quote:

Originally posted by Lynda Bablin:

quote:

Taxpayers like us do not foot the bill for a building to be LEED certified. The developer and their tenants are the ones who ultimately will pay for materials/practices being up to LEED standards.

Are you saying there are no tax incentives whatsoever for buildings being "LEED certified"? Who picks up the reduction in taxes except other taxpayers? Tax incentives are available for solar enery among others. This all results in reducing revenues to whatever municipality collects the taxes, largely the State. Who pays the State to run its operations? ALL THE TAXPAYERS!

quote:

Originally posted by Planner29:

quote:

Originally posted by Lynda Bablin:

quote:

Taxpayers like us do not foot the bill for a building to be LEED certified. The developer and their tenants are the ones who ultimately will pay for materials/practices being up to LEED standards.

Are you saying there are no tax incentives whatsoever for buildings being "LEED certified"? Who picks up the reduction in taxes except other taxpayers? Tax incentives are available for solar enery among others. This all results in reducing revenues to whatever municipality collects the taxes, largely the State. Who pays the State to run its operations? ALL THE TAXPAYERS!

you said two separate things in your two posts. In your first post, you said that taxpayers foot the bill for a building being LEED certified. In your second post, you said there are tax incentives for a building being LEED certified. These are two different arguments you are trying to make. Tax incentives, in the form of the Green Building Tax Credit (http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4475.html) are often given to developers who build green buildings. However, you must also consider that if a building is receiving a tax credit for building green, we (i.e. "the taxpayer") are benefitting from a decrease in dependence on fossil fuels (using energy efficient appliances, soloar power, etc), replacing the use of new materials with recycled materials and improving the overall heallth and welfare of the people working in the building (thus decreasing sick days and hospital visits to medical facilities subsidized by tax dollars).

Among other things, according to NYSERDA,LEED does the following:

****Energy Efficiency
Using energy more efficiently
Saves operating costs on utility bills over the life of the building (30 Years)
Reduces the cost per unit on manufactured goods and services
Enhances resale and lease value of real estate


Environmental Efficiency
Reducing environmental impact
Reduces waste materials and disposal costs,
Reduces water usage,
Reduces chemical use and disposal costs
Encourages recycling and reuse of materials
Develops local markets for locally produced materials- saves on transportation costs and develops economy-of-scale price reductions.


Human Efficiency
Improving indoor environment, producing healthier places to work
increases productivity
reduces absenteeism
boosts morale and corporate loyalty
reduces employee turnover


Green Buildings enjoy high profile notoriety and their developers enjoy the well-deserved public perception of goodwill toward employees and the community.****

You treat environmentalism and investment in renewable energy like it is a bad thing. I'm sure if we took away some of the tax breaks George W gave to Exxon we could pay to implement renewable energy programs on a larger scale, without impacting your wallet as a tax payer.....

quote:

we (i.e. "the taxpayer") are benefitting from a decrease in dependence on fossil fuels (using energy efficient appliances, soloar power, etc), replacing the use of new materials with recycled materials and improving the overall heallth and welfare of the people working in the building (thus decreasing sick days and hospital visits to medical facilities subsidized by tax dollars).

quote:

Originally posted by Lynda Bablin:

quote:

we (i.e. "the taxpayer") are benefitting from a decrease in dependence on fossil fuels (using energy efficient appliances, soloar power, etc), replacing the use of new materials with recycled materials and improving the overall heallth and welfare of the people working in the building (thus decreasing sick days and hospital visits to medical facilities subsidized by tax dollars).

Oh please. You can't be serious. There is nothing wrong with using fossil fuels. What do you think is being used to manufacture photovoltaic cells, appliances etc.? Try manufacturing ANYTHING without fossil fuels and see where you end up. It's simply impossible. The energy that comes from fossil fuels is far cleaner now than it ever has been. The country cannot run without fossil fuels. There is not enough sun to make solar a viable alternative in most parts of the country. There is not enough wind to generate a perpetual source of energy to supply most of the country. I have absolutely no problem with private industry doing whatever it can to create alternative sources of energy to be used in addition to fossil fuels. I do have a serious problem with us not utilizing our own existing and potential sources of fuel that are right on our own shores or within the boundries. Government subsidies of any of this nonsense needs to stop. It is often forgotten that "government subsidies" is from my pocket and yours. The government (State and Federal) doesn't grow money on trees. We have no say where our tax dollars go. It was never intended for our tax dollars to be used to subsidize "green" or any other pet project. Find proof that it does in the Constitution and I'll apologize for my error.



