SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult?


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: joseffy who wrote (3010)12/23/2011 8:10:57 AM
From: golfer72
   of 4145
 
Yeah but he sounds like he still believes the GW nonsense.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: golfer72 who wrote (3024)12/28/2011 11:28:07 AM
From: Stephen O
14 Recommendations   of 4145
 
The Green Thing…..

In the line at the store, the cashier told an older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologized to him and explained, "We didn't have the green thing back in my day." The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment."

He was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that old lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us.



When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.



Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.



We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

*****

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)


To: Stephen O who wrote (3025)1/1/2012 1:55:57 PM
From: coboarts
   of 4145
 
The kids who need to hear this, in order to have real perspective, don't even know that the world was like this. I have to laugh at myself when I'm getting upset that Word is taking too long to perform some action - in light of remembering when I had to scissor cut and glue things together to make a finished page in the copier - and remember carbon paper and that inky drum thing... Perspective.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Stephen O who wrote (3025)1/1/2012 2:22:16 PM
From: SI Ron (Hall Monitor)
7 Recommendations   of 4145
 
In addition to that, I am not that old to know what it was like in the 50's or early 60's. But I do know that when you bought appliances back then they lasted a very long time. My mother has kitchen appliances that she bought when she got married. Now a days, when you buy household appliances, they don't last that long, as manufactures want you to buy another one. Talk to service techs that repair these things, get a older fellow and he will tell you they don't make them like they use to.

A number of years ago I bought a Cuisinart electric kettle, really nice one, it lasted about 4 years, I paid around 90 dollars for it. I bought another cause I liked the style. It lasted 2.5 years. My electric shaver, the blades and foil suppose to last 18 months according to the instructions, but if you left them that long you won't get a good shave, about every 6-8 months I need a new set, they cost almost 50 bucks, and a new shaver is only 79 dollars.

Thats the problem today, is almost everything we buy needs to be replaced in a few years or less. This is particularity true with electronics. We have recycling programs for old electronics, but there should be no reason these devices can't be designed to last 10-15 years, or longer.

We have no choice but to replace broken down cheaply made goods on a regular basis. This really annoys me.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: SI Ron (Hall Monitor) who wrote (3027)1/3/2012 10:40:09 AM
From: Stephen O
   of 4145
 
My beard is not that fierce, a cheap old BIC razor does me and one lasts at least a month. At the office I have my uncle's old Ronson razor to use when I don't have time to shave at home. It's at least 40 years old as he died in about 1971.
As for electric kettles, new ones have a button to click to open the lid. One we had the pivot for the lid just broke, metal fatigue, after about 4 months. The store took it back fortunately but what a waste of material. We used a Russell Hobbs kettle from England when they were made in England for many years, now their kettles are made in China and are junk.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Stephen O who wrote (3028)1/3/2012 1:10:43 PM
From: joseffy
   of 4145
 
I had a wonderful Ronson shaver that took me about a minute to shave with.

Then the shield went and I found I couldn't replace it since they were out of business.

Now it takes me a good ten minutes to shave with the weak-motored crap you can get since that time.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Stephen O who wrote (3025)1/4/2012 7:33:17 PM
From: joseffy
1 Recommendation   of 4145
 
Taxpayers Take Hit as Solar Industry Implodes


by Paul Chesser on Wed, 01/04/2012
nlpc.org


In a year where Solyndra became the face of the solar industry’s chronic failures, even the holiday season could not prevent one last flurry of layoffs in 2011.

The Mountain Enterprise (based in Frazier Park, Calif.) reported over the weekend that First Solar, Inc. – which the media sometimes identifies as the largest solar company in the world – laid off half its employees on Friday at its Antelope Valley Solar Ranch One project. The facility has been the subject of controversy in the local community over the effects it will have on land use, wildlife, and water usage.

In a September 30 press release that announced the sale of the 230-megawatt photovoltaic “farm” to Exelon (First Solar will still build, manage and operate the project), up to 400 construction jobs and as many as 15 operations positions were supposed to result. The Department of Energy, which provided a $646 million loan guarantee for AVSR1, pegged the job creation at 350 construction and 20 permanent.

“We are pleased to be working with Exelon to realize the AV Solar Ranch One project, providing clean, affordable energy and hundreds of construction jobs to California,” said Frank De Rosa, a First Solar senior vice president.

The cutbacks follow the announcement earlier in December that First Solar would eliminate 100 positions, including 60 at a research and development center in Santa Clara, Calif. Among those departing were the company’s chief technologist, Markus Beck, who served in the same role for Solyndra before joining First Solar in 2008.

