So how much do I get paid? 

YEAH!  ME TOO!  Where is this payday? !!

YEAH!  ME TOO!  Where is this payday? !!

omnigun said it, so he must be paying...

Just to be fair, I'll hold everyone's money until the predictions of Climate Change come to pass.   

Unless you are living 100% off the land with no house or any modern convenience, clothing, man made item(unless you made it yourself out of all natural materials) you are a hypocrite and paying into the 'climate change' SCAM.

Simply being alive is polluting the environment and causing 'climate change', so even that is a problem by your reckoning.

Maybe we should all just die off so that the precious earth can go on for all eternity without plague of mankind?

Unless you are living 100% off the land with no house or any modern convenience, clothing, man made item(unless you made it yourself out of all natural materials) you are a hypocrite and paying into the 'climate change' SCAM.

Simply being alive is polluting the environment and causing 'climate change', so even that is a problem by your reckoning.

Maybe we should all just die off so that the precious earth can go on for all eternity without plague of mankind?

We need to tax human farts like Kalifornia taxes cow farts. It's the only way we can continue to afford to support the EPA agency that can pass stupid regulations without congressional oversight. Soon the EPA is going to pay climate scientists to put out a report that says human farts are making the hole on the ozone layer bigger and faster 100%. [/sarcasm]

Just to add a little fuel to the fire...

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/27/trump-pushes-for-massive-budget-staff-cuts-at-epa/

Its all about the trying to lower your footprint.  Trying to do less harm to the environment.  If I had the money sure I would go 100% off the grid for my electricity needs.   Unfortunately I'm not that rich and have to do what I can do in my budget.

1) No I support regulation for the real hazardous materials.  But I don't believe in short term the materials used are far worse than gas alternatives.  Most PV systems don't use l-ion battery systems.  The amount of waste made from PV systems is far less than a coal or oil burning plant will do to the environment.  It's about the lesser of the evils at this point.

2)  I mainly looked at DIY systems which might be differently done than the major installers.

1)  That's great, but until then, the BUSINESS will continue to produce hazardous materials and by products both in production and waste in the end.  And it's in the panels themselves, not only the batteries.  Again, this is what YOU believe.  There are others that don't believe the same way, but that train of thought is going to go the same path as proving climate change.  I couldn't find my file folder, but I'll link some articles that I found on the subject.  Not vouching for the content, but just offering some reading on the subject.  Seems like you've made up your mind on what you believe.  My point was that in general, the movement to more sustainable buildings, energy, etc is GREAT, but that essentially greed twists it and so many people are sold on it.  That sustainable technologies sometimes aren't that clean on the low end and sometimes could cause more damage than what they are MARKETED to replace. 

2) Yeah.  My context is on large office and other similar magnitude facilities.  I understand that stuff for single family homes and smaller projects like for carport roofs are different. 

OOPS, forgot to add links:

https://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/01/solar-panels-toxic-emissions/

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/02/10/associated-press-solar-energy-actually-has-a-big-hazardous-waste-problem-and-how-much-did-solyndra-contaminate/amp/

https://web.stanford.edu/group/sjir/pdf/Solar_11.2.pdf

http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Toxic-Waste-Sullies-Solars-Squeaky-Clean-Image.html

The last one is from OilPrice.com.  I threw that in there more since I found the source of the article funny.   

electric cars are actually either dead even in environmental impact, or even worse for that environment, than a modern internal combustion gasoline car.

That was one of my points, but I couldn't find anything that would PROVE that point. 

My point was that MARKETING sells stuff like electronic cars as good for environment based on fuel savings, but often times people aren't getting the big picture.  Many times, they want to "feel" good about doing something great for the environment by supporting "green technologies" where what they are really doing is fueling the "green machine".  IMO (and I can't prove it) is that in general, the "green machine" has corrupted a good idea in principle to make select people rich.  It's really a huge racket. 

Its all about the trying to lower your footprint.  Trying to do less harm to the environment.  If I had the money sure I would go 100% off the grid for my electricity needs.   Unfortunately I'm not that rich and have to do what I can do in my budget.

You are not "lowering your footprint" by doing what you are doing.  You are only moving that "footprint" around, and in some cases causing even MORE impact from even MORE people,  at the same time wasting your hard earned money doing it.

You are not "lowering your footprint" by doing what you are doing.  You are only moving that "footprint" around, and in some cases causing even MORE impact from even MORE people,  at the same time wasting your hard earned money doing it.

The difference is with every product in the "green" space it improves the environmental impact.  These companies exist to be more environmentally conscious.  With the beauty of the free market the company that outputs the "greener" product will get more sales.  This drives innovation in the market space.  Without people buying into the market early there will be no demand and no improvement.

That was one of my points, but I couldn't find anything that would PROVE that point. 

My point was that MARKETING sells stuff like electronic cars as good for environment based on fuel savings, but often times people aren't getting the big picture.  Many times, they want to "feel" good about doing something great for the environment by supporting "green technologies" where what they are really doing is fueling the "green machine".  IMO (and I can't prove it) is that in general, the "green machine" has corrupted a good idea in principle to make select people rich.  It's really a huge racket.