I'm an accountant, and Lynda just got pwned. STFU & RTFM. It's free on IRS.gov.

Whitey, I have no idea what "pwned" means. But there is no disputing what I have said. It is all a matter of personal belief and who drinks what Kool Aid.

quote:

Originally posted by Planner29:

quote:

Originally posted by Lynda Bablin:

quote:

we (i.e. "the taxpayer") are benefitting from a decrease in dependence on fossil fuels (using energy efficient appliances, soloar power, etc), replacing the use of new materials with recycled materials and improving the overall heallth and welfare of the people working in the building (thus decreasing sick days and hospital visits to medical facilities subsidized by tax dollars).

Oh please. You can't be serious. There is nothing wrong with using fossil fuels. What do you think is being used to manufacture photovoltaic cells, appliances etc.? Try manufacturing ANYTHING without fossil fuels and see where you end up. It's simply impossible. The energy that comes from fossil fuels is far cleaner now than it ever has been. The country cannot run without fossil fuels. There is not enough sun to make solar a viable alternative in most parts of the country. There is not enough wind to generate a perpetual source of energy to supply most of the country. I have absolutely no problem with private industry doing whatever it can to create alternative sources of energy to be used in addition to fossil fuels. I do have a serious problem with us not utilizing our own existing and potential sources of fuel that are right on our own shores or within the boundries. Government subsidies of any of this nonsense needs to stop. It is often forgotten that "government subsidies" is from my pocket and yours. The government (State and Federal) doesn't grow money on trees. We have no say where our tax dollars go. It was never intended for our tax dollars to be used to subsidize "green" or any other pet project. Find proof that it does in the Constitution and I'll apologize for my error.



I'm an accountant, and Lynda just got pwned. STFU & RTFM. It's free on IRS.gov.

Whitey, I have no idea what "pwned" means. But there is no disputing what I have said. It is all a matter of personal belief and who drinks what Kool Aid.

Linda the constitution explicitly allows taxation with representation, and furthermore says that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government in the constitution shall be delegated to the states. Ergo, the State of New York is therby allowed to give green tax incentives.

And it must be some pretty strong kool aid if you think that there is nothing wrong with fossil fuels. I would suppose you are not a believer in global warming? The combustion of fossil fuels in automobiles and power plants pumps tons and tons of greenhouse gasses (Nox, CO2, O3, CO, etc) into our atmosphere, causing everything from respiratory illness, acid rain, mercury contamination in our lakes and streams, smog and oh....global warming. If George Bush did not strip the renewable energy industry of its funding, tax incentives and investments during his 8 year reign of terror, you would see a lot more industry relying on renewable enrgy, including nuclear, to power manufacturing. Fossil fuels are not renewable either. Once we suck them all out of the ground, they will be gone for a very, very, very long time. We will be reaching peak oil soon and from there the oil prices will only go up as the supply becomes more and more scarce. We need the government to invest more in renewable energy funding now, because when we run out of fossil fuels tomorrow, we are gonig to need other sources of energy to run this world. Wind, hydro, nuclear, solar, geothermal. All incredibly important sources of fuel. As soon as we perfect solar, the world will be an amazing place.

quote:

Originally posted by SilentHoveringOrb:

quote:

Originally posted by Planner29:

quote:

Originally posted by Lynda Bablin:

quote:

we (i.e. "the taxpayer") are benefitting from a decrease in dependence on fossil fuels (using energy efficient appliances, soloar power, etc), replacing the use of new materials with recycled materials and improving the overall heallth and welfare of the people working in the building (thus decreasing sick days and hospital visits to medical facilities subsidized by tax dollars).

Oh please. You can't be serious. There is nothing wrong with using fossil fuels. What do you think is being used to manufacture photovoltaic cells, appliances etc.? Try manufacturing ANYTHING without fossil fuels and see where you end up. It's simply impossible. The energy that comes from fossil fuels is far cleaner now than it ever has been. The country cannot run without fossil fuels. There is not enough sun to make solar a viable alternative in most parts of the country. There is not enough wind to generate a perpetual source of energy to supply most of the country. I have absolutely no problem with private industry doing whatever it can to create alternative sources of energy to be used in addition to fossil fuels. I do have a serious problem with us not utilizing our own existing and potential sources of fuel that are right on our own shores or within the boundries. Government subsidies of any of this nonsense needs to stop. It is often forgotten that "government subsidies" is from my pocket and yours. The government (State and Federal) doesn't grow money on trees. We have no say where our tax dollars go. It was never intended for our tax dollars to be used to subsidize "green" or any other pet project. Find proof that it does in the Constitution and I'll apologize for my error.