The company, like the entire solar industry, has survived on government grants and guarantees. Besides AVSR1, for example, the DOE partially guaranteed $1.46 billion in borrowing for its Desert Sunlight Solar Farm west of Blythe, Calif. And $967 million in DOE loans covered First Solar’s Agua Caliente Solar project in Yuma County, Ariz. Also, the U.S. Export-Import Bank backed $455.7 million in loans to First Solar for projects in Canada. Add millions of dollars more in manufacturing tax credits, state and local incentives, plus mandates to force utilities to buy renewable power, and you’ve got an industry that is wholly dependent on taxpayers, not on its own technology’s capabilities.

Worse, the Venture Capitalist-in-Chief (and his top bettor, Energy Secretary Steven Chu) seem to have placed several piles of chips on another business in freefall. 24/7 Wall Street identified First Solar (FSLR) as one of “the 13 worst big stock stories of 2011,” with prospects looking poor for this year as well. Shares peaked just above $175 in February, but now stand at around $33, despite being named one of Forbes’s 25 fastest growing tech companies in America nearly a year ago.

“First Solar Inc. went from the U.S.’s solar sector poster boy to perhaps the worst performing S&P 500 stock,” the site’s analysts wrote.

The company’s stock collapse is alarming considering the massive infusion of government support, and the healthy boost it received when it was sold in 1999 to an investment firm that handled the Walton family’s money. The late John Walton, son of Walmart founder Sam Walton, reportedly infused First Solar with $150 million and took a seat on the company board. His estate unloaded much of its First Solar stock in mid-2009. Good timing.

The downturn in value led to the firing of company CEO Rob Gillette in October, which 24/7 Wall Street characterized as “strange and sudden.” Co-founder Michael Ahearn was brought back to replace him. This followed expenditures of $2.2 million on lobbying since 2007, according to Bloomberg News, which also reported “representatives met Obama administration officials before winning the aid, government records show.” First Solar outspent Solyndra by about $1 million on lobbying during the same period.

In addition the company spent heavily in that gravy train of states for renewable incentives, California. Bloomberg reported the company gave more than $150,000 to Golden State political campaigns last year – more than triple what BP gave – and has received $3.43 million in state sales tax credits.

“It’s a pretty substantial amount for an emerging-tech company,” said Phillip Ung of California Common Cause. “We can only assume they’re giving that much to legitimize themselves in the political system. Access got them some benefits.”

Similarly, First Solar extracted at least $51.5 million in incentives from state and local government in Arizona to build a manufacturing facility in Mesa. Ahearn and his wife Gayle – also listed as a co-owner – donated $65,000 to the Democratic Party of Arizona since the 2008 electoral cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Federal candidates also reaped benefits of the Ahearns,’ and several other First Solar employees,’ largesse. Michael Ahearn donated $40,400 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee since 2008. Company executives and staffers also gave $37,158 to President Obama and various other Democrat candidates for Congress during that time.

Now though, despite its past dependence on pursuit of political favor, First Solar says it will move away from subsidized markets and “will bet its future on sales in countries in which solar companies that can provide low-priced equipment and engineering services will make money and stay in business,” according to a report on technology Web site Gigaom.com. Company officials said they will soon announce a three-year plan to stay in markets “that aren’t heavily dependent on government incentives and political whims that can dramatically shrink their appetite for solar electricity,” the Web site reported, after listening on a conference call led by Michael Ahearn.

Good luck with that. Just where those unsubsidized markets are in the world, I’m not aware of them. And it’s not like I haven’t been asking.

First Solar will also quickly learn such markets for its energy technology do not exist. Its stock price has tanked even with those subsidies, so look for the job losses and taxpayer outrage to increase, just like with Solyndra.

Paul Chesser is an associate fellow for the National Legal and Policy Center.


Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: longnshort who wrote (3016)1/5/2012 10:44:22 AM
From: joseffy
1 Recommendation   of 4145
 
More

Satcon to lay off 35 percent of workers


By Ira Kantor Wednesday, January 4, 2012
bostonherald.com


Satcon Technology Corp., a Hub-based company that specializes in designing and selling efficient energy systems, announced its 140 layoffs will include 10 Bay State workers, reducing its local headcount to about 156.

“Our commitment to achieving profitability, combined with the dynamic (photovoltaic) environment of 2011, have led us to adjust our cost structure to ensure that we are able to successfully deliver the industry’s most advanced and cost-effective solutions profitably,” said Satcon’s Chief Financial Officer Aaron Gomolak in a statement. “These spending reductions, coupled with our accelerated cost reduction programs, significantly lower our break-even level during the first half of 2012.”

