
Sorry, this is MacRumors. No rational statements are allowed. It's in the rules.
Silentwave
Sep 25, 11:41 PM
I'd pay for them to try and do a low voltage Clovertown like they did Woodcrest with the 5148LV. That one had a TDP not far off of Merom.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 01:54 PM
should we start with the freedom of choices for women?
Please demonstrate specific Islamic principles to this then.
Please demonstrate specific Islamic principles to this then.
Jamieserg
Apr 13, 12:35 PM
I like the new Final Cut Interface the old one was getting tired. Plus rendering in the background will save me SO much time. A lot of my time is spent hitting cmd+r at the moment. Looks like a brilliant release but as always i'll save my final judgement for when I get my hands on it.
paulvee
Nov 3, 07:59 AM
Most pros I know don't measurebate about specs on forums all day, every day - yes, once in a while they do, but most of the time they're...doing work...
dante@sisna.com
Oct 29, 02:44 AM
I don't want to seem judgemental, but the last thing I ever plan on doing is selling my G5 Quad. I mean like I will have my G5 Quad until I DIE. Why would you do that? It runs classic. It runs Adobe native. It is pretty fast for email and word processing. ;) And it runs dead silent. It's the perfect backup for when the Mac Pro goes down. At the very least it makes for a great HDTV player and recorder with EyeTV 500 or Hybrid attached.
AMEN Multimedia!!!
Amen.
I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.
I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.
AMEN Multimedia!!!
Amen.
I will NEVER sell my Quad G5 -- it is an AMAZING Unit. Simply awesome.
I will buy all the new Apple Mac Pro toys -- buy I will always have the Quad G5. Always. It is a legendary machine.
rickdollar
Apr 13, 12:57 AM
I need more information before I can form an opinion about this.
Sorry, this is MacRumors. No rational statements are allowed. It's in the rules.
Sorry, this is MacRumors. No rational statements are allowed. It's in the rules.
CalBoy
Mar 25, 02:50 PM
Got a source for that?
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
(emphasis added)
Skunk already quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16, so I don't think I need to quote that again.
Of course not, but then again, I've never needed a license to vote. Have you?
People also have to get gun licenses, but that is clearly a right under the Constitution.
Licenses do more than extend a privilege; they can also be helpful in administering the rights that we have.
Conversely, I do not require a license to speak my mind in public,
Actually, you might depending on when and where you wanted to speak. Parades need permits and most large protests have to be cleared beforehand so that traffic can be allowed to flow around it. All of these are handled by licenses.
Tim Duncan at the Texas
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
(emphasis added)
Skunk already quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16, so I don't think I need to quote that again.
Of course not, but then again, I've never needed a license to vote. Have you?
People also have to get gun licenses, but that is clearly a right under the Constitution.
Licenses do more than extend a privilege; they can also be helpful in administering the rights that we have.
Conversely, I do not require a license to speak my mind in public,
Actually, you might depending on when and where you wanted to speak. Parades need permits and most large protests have to be cleared beforehand so that traffic can be allowed to flow around it. All of these are handled by licenses.
tveric
Mar 18, 04:58 PM
I would just like to point out that, sort of, this thread and topic are a repeat of this thread:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=116009
started this morning.
It's not often I notice some Mac news before this site does, so hey, the one time it happens...
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=116009
started this morning.
It's not often I notice some Mac news before this site does, so hey, the one time it happens...
Multimedia
Oct 13, 07:24 AM
I have the nVidia 7800GT card in both my G5 quads. It and the Quadro FX4000 were Apple's first offerings with 2xdual-link ports that I'm aware of. They went to the ATI X1900XT with the Mac Pro and replaced the the FX4000 with the FX4500 sometime last spring. Anyway, I think all the G5 quads are PCI-E x16 capable so you should be able to drop in any Mac EFI compliant PCI-E video card that has the dual-link connectors, but I'm not positive on this. The x1900xt sops up an adjacent card slot, which isn't an issue on the Mac Pro, but could cause problems on a G5 depending on what you may have installed. But I'm willing to bet that the current 7300GT card for $149 (1x dual-link, 1x single-link) will work just fine. I'm sure someone knows for sure.
And yeah, I will buy the Mac pro with the x1900xt unless something better comes along before I click the buy button.According to Apple none of the Mac Pro cards work in the Quad G5s and vice versa. Read rumor ATI is developing a 2xDual Link PCIe retail card that will work in Quads but haven't seen anything to reveal when it will finally ship. I guess that's a topic for discussion with ATI at MacWorld Expo.
And yeah, I will buy the Mac pro with the x1900xt unless something better comes along before I click the buy button.According to Apple none of the Mac Pro cards work in the Quad G5s and vice versa. Read rumor ATI is developing a 2xDual Link PCIe retail card that will work in Quads but haven't seen anything to reveal when it will finally ship. I guess that's a topic for discussion with ATI at MacWorld Expo.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:53 AM
Thank goodness for people that are able to have a neutral mentality. That much is refreshing and encouraging. You all have a FABULOUS day! (I gotta go out and buy something to wear for the Lady Gaga concert tonight!) :p
Alejandro FTW!!!!!
Alejandro FTW!!!!!
carlos700
Oct 25, 10:31 PM
No, not really. This would be the only fast update, if it happens (which I kinda doubt)
iMac: 9 months
MBP: 10 months
mac mini: 8 months
macbook: 5 months and counting
Those are actually wait times that are comparable or longer to what we saw in PPC days.
In all fairness, the MacBook Pro received two minor speed updates:
1>> 1.67GHz / 1.83GHz to 1.83GHz / 2.0GHz
2>> 1.83GHz / 2.0GHz to 2.0GHz / 2.16GHz
iMac: 9 months
MBP: 10 months
mac mini: 8 months
macbook: 5 months and counting
Those are actually wait times that are comparable or longer to what we saw in PPC days.
In all fairness, the MacBook Pro received two minor speed updates:
1>> 1.67GHz / 1.83GHz to 1.83GHz / 2.0GHz
2>> 1.83GHz / 2.0GHz to 2.0GHz / 2.16GHz
iJohnHenry
Apr 25, 12:33 PM
This takes responsibility away from what God would want, to what we think is right. I believe this to be a more realistic approach.
Comma added, because my brain was starting to hurt. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
Comma added, because my brain was starting to hurt. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?