I'm an accountant, and Lynda just got pwned. STFU & RTFM. It's free on IRS.gov.

Whitey, I have no idea what "pwned" means. But there is no disputing what I have said. It is all a matter of personal belief and who drinks what Kool Aid.

Linda the constitution explicitly allows taxation with representation, and furthermore says that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government in the constitution shall be delegated to the states. Ergo, the State of New York is therby allowed to give green tax incentives.

And it must be some pretty strong kool aid if you think that there is nothing wrong with fossil fuels. I would suppose you are not a believer in global warming? The combustion of fossil fuels in automobiles and power plants pumps tons and tons of greenhouse gasses (Nox, CO2, O3, CO, etc) into our atmosphere, causing everything from respiratory illness, acid rain, mercury contamination in our lakes and streams, smog and oh....global warming. If George Bush did not strip the renewable energy industry of its funding, tax incentives and investments during his 8 year reign of terror, you would see a lot more industry relying on renewable enrgy, including nuclear, to power manufacturing. Fossil fuels are not renewable either. Once we suck them all out of the ground, they will be gone for a very, very, very long time. We will be reaching peak oil soon and from there the oil prices will only go up as the supply becomes more and more scarce. We need the government to invest more in renewable energy funding now, because when we run out of fossil fuels tomorrow, we are gonig to need other sources of energy to run this world. Wind, hydro, nuclear, solar, geothermal. All incredibly important sources of fuel. As soon as we perfect solar, the world will be an amazing place.

Although I'm not doubting that there are some adverse affects from the burning of fossil fuel, I'm going to have to disagree that it's the main cause of climate change. Planetary temperatures peaked in 1998, and have been at a steady decline ever since. Indeed this has been one of the coldest autumns since the 1930's, and now scientists are actually hinting that we may be heading toward another mini-ice age, much like was seen between the middle of the 18th and 19th century. The whole global warming thing is bogus, at least in the way its being presented to us. We should be focusing on Clean air, Clean water, and woodland conservation rather than worrying about carbon taxation and controlling CO2 emmissions. The whole green movement has nothing to with environment, but everything to do with politics. Sorry, we're seeing climate change from temperature differentials on all of the planets in the solar system that are closest to the sun, our CO2 is not affecting them, seems like its been the Sun all along.

Peak oil? Perhaps, but there's a lot of talk over the last 5 years or so within the earth sciences regarding the theory of abiotic oil, or the fact that oil may not be as finite as originally thought due to it not being generated primarily through organic decay.

In my mind these are all scare tactics derived from a THEORY accepted by only a portion of the scientific community. The powers that be push it as if it were irrefutable fact, and we, the ignorant baaahing masses eagerly look towards these people to increasingly regulate our lives as we march towards the centurys long process of turning eden into a prison planet.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. -George Orwell

[/RANT]

quote:

Originally posted by Planner29:

quote:

Originally posted by SilentHoveringOrb:

quote:

Originally posted by Planner29:

quote:

Originally posted by Lynda Bablin:

quote:

we (i.e. "the taxpayer") are benefitting from a decrease in dependence on fossil fuels (using energy efficient appliances, soloar power, etc), replacing the use of new materials with recycled materials and improving the overall heallth and welfare of the people working in the building (thus decreasing sick days and hospital visits to medical facilities subsidized by tax dollars).

Oh please. You can't be serious. There is nothing wrong with using fossil fuels. What do you think is being used to manufacture photovoltaic cells, appliances etc.? Try manufacturing ANYTHING without fossil fuels and see where you end up. It's simply impossible. The energy that comes from fossil fuels is far cleaner now than it ever has been. The country cannot run without fossil fuels. There is not enough sun to make solar a viable alternative in most parts of the country. There is not enough wind to generate a perpetual source of energy to supply most of the country. I have absolutely no problem with private industry doing whatever it can to create alternative sources of energy to be used in addition to fossil fuels. I do have a serious problem with us not utilizing our own existing and potential sources of fuel that are right on our own shores or within the boundries. Government subsidies of any of this nonsense needs to stop. It is often forgotten that "government subsidies" is from my pocket and yours. The government (State and Federal) doesn't grow money on trees. We have no say where our tax dollars go. It was never intended for our tax dollars to be used to subsidize "green" or any other pet project. Find proof that it does in the Constitution and I'll apologize for my error.



