|
Post by robeiae on Feb 10, 2019 18:04:30 GMT -5
Meanwhile, Ocasio-Cortez's advisers have found yet another solution to a huge problem:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 18:30:17 GMT -5
As is likely obvious, I disagree with your lack of urgency about addressing climate change, and your doubt about how much man is responsible (as do, I might add, most climate scientists). But whatever -- I'm going to address this. People who are demanding restructuring huge sectors of the economyand/or cutting out energy sources all for the sake of the future don't really understand how much damage such things can do to a lot of people's lives in the mean time. Telling people that they have to "tighten their belts" and/or deal with the changes for a while because "the future" is easy to say, but I don't know that I want to be around a government that's saying it, when there's a serious lack of understanding on what this means going forward. I'm gonna bet you don't swallow the "but this will impact the lives of people in the meantime!" argument when it comes to market-based changes. Technological advances have had quite as many "in the meantime" adverse reactions to a ton of people's lives. E.g., automation of farming equipment (large-scale farming generally) -- sure, we can feed way more people but it drove a lot of small farmers out of business and off their land. All the automated checkouts, computerized helplines, etc. -- you are dealing with machines when you used to deal with people, all of whom are out of a job, no? One of Charlotte Bronte's novels revolves around Luddite revolts in the textile industry, which occurred when new machinery put people out of work. Stagecoaches suffered when railroads came in. Railroads suffered when cars got big. Passenger ships and railroads suffered when air travel became a thing. Oh, and with cars, cities changed entirely, suburbs became a thing, socio-economic change ensued. ( Oh, another classic novel!) Online retailers are putting brick and mortar retailers out of business. I could go on and on, but I'm guessing you get the point. Would you have advocated that none of those changes be permitted because the workers in those industries would suffer? I'm guessing no. I'm guessing you shrug and say "well, those people are going to have to get new jobs, because change happens." Am I wrong? Change that brings long-term benefits for humanity as a whole has often had negative repercussions, sometimes serious ones, for people who work in the changing industries. That's how it works. If we shut down coal mines, yes, coal miners will have to find other work, and yes, they will struggle unless we help them retrain, etc. But be intellectually honest -- your real objection is not that people working in the curtailed industries will suffer. It's that you don't want the government regulating to that extent.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 10, 2019 18:40:34 GMT -5
Sure, as tech advances, some people get put out of work, but that's a natural advancement. Not government deciding who does or doesn't get to work.
If people who work for fuel companies went out of work because someone came out with a new power source that was clean and efficient, it would suck for them, but that's something that happens.
But to target them saying we're going to eliminate it, without something that does the same thing, not only hurts the people who earn their living that way, but people who rely on those fuel sources.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 18:43:57 GMT -5
We could and should be actively supporting and developing green sources of energy to replace fossil fuels and unclean sources of energy to the extent possible. The workers can be retrained to work there, if they like. Instead, we (our president!) is attempting to artificially prop up Kleen Kole and rah-rah-ing fossil fuels.
I can't recall where you are on tariffs, but there again the government is picking winners and losers.
If you oppose both, at least you are consistent. (Though picking winners and losers for the sake of the environment, which affects humanity as a whole and future generations, strikes me as considerably more justifiable than doing it for the sake of, say, the steel industry.)
To note, though, I think our governments advocacy and meddling on behalf of coal, fossil fuel, etc. has served to suppress development of green sources of energy.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 10, 2019 18:46:19 GMT -5
As is likely obvious, I disagree with your lack of urgency about addressing climate change, and your doubt about how much man is responsible (as do, I might add, most climate scientists). To be clear, it's not that I necessarily doubt "how much," it's that I question why it functionally matters. Man--mankind--is a part of the Earth's ecosystem. It always has been and always will. Man's activities are every bit as natural as those of a three-toed sloth (even one with orange hair). It so happens that there are now a shit-ton of humans on this ball of rock. Want a real solution? Think Thanos X 100 (reduce the population by 50% a hundred or so times). Well, see, those changes weren't mandated from on high, by and large. They were, in fact, organic. And because they were organic, people adapted over time. When such huge changes aren't organic, what you get is backyard steel and/or the generational desperation of the Soviet Union. I don't want the government "regulating" (that's a generous term) things to such an extent because when governments do this, people suffer. Again, I think new and cleaner sources of energy are great and should be encouraged, even by the government. And that can lead to them being adapted on an increasingly larger scale. Ditto for many other things that relate to a cleaner, healthier planet. But apparently, such an approach is deemed a problem because it's not yuuuuuge enough in the moment...
