Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,903
|
Post by Dub on Nov 19, 2019 10:10:14 GMT -5
You guys kill me with your “left this” and “leftist that” red scare shit. There is no meaningful left in this country and hasn’t been for decades. You seem to think that anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the current Republican line is “on the left.” That is crap. The problem you are trying to rail against is neoliberalism, not “the left.” It’s as though you removed the left half of the color spectrum so that the leftmost color is green and then started referring to green as violet because the leftmost color is supposed to be violet.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 19, 2019 10:17:12 GMT -5
I don't agree, but you're welcome to explain the difference. As near as I can tell, the difference only lies in how the State would implement running everything from a central government. What you're describing and the Democrat party are certainly on the same left side of the political spectrum. Neither is for federalism. Neither is originalist in its interpretation of the Constitution. Both are philosophically tied to the economic theory that wealth is based on the distribution of limited resources.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 19, 2019 10:34:14 GMT -5
Jeff, I wasn't aware of the goals the candidates have articulated. I see that I didn't miss anything that mattered. It's very optimistic puffery. As I indicated, I've looked a lot more at studies of the problem than at potential fixes. Based on what I have read about fixes, I'm not optimistic. We should do what we can. So far the whole issue has been about the problem rather than fixes. Sounding the warning and researching the propaganda has become a healthy government funded industry. Since I've been involved in the issue (20 years or so) there have only been 4 broad "solutions" proposed. 1. EPA regulation. 2007's EPA v. Massachusetts set the table. But it's been a pretty scary idea even for environmentalists from the get go. EPA was never conceived for this kind of task and it's extremely problematic in the details. However, despite Obama's best intentions to force the issue, Trump shut it down. Now Trump's EPA has backed off the stringency Obama was shooting for teeing up another date with the Supreme Court that could blow the whole idea up completely. 2. Cap and Trade. Pushed as a better alternative to EPA regulation, Lieberman-Warner in 2009 proposed an economy wide re-engineering of everything under a program of CO2 credits and trade markets that would be the bedrock of being allowed to do business in this country. Once it was floated the details became generally terrifying to everyone and even Harry Reid couldn't save it and it died in the Senate. Haven't heard a peep from anyone about it since. 3. CO2 "neutral" alternative fuels. This is inherently sketchy and controversial from a technical perspective just on it's face (when considering the benefits do you also count the additional CO2 spewing infrastructure required to make the stuff?). This also includes things like electric vehicles which really don't reduce CO2 emissions, but rather centralize their production in the power plants. The theory then being it's easier to "scrub" the emissions from a central source than it is to regulate a half a billion or so mobile sources on the road. The idea goes back to ozone scrubbers' etc. from the 90's. Except there is no CO2 scrubber and never will be (CO2 is chemically an "end state" stable gas. There's nothing to scrub or catalyze.) Even if you overlook the technical shortcomings of alternative fuels in regard to CO2 reduction, there will never be enough windmills and wheat fields to displace fossil fuels, the enormity of which is simply staggering. And as Jeff has pointed out, there's always nuclear. But nobody wants to live near a nuclear plant- ever. Politically dead on arrival. 4. Sequestration. Maybe it's a solution. It's certainly innocuous enough to fly under the radar currently. "We'll just stick this stuff in the ground and it will be just like it went away." Tough to tell what issues will come up when you industrialize it on a massive scale. