It only seems to be a net positive for wealthy politicians, as things are now.....

I did not imply you were religious, just that "protestant work ethic" is a fit descriptor for the set of attitudes you were alluding to, though not in the religious sense. More as in "identifying one's self worth and meaning through labor", which is also abused by employers and figures in power to disenfranchise people.
It is half a decade cumulative, not in one go, in economic downturns and having problems landing a job, or when the current employment situation is not enough to cover cost of living (which is sadly, something that happens. People having to have MULTIPLE JOBS just to subsist), 5 years of support is not nearly enough, since the issue is not just receiving that as the sole means of support.
The bigger problem is that even with jobs, such measures are needed.

English is not my mother tongue either :D

Polar bears are left handed.

Really? I saw one throw and catch with both paws! Was it a supermutant?

99% of people don't trust percentage bigger than 5%. 13% of people fear the number 14. 12% of people fear the value 12%. 15% of crazy people have 15% of the symptoms of 15% of potential diseases. 66.6% of people are heathen devils, according to 6.66% of other people.

Minus the ~30% to 35% deficit spending, it's pretty much a wash.

I am a resident of Texas. I think you should take ours.

Hah, seeing as Florida has several websites devoted to the stupidity of it's residents not to mention Bugs Bunny's thoughts on Florida. Your own journalists (I use that term loosely) are promoting changing the spelling of your state.

I often agree with what you write and I find myself agreeing with you again. One last thing I would add to your list in the last paragraph that will greatly help green products be more appealing would be to let people sell their excess power in a market environment if they're connected to the grid. Also, have instant supply and demand pricing to give a real market price at any time of the day. I'm not a big fan of Time-of-Use Pricing (TOU) if it's only utilized for the large power companies, but if there's a market where anyone can sell on the grid, then I am a huge fan of TOU. It would allocate resources much more efficiently than a centrally planned, fixed price could. Like an ant colony with phermones, millions of "dumb" people who are communicating with price signals and the laws of supply and demand will allocate resources efficiently.

I also like solar. The manufacturing and installation price is steadily dropping and it will have its highest capacity factor during the most demanding periods of the day. A good solar panel will also have a 25-year warranty and cost very little in maintenance over the years. A rack that can adjust to follow the sun might seem like a pricey installation option at first too, but it can increase capacity factor by up to 15%, even without battery storage. A small wind generator is a good supplement, but by comparison, the best ones only have a 7-year warranty and cost about 10% of the initial purchase and installation price for maintenance over the years, plus they have much more natural restrictions and zoning restrictions for where they can be installed. I've seen some that were not well planned be destroyed by turbulence only 1-2 years after installation. As for those huge wind generators being installed? I don't like those at all. They're much more of an eye sore and also a big safety and ecosystem hazard. It takes longer for them to pay for themselves and when they reach their age limit, they often just get abandoned. All the people I have talked to who let a wind farm be built on their land regret it 10 years later.

No beef here. Besides the intense heat and very bright sun I have no problems with Florida. Some of the stories that come out of that state tend to be hilarious.

Intense heat? What, it was only 99 today and a humidity of 75%. That is a nice cool September afternoon. And Yes, we do have some amazing stories. But hey, even we can make fun of Mississippi.

Depends on the science and research.

Private science and research tend to be patented, cost more and be less accessible.

I don't mind that much if it's a hair growth formula, but I do mind if it's, say, a cure for cancer or HIV that is being sold at an exorbitant price, because whoever discovered it owns it for the foreseeable future and sets the price.

At some point, either non-profits should own it or countries should be able to claim: "It's some nice research your researchers did there. However, it's very important research and we need it, so here's money for your expense. Here's some more for a reasonable profit. Now, it's ours".

This is especially true for key research where several different parties are essentially racing to find a very similar finding.

In computer sciences for exemple, it's ridiculous how many key fairly generic concepts are patented. You don't want medical research to be like that.