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 10, 2019 19:16:57 GMT -5
Well, see, those changes weren't mandated from on high, by and large. They were, in fact, organic. And because they were organic, people adapted over time. When such huge changes aren't organic, what you get is backyard steel and/or the generational desperation of the Soviet Union. Restated for emphasis. I'm always amazed that people who know Intelligent Design is bullshit when it comes to evolutionary processes in biology assume that a society can be managed by the same Intelligent Design, but applied by brains much less capable than one might envision for a Divine Creator. Society is organic. Economics is organic. Value is subjective times the number of members of the society. Fractal geometry says more about society than adding up all the dollars spent, whether for good or evil, for new wealth or wealth replacement, calling it GNP, and attaching meaning to its rise or fall. You can't manage society with a spreadsheet. Grand Five Year Plans (oops, 10 in this case) are doomed to failure. Examples are legion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 19:26:40 GMT -5
Many of those "organic" things happened very swiftly. Hence, e.g., the luddite revolts in the textile industry. The workers adapted over time -- but the change happened fast.
Perhaps the root of the difference between us is that you don't feel it's urgent. Let me ask you this: If you were 97% certain that man's activity was a significant cause of climate change, that if man's activity were not curtailed ASAP, your kids would suffer some dire consequences, but that if man's activity were curtailed ASAP , those consequences could be mitigated -- if you could be convinced of that, would you then think that the government would be justified in taking some strong actions rather than waiting to see if maybe the market could sort it all out over a generation or two?
See, because that's where I am and where AOC is, beliefwise. Hence, why I'm more in favor of big gubment action with regard to this than I am with regard to, say, steel tariffs or taking land by eminent domain to build a giant wall. Here, I see dire consequences if we don't take strong immediate actions, and only the government, IMO, can do it in the time frame (which is yesterday). This, to me, is akin to discovering that lack of sewers or a contaminated water source is causing a cholera epidemic, only bigger. Much bigger.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 10, 2019 19:32:17 GMT -5
Do strong government actions include invading China and India, and forcing those governments to take the same drastic actions? Are we willing to keep Africa where it is for the foreseeable future? Because while the developed countries are already making big strides in environmental issues, those emerging economies are going to be the big contributors to the carbon issue in the next decades. What we can do here is a drop in the bucket by comparison. AOC's plan is also a great excuse for imperialism if the situation is indeed that dire.
Even if government is the only organization that can use the coercion neccesary to change millions of people's lives wholesale, given the government's "successes" in their war on drugs, war on poverty, and wars around the world, do you really believe they can conduct a successful war against carbon?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 19:41:55 GMT -5
I think we can do a great deal here, if we are so inclined. We use a buttload of fossil fuels. Can we force the whole world to do likewise? No, perhaps not, but much of the industrialized world in fact IS doing more than we are. And it's places in the developing world like Africa that are going to suffer the worst climate consequences without action. They're gonna die in droughts or in hurricanes, etc. To the extent they're not on board, we could be working with other nations to help convince them of the urgency.
And again, I think if we don't do this, our kids and future generations are fucked--indeed, likely within my lifetime- so IMO there is no other responsible choice but to do what we can.
If you don't believe it's going to happen, then I suppose I can see your lack of urgency. But I and 97% of climate scientists beg to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Feb 10, 2019 20:14:31 GMT -5
This is the conundrum of the environmental movement...wind and solar and other "clean" technologies simply don't work.
Currently in the world there are two nations that most hold up to praise wind and solar power: Denmark and Germany.
Denmark receives about 50% of its power from wind generation and about 5% from solar. Germany receives about 36% of its power from combined solar and wind sources.
So why aren't these nations role models for the world? Let's take Denmark first. Denmark has about the population of Wisconsin, the land area of West Virginia, and an economy smaller than the state of Washington. Scale-ability will always be an issue. Another is cost...Denmark has the highest electrical costs in Europe. Germany, by the way, has the 2nd highest.
Germany will proudly declare how dedicated they are to clean energy, yet at this moment they are bulldozing over forests to make room for new coal mines and power plants.
Solar power has been a fad for over a century. You can find advocates for solar as far back as 1833. In just the last 20 years, solar investment has exceeded 1.8 trillion dollars, with wind getting a mere 900 billion. Where is the revolution? Sure, everyone will point to the power of the fossil fuel lobby, but that is a red herring. The reason there is no revolution is because those technologies are inefficient, expensive, and impractical for large scale use. Plus there is evidence that the mass production of solar panels and wind turbines creates a LARGER carbon footprint than either natural gas or coal. Nations continuously fall back on fossil fuels because THEY WORK.
So what is there for clean energy? Sit and hope someone can figure out how to make the hydrogen power cell work? Wait for cold fusion? Best estimates are those technologies are decades away if they can ever be made to work.
Nope, what environmentalists refuse to face and acknowledge is that there is only one proven power source that has ZERO carbon footprint: Nuclear. The two nations with the lowest carbon footprint per capita among industrialized nations are France and Sweden. Both get over 90% of their electricity from nuclear.
Sure, as Japan has shown there are severe hazards with nuclear. The shame is this technology hasn't seen any advances in near 50 years because of the stigma associated with it.
If people are serious about going green they have to face the reality that nuclear is the only real way to get there.
But that's a dirty word.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 10, 2019 20:23:20 GMT -5
I absolutely agree, Don. That is one aspect of TNGD that shows AOC is not truly trying to save the world. What she's trying to do is dupe people into going socialist by playing on fears that climate change will soon end the world. If Ms. Ocasio-Cortez truly believed in the urgency she says she does, then why spend so much time and energy and money on those aspects of the green deal that don't directly help the environment? All this stuff about tuition free education and affordable housing and living wages seems, to me, to be a moot point if earth is destroyed. So why the emphasis on those things right now, in this plan, when we are all hurtling towards the apocalypse? Those resources should be diverted to saving the world, and we all should tighten our belts and suffer until the world is safe again. Also, if she truly believed in the urgency she says she does, then why take nuclear energy off the table? That does not make sense either, with what has been going on in the world for decades, and AOC only has to see the experience of other nations like Sweden, France, Germany, and the People's Republic of California to learn this. If we're going to fully decarbonize, we need nuclear power. Wind and water are just not reliable. That's a basic fact she should know, if she's attempting to change our entire country in order to save the world. The following article is by someone who knows, and he's not a right wing climate denier but quite the opposite. www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/08/the-only-green-new-deals-that-have-ever-worked-were-done-with-nuclear-not-renewables/#301217f47f61If you're gonna destroy livelihoods and bankrupt the country in order to save the world, at the very least you shouldn't ignore what has failed over and over in the recent past, and what has worked in the recent past.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 11, 2019 2:12:58 GMT -5
This is a pretty informative thread on the policy implications of initiatives like the GND:
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 11, 2019 7:13:20 GMT -5
This is a pretty informative thread on the policy implications of initiatives like the GND: An interesting take on several of the issues we've discussed here. This guy is obviously too sane to be a politician.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 11, 2019 8:06:50 GMT -5
Many of those "organic" things happened very swiftly. Hence, e.g., the luddite revolts in the textile industry. The workers adapted over time -- but the change happened fast. Okay. I don't get your point. I'm not--and I don't think Don is--trying to argue that all change of this sort is smooth and un-painful. But it's change driven fundamentally by choice, not by government mandate. It's change that is necessarily reactive and adaptive (that's why it works), which is something mandated change of the sort being called for in the GND just can't be (again, backyard steel and the economic smoke and mirrors of the Soviets). I'm not "waiting to see" anything. The root of the difference between us is that I don't think the government is entitled to control every aspect of existence, under any circumstances. That, and I think the "solutions" being sold as "do this or else we all perish" have the potential to do a lot of harm and may not actually be solutions, at all.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 11, 2019 8:16:04 GMT -5
Let's up the ante, so to speak: www.cnn.com/2019/02/11/health/insect-decline-study-intl/index.htmlObviously, we need to stop killing insects, across the board. Would that mean a lot more people might catch diseases from insect bites and potentially die? Sure. Would that mean a potential drop in the world food supply and an increased likelihood of starvation? Sure. But it's okay, because we're just slaves to an unknown future...
|
|