I'm an accountant, and Lynda just got pwned. STFU & RTFM. It's free on IRS.gov.

Whitey, I have no idea what "pwned" means. But there is no disputing what I have said. It is all a matter of personal belief and who drinks what Kool Aid.

Linda the constitution explicitly allows taxation with representation, and furthermore says that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government in the constitution shall be delegated to the states. Ergo, the State of New York is therby allowed to give green tax incentives.

And it must be some pretty strong kool aid if you think that there is nothing wrong with fossil fuels. I would suppose you are not a believer in global warming? The combustion of fossil fuels in automobiles and power plants pumps tons and tons of greenhouse gasses (Nox, CO2, O3, CO, etc) into our atmosphere, causing everything from respiratory illness, acid rain, mercury contamination in our lakes and streams, smog and oh....global warming. If George Bush did not strip the renewable energy industry of its funding, tax incentives and investments during his 8 year reign of terror, you would see a lot more industry relying on renewable enrgy, including nuclear, to power manufacturing. Fossil fuels are not renewable either. Once we suck them all out of the ground, they will be gone for a very, very, very long time. We will be reaching peak oil soon and from there the oil prices will only go up as the supply becomes more and more scarce. We need the government to invest more in renewable energy funding now, because when we run out of fossil fuels tomorrow, we are gonig to need other sources of energy to run this world. Wind, hydro, nuclear, solar, geothermal. All incredibly important sources of fuel. As soon as we perfect solar, the world will be an amazing place.

Although I'm not doubting that there are some adverse affects from the burning of fossil fuel, I'm going to have to disagree that it's the main cause of climate change. Planetary temperatures peaked in 1998, and have been at a steady decline ever since. Indeed this has been one of the coldest autumns since the 1930's, and now scientists are actually hinting that we may be heading toward another mini-ice age, much like was seen between the middle of the 18th and 19th century. The whole global warming thing is bogus, at least in the way its being presented to us. We should be focusing on Clean air, Clean water, and woodland conservation rather than worrying about carbon taxation and controlling CO2 emmissions. The whole green movement has nothing to with environment, but everything to do with politics. Sorry, we're seeing climate change from temperature differentials on all of the planets in the solar system that are closest to the sun, our CO2 is not affecting them, seems like its been the Sun all along.

Peak oil? Perhaps, but there's a lot of talk over the last 5 years or so within the earth sciences regarding the theory of abiotic oil, or the fact that oil may not be as finite as originally thought due to it not being generated primarily through organic decay.

In my mind these are all scare tactics derived from a THEORY accepted by only a portion of the scientific community. The powers that be push it as if it were irrefutable fact, and we, the ignorant baaahing masses eagerly look towards these people to increasingly regulate our lives as we march towards the centurys long process of turning eden into a prison planet.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. -George Orwell

[/RANT]

Just to clarify, I didn't say fossil fuels were the main cause of global warming, just one of the many. Very interesting argument you posit though. I hadn't looked at it that way before. I would agree with you that clean air is a major focus point, but a major way of accomplishing this is either cleaning up the emissions from fossil fuel combustion or elliminating their use altogether.

quote:

Although I'm not doubting that there are some adverse affects from the burning of fossil fuel, I'm going to have to disagree that it's the main cause of climate change. Planetary temperatures peaked in 1998, and have been at a steady decline ever since. Indeed this has been one of the coldest autumns since the 1930's, and now scientists are actually hinting that we may be heading toward another mini-ice age, much like was seen between the middle of the 18th and 19th century. The whole global warming thing is bogus, at least in the way its being presented to us. We should be focusing on Clean air, Clean water, and woodland conservation rather than worrying about carbon taxation and controlling CO2 emmissions. The whole green movement has nothing to with environment, but everything to do with politics. Sorry, we're seeing climate change from temperature differentials on all of the planets in the solar system that are closest to the sun, our CO2 is not affecting them, seems like its been the Sun all along.