The company also announced plans to close its Canadian manufacturing facility, which coupled with the layoffs, would result in charges of nearly $2.8 million to $3 million. Company officials said Satcon has also restructured its office and warehouse infrastructure in Europe, China and the United States in order to better align with market conditions and reduce costs further.



The majority of the charges are expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2011, with the rest taking place in the first quarter of 2012, the company said, adding it expects to accumulate ongoing savings of upwards of $17 million annually once all actions are implemented by the second quarter of 2012.

Satcon is also analyzing its inventory and certain non-cancelable supplier-held inventory and will write down the value or take a charge to reflect current market conditions, which would result in expected charges during the fourth quarter of 2011 of nearly $20 million to $26 million, with the majority of the charges comprised of non-cash items, the company said.

“The worldwide solar market conditions in 2011 demonstrated the dynamic nature of this maturing industry,” Satcon’s President and CEO Steve Rhoades said in a statement. “The compounding effects of reduced panel costs and market demand shifts toward North America and Asia have forced the entire industry to adjust as we enter the next phase of development. Decreasing prices, however, present significant opportunity for Satcon, where the demand for our large-scale inverter solutions nearly doubled in North America and Asia year-over-year. The measures we have announced today will help to ensure that Satcon achieves the financial strength required to profitably maintain our leadership position as the standard for large scale inverter systems as solar power generation becomes a more affordable and stronger investment worldwide.”


Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: FUBHO who wrote (3015)1/5/2012 5:50:34 PM
From: joseffy
3 Recommendations   of 4145
 
wattsupwiththat.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (3020)1/12/2012 3:21:02 PM
From: Alan Smithee
2 Recommendations   of 4145
 
Ben Stein Sues: Ad Agency Replaced Me Over My Global-Warming PositionBen Stein claims he's a victim of political discrimination.

The conservative pundit and actor -- and former Nixon speechwriter -- alleges that his position on climate change had him kicked off a $300,000 acting gig, only to be replaced by a lookalike.

Stein filed a discrimination suit against Japanese company Kyocera Corporation and New York ad agency Seiter & Miller Advertising, in Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday.

He is claiming breach of contract, wrongful discharge and emotional distress, among other charges.

Also read: 'WS2' Reviewed: It's More Like 'Ferris Bueller's Day on Wall Street'

In the suit, which was obtained by TheWrap, Stein says Kyocera reneged on the deal and replaced him after the company found out that he isn't sure humans are responsible for climate change.

The deal would have had Stein -- who has previously been featured in advertisements for Comcast, Clear Eyes and Hewlett-Packard -- acting in commercials for Kyocera and appearing at a company event.

(Read the whole filing here.)

Stein says that in December 2010 Kyocera and Seiter & Miller's Grace Jao approached his agent, Innovative Artists' Marcia Hurwitz, saying the company "wanted someone with an economics qualification in the public mind, and [Stein] came to mind at once," according to the complaint. "Hurwitz asked [Jao] if this was an offer. Jao said it was."

Over the course of five weeks, an agreement was worked out, with all the material deal points in place.

"The only points still under discussion -- but not in dispute -- were what kind of tea and other snacks [Stein] would have on the set," the suit claims. "There were no outstanding deal points."

In February, Jao called Hurwitz and said "questions had been raised by defendant Kyocera about whether [Stein's] views on global warming and on the environment were sufficiently conventional and politically correct for Kyocera," according to the suit.

Stein then told Kyocera and Seiter & Miller that he was extremely concerned about the environment but unsure whether humans are responsible for global warming.

"He also told Hurwitz to inform defendants that, as a matter of religious belief, he believed that God, and not man, controlled the weather," the suit claims.

That same month, Seiter & Miller President Livingston Miller emailed Hurwitz, telling her the agency had decided to withdraw its offer.

Miller said decision was made due to Stein's "official positions on various policy issues that appear on the web of which we have only lately become aware," according to the suit.

Kyocera then tapped a University of Maryland economics professor to appear in the commercials as a Stein look-alike.

"In an astonishingly brazen misappropriation of [Stein's] persona, [they] dressed him up as Stein often appeared in commercials (bow tie, glasses, sports jacket)."

The suit claims that Stein has been described as "the most famous economics teacher in the world" for his iconic role in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off."

Stein is seeing $300,000 for the work he agreed to do, along with attorney fees, court costs and punitive damages.

A representative for Seiter & Miller did not respond to TheWrap's request for comment.

Related Articles: 'WS2' Reviewed: It's More Like 'Ferris Bueller's Day on Wall Street' L.A. Film Festival Goes International, Plus 'Boyz N the Hood' and 'Ferris Bueller'

reuters.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.