It has happened that companies made profit out of eco-friendly practices, but there are also a lot of cases where the company cut corners environmentally to bring about a cheaper product (and outsell it's competitors) or if it is a monopoly, just to make more profits.

In the case of a cheaper product, buyers are of course equally to blame and having both parties (producer and consumers) behaving in such a way outlines a situation where the agents in a free market won't regulate themselves and need external assistance to make the right call.

This is the direct result of the shorter term profit not being conductive to long term prosperity (greedy algorithm causing a race toward a local maximum as opposed to an absolute one) or just externalities (basically people not involved in the production/purchase process footing the bill for environmental damages).

As written above, sometimes, it is. Often, it isn't. That's why you need an external force not involved in the profit making process to evaluate those things. Let the market go when it works and regulate it or just replace it with something else when it doesn't.

Actually, it would be best if we got off the oil as soon as possible everywhere we can.

Big oil is the poster child for free market not only not working, but also corrupting the entire process using it's economical muscles to subvert democracy.

Here in Canada, the Conservative government who has strong ties to Big Oil has literally muzzled the scientific community whenever climate change was concerned.

Concerning Big Oil having environmentally friendly practices, you should see some of the desolated areas they left in their wake in third world countries when they were finished. They aren't footing the bill for that. That's externalities for you.

We are in agreement about that.

The main problem is that oil is cheaper in the short term, but a lot more expensive in the long term and our economical system is geared heavily toward shorter term consideration.

That and Big Oil has fought tooth and nail to keep drilling and keep selling their ware. For them, it's the rational course of action to take. For everyone else, it's ticking bomb.

I'm really glad you are pro-solar energy, but I don't think you are going with the market on this (beyond the fact that oil interests are controlled by juggernaughs and you couldn't make much of an entry there ;).

As I wrote above, that works if the alternatives are cheaper in the shorter term.

I'll give that to Big Oil, they aren't.

So, we will go where we can save the most today and climb that small hill. We'll climb the crazy ass steep mountain tomorrow. Heck, a big chunk of that climb will have to be done by our descendants. That's another externality for you.

I can't disagree with any of that. I will say that regulation works better when it's simple: it makes it easier to follow and easier to monitor.

-----
I'm frustrated with the pace of advance in the marketplace on the renewables, solar being the primary. Price is a big part of it, but the somewhat irrational arguments against it (ex: it can't solve ALL of our problems so it's useless) are the worst part.

As much as I appreciate and tout the advances in, for instance, the automotive realm with battery electrics, the cost is always the big argument against it. I can counter the lack of range, I can counter the extra draw on the electric grid, I can counter the chemicals needed for the batteries. But I can't argue away the price.

On the other hand, I'm heartened by other things, large and small:

- LED lights are becoming more powerful and have seen a large drop in price in the last couple years, while doing so without the mercury hazards of CFLs.
- BEVs are no longer quirky and overgrown golf carts, but are now real vehicles. Expensive, sure, but normal.
- The building industry is making big strides in materials and energy efficiency.

And the thing is, I really don't care about the ecological side of it, or at least not for the reasons I'm supposed to care about. Instead, I want to do things efficiently. "You mean I can spend $25 - 35,000 now and pay zero for electricity for the next 25 years, I won't need to worry about rate increases or power outages, and I might even make a little money selling juice back to the grid? Sign me up!" Why isn't it being sold like this? Build it into the mortgage and be done with it. I'm baffled.

If all goes well in the next 3-5 years we'll be able to build a grid-connected solar home on some land we bought a few months ago. The plan is to go Net+, generating every watt we need, with battery storage for overnight, and selling the excess. We simply don't see the point of paying the power company for something we can produce ourselves. If all goes well, I'd like to make it a local showcase for others considering the move.

Lastly, why do those who tout the energy independence that supposedly comes from "drill, baby, drill!" on the other hand poo-poo actual energy independence? Short-sighted. "Solyndra failed!" Well, yeah. And it cost a lot. So let's look at WHY it failed and see if we can solve those problems.