OT: Carbon credits

Page 4 of 4  
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:59:21 -0600, Dave Balderstone

'bout six hours, today, marking and mortising the legs for my night stand.
Sadly, the upper, front through mortise was slightly tight -- just tight enough to split the 3/8" of wood remaining above it when I tapped the through-tenon into place to dry fit it all.
Probably beyond repair. May be a do-over.
Whaddyagonnado??

Sounds like fun!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 12:23:08 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"

At the cost of how many lives? The "right thing" directly translates into murder, just as the ban on DDT did, and just as methanol is starting to do right now.
Yeah, "the right thing"...
--============================================-- Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional. --- http://diversify.com/handypouches.html ToolyRoo(tm) and Possum(tm) Handy Pouches NOW AVAILABLE!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Revivul wrote: ...

There's no certainty that making decisions on faulty and/or incomplete data and/or hypotheses is at all "the right thing". Action taken under such could turn out to be precisely the wrong thing at worst or totally ineffectual.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And yet ... we do it all the time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Revivul wrote:

So you're advocating continuing to do so?
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I know that you cannot always wait until you have 100% information before acting, so ... yes ... absolutely.
If you stop to think about it, you'd understand how far we have come, as a civilization, by having a certain willingness to make peace with uncertainty, and to act, nonetheless.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Revivul wrote:

But it makes no sense to act impulsively in a contrarian mode to simply respond to questionable hypotheses; particularly when the action proposed is one-sided and doesn't address the contributors to present problems that have no intention whatsoever of reigning in their development and expansion and are doing so w/ technology that is, for the most part, 30 years or so behind that of the more developed nations wrt abatement.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/9/2010 1:34 PM, dpb wrote:

Not to be overmuch a contrarian, but I've been thankful for all the help and support I've received here in my attempts to do exactly what I think you're saying makes no sense...
...although a bit less uncertainty would certainly be welcome. :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote:

Morris, you appear to be addressing this problem in the way that fits a market-based model. You are working to develop a technology that can win both its technical merits and pay for itself in a reasonable time frame. I don't think that fits the same mindset as we see from other elements that espouse development and deployment of these alternate technologies that can only be made cost-effective via the application of large subsidies. That only results in market distortion, not development of viable technology. Completely different animal.
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/11/2010 10:49 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:

That's *exactly* the basis for my work - concisely stated, thank you.

This doesn't match up with reality /quite/ so exactly as your leading statement - not because you're wrong but because subjectivity works against conciseness...
My little project _has_ required "large" subsidies - not large on a national scale, but very large to me. I've subsidized the development with materials, tooling, shop space, and man-years of effort. Others have provided (and continue to provide) subsidies in the form of essential scientific and engineering consulting/advice. A while back I went through the very objective exercise of tallying the dollar value of these subsidies and the total was scary/impressive.
There is surely at least a temptation to characterize that amount as "R&D investment", rather than "development subsidies", yes?
[ investment: n. The act of investing; laying out money or capital in an enterprise with the expectation of profit ]
The correct answer is "No, it's development subsidies". The enterprise may last as long as two more years, and expense exceeds revenue by a factor greater than four - and the probability that the enterprise will produce a positive dollar ROI in that time is realistically so close to zero as to make no difference.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/11/2010 10:49 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:

That's *exactly* the basis for my work - concisely stated, thank you.

This doesn't match up with reality /quite/ so exactly as your leading statement - not because you're wrong but because subjectivity works against conciseness...
My little project _has_ required "large" subsidies - not large on a national scale, but very large to me. I've subsidized the development with materials, tooling, shop space, and man-years of effort. Others have provided (and continue to provide) subsidies in the form of essential scientific and engineering consulting/advice. A while back I went through the very objective exercise of tallying the dollar value of these subsidies and the total was scary/impressive.
There is surely at least a temptation to characterize that amount as "R&D investment", rather than "development subsidies", yes?
[ investment: n. The act of investing; laying out money or capital in an enterprise with the expectation of profit ]
The correct answer is "No, it's development subsidies". The enterprise may last as long as two more years, and expense still exceeds revenue by a factor greater than four - and the probability that the enterprise will produce a positive ROI in that time is realistically so close to zero as to make no difference.

[oops - hit wrong button, please disregard any earlier copy]
Now let's apply the subjective warp: My *intent* is to /produce/ a long-term downward market distortion exactly _by_ demonstrating that a technology that had historically produced poor results could be improved upon and /made/ viable. The final step is to extend longevity expectations to the century mark - and, once again, I have every expectation of success (and of not being around to see the actuality).
Profitability (a positive ROI) would have been a Good Thing, but I'm not displeased to have achieved the criteria you set forth in your opening two sentences. :)
/My/ conclusion is that the "goodness" of subsidies is necessarily outcome-based, which invokes the concept of "wisdom" - to which I lay no claim.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Revivul wrote:

So, in your opinion, the complete dismantling of civilization in the industrialized world and impoverishing its citizens all for the purpose of averting a hypothetical disaster bolstered by shoddy science with questionable assumptions and promoted by people in an establishment dependent upon grants for which the results are expected to support the hypothetical disaster (or no future grants will occur) is OK with you?
Heaven help us all
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As long as you don't put it in the wife's nightstand ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

It's in the taxes.
I once had an opportunity to buy into a sand pit.
As the sand was sold, I would get a tax credit for depleting a natural resource.
When the sand ran out, We'd end up with a big honkin' hole in the ground. We would then charge people to dump stuff in the hole (concrete, tree stumps, construction debris, that sort of thing).
As the hole filled up, we would get another tax break for depleting another resource (the hole).
When the hole got filled, we'd cover it with topsoil and sell the land for a low-cost housing development. More tax breaks.
It's the American way.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CW wrote:

I don't know if you can get carbon credits (although there should be some way), but for $18 you can plant a tree in Israel via the Jewish National Fund http://www.jnf.org/support/tree-planting-center /
I've seen the JNF's work. The line of demarcation between a JNF planted area and a wasteland is as vivid as the boundary between Fangorn Forest and Orc-land.
Still,
The Jew says to the Arab: "Why are you upset? This used to be a desert, now it's a forest!"
The Arab thinks: "Yeah, but it was MY desert, now it's YOUR forest!"
It's for the squirrels.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.