Peak oil? Perhaps, but there's a lot of talk over the last 5 years or so within the earth sciences regarding the theory of abiotic oil, or the fact that oil may not be as finite as originally thought due to it not being generated primarily through organic decay.

In my mind these are all scare tactics derived from a THEORY accepted by only a portion of the scientific community. The powers that be push it as if it were irrefutable fact, and we, the ignorant baaahing masses eagerly look towards these people to increasingly regulate our lives as we march towards the centurys long process of turning eden into a prison planet.

quote:

Originally posted by Lynda Bablin:

quote:

Although I'm not doubting that there are some adverse affects from the burning of fossil fuel, I'm going to have to disagree that it's the main cause of climate change. Planetary temperatures peaked in 1998, and have been at a steady decline ever since. Indeed this has been one of the coldest autumns since the 1930's, and now scientists are actually hinting that we may be heading toward another mini-ice age, much like was seen between the middle of the 18th and 19th century. The whole global warming thing is bogus, at least in the way its being presented to us. We should be focusing on Clean air, Clean water, and woodland conservation rather than worrying about carbon taxation and controlling CO2 emmissions. The whole green movement has nothing to with environment, but everything to do with politics. Sorry, we're seeing climate change from temperature differentials on all of the planets in the solar system that are closest to the sun, our CO2 is not affecting them, seems like its been the Sun all along.

Peak oil? Perhaps, but there's a lot of talk over the last 5 years or so within the earth sciences regarding the theory of abiotic oil, or the fact that oil may not be as finite as originally thought due to it not being generated primarily through organic decay.

In my mind these are all scare tactics derived from a THEORY accepted by only a portion of the scientific community. The powers that be push it as if it were irrefutable fact, and we, the ignorant baaahing masses eagerly look towards these people to increasingly regulate our lives as we march towards the centurys long process of turning eden into a prison planet.

Perfectly said! Another theory is if we try and curb CO2 emmissions, there won't be a "greening" of the planet, but rather a "browning" of the planet. Plants need CO2 to survive. If man were successful in significantly reducing CO2 levels, which I sincerely doubt they can, the plant life would begin to die off and the browning would begin as would the famines.

quote:

Originally posted by Lynda Bablin:
Perfectly said! Another theory is if we try and curb CO2 emmissions, there won't be a "greening" of the planet, but rather a "browning" of the planet. Plants need CO2 to survive. If man were successful in significantly reducing CO2 levels, which I sincerely doubt they can, the plant life would begin to die off and the browning would begin as would the famines.

quote:

The notion that we should embrace CO2 emission so that we can maintain our plant life is preposterous.

quote:

Originally posted by MALTAMANIAC:
Obviously, the primary was a referendum for what type of Downtown the people of Malta wanted.* You would never know it by the posters here on lutherforestdotcom but The low rise spread out candidate beat the high density sourpuss candidate. Hmmmm....That tells me that this conversation is just another exercise in your own futility.

quote:

Originally posted by QB:

quote:

Originally posted by MALTAMANIAC:
Obviously, the primary was a referendum for what type of Downtown the people of Malta wanted.* You would never know it by the posters here on lutherforestdotcom but The low rise spread out candidate beat the high density sourpuss candidate. Hmmmm....That tells me that this conversation is just another exercise in your own futility.

Oh Maniac, Maniac, Maniac...how wrong you are. Last night's planning board meeting was a beautiful thing. A room with democrats and republicans, independents and non-voters, conservatives, those physically and mentally challenged, a TRUE sampling of our community, probably 150 or more, came together in a show of support for the Ellsworth Commons project - to BE BUILT smack dab in the center of our downtown. Granted, not every person present supported the planning board's decision to renew the project's APPROVAL , although the 5 May Apple residents (NIMBYS) who have been feeding Sausville's reign of terror on the downtown were never a true sampling to begin with. I believe Sausville sufficiently cut off his nose to spite his face in making such a big deal about Ellsworth and the renewal of their approval. Oh, by the way, Sausville was NOT at last night's meeting to view his majority constituency. To the other town board members who came out of their snugglies to attend - please remember what you witnessed last night when Sausville goes off on his next "no downtown" tangent! After what I witnessed last night, I would say that Sue Nolen has an excellent chance with her write-in campaign to defeat a man who has mis-represented his constituency long enough!