The thing is with current technology there is only so much you can do.  But with funding and demand technology improves.  IF you ignore tech only cause its current values there will be no demand and no reason to improve.  I am funding the IDEA of green technology.   With the knowledge that it isnt perfect now but hopefully in the future it will be.  It's all about the future.  If we didn't care about innovation and improvement we would still all be riding horses to work.

You are not "lowering your footprint" by doing what you are doing.  You are only moving that "footprint" around, and in some cases causing even MORE impact from even MORE people,  at the same time wasting your hard earned money doing it.

Exactly.  Or in some cases deferring the footprint until the stuff will his landfills.  This has been seen in the disposal of computers and various smart devices entering landfills.  There are some pretty nasty stuff in those products. 

And another exactly is the fact that is big business to get people to spend money on things that in effect are only making them feel good while many are ignorant that they could be doing more damage to what they are trying to feel good about in the first place. 

The difference is with every product in the "green" space it improves the environmental impact.  These companies exist to be more environmentally conscious.  With the beauty of the free market the company that outputs the "greener" product will get more sales.  This drives innovation in the market space.  Without people buying into the market early there will be no demand and no improvement.

The thing is with current technology there is only so much you can do.  But with funding and demand technology improves.  IF you ignore tech only cause its current values there will be no demand and no reason to improve.  I am funding the IDEA of green technology.   With the knowledge that it isnt perfect now but hopefully in the future it will be.  It's all about the future.  If we didn't care about innovation and improvement we would still all be riding horses to work.

I agree that development needs to continue toward being more sustainable.  That said, again, the system is corrupted and what we are trying to point out is the hypocrisy in that.  Seems like you understand it and chose to go with what you believe anyways. Which is perfectly fine. 

That said, innovation for the sake of innovation is another huge waste of time and resources.

Think of this like cancer research.  Right now to everyone it might appear to be a total waste.  We still haven't found the cure yet, and have spent billions making huge cancer research companies rich.  But, with only that thinking and if everyone pulled the funding we will never find the cure.  But if people keep funding the concept of a cancer free world and research and innovation continue to be done one day it will happen.  That's the basic idea behind "green" tech. Its not perfect now, in some cases its worse on the environment but the idea behind it is good.   It will only get better and soon (in some cases now)  there will be a net positive impact on the environment.   In the end everything is about money, greed exists but greed isn't necessarily bad.  We live in a capitalist world all sides want to make money.   People who make green products do.  Companies who sell oil do.  Everyone does. What you should do is pressure companies to improve and look long term.  Even if you think oil solves everything why change the simple idea that oil is a finite resource should get you to want to change. 

OMG. I've had enough. 
 See ya later tunnelvision

OMG. I've had enough. 
 See ya later tunnelvision

UNTIL the people telling me I need to
stop using gasoline,
ride a bike or the bus,
stop using A/C,
use solar energy, and
everything else meant to lower MY "foot print" stop
living in mansions,
driving around in gas-guzzling SUVs,
flying around the globe in private jets with staff and family,
and convert all their many homes to wind or solar energy,
I'm not going to take their statements "we have a Global Climate Change Crisis!" seriously.

BINGO!
This is also what sours me on this Global Warming religion.   Gore, Obama, Clinton all live lavishly and jetset all over the globe telling us to be green.   The Obama's still get chauffeured around in  gas guzzling armored Suburbans or Yukons.   I want to see all these green leaders pushing for solar plane technology and then flying their families to vacations in Yemen or Pakistan and staying in mountainous self sustaining villages with no electricity.  During the recent Paris Agreement, it amazes me why the organizers didn't plan and build a self sustainable village for all the attendees to stay at instead on those CO2 producing Five Star hotels and resorts.   This is hypocrisy slammed in the face of the common man and we tell them NO!
Then you have Zuckerberg who builds this large estate by the ocean and who claims the oceans are rising.  Why didn't he build an off the grid estate in the Ozarks, so he could show people what it means to lead by example.   
Also I believe that the global warming crowd is more involved in technology than us regular folks.  Get rid of all your electronics and any and all modern conveniences, any motorized transportation, including bikes which have components made in factories,  and modern medical equipment, since they were all made or had parts made in factories that pollute or affect the environment in some way.
Lead by example to convince skeptics like me.

Heres a simple point that shows that climate change is not settled science and is no where near being proven.

The premise behind the Climate change theory is that Mans actions have a significant influence on the world climate and that we are (currently) accelerating global warming.

If this is true then at what rate are we accelerating at influencing climate change.


To say that humans are a significant/main cause of climate change there must be a measurable amount of change attributed to humans.

Heres a simple point that shows that climate change is not settled science and is no where near being proven.

The premise behind the Climate change theory is that Mans actions have a significant influence on the world climate and that we are (currently) accelerating global warming.

If this is true then at what rate are we accelerating at influencing climate change.


To say that humans are a significant/main cause of climate change there must be a measurable amount of change attributed to humans.

I've only read estimates that man contributes to Climate Change at a rate of 8%-12% (10% average).  I've also seen it much lower depending on the other factors that negate the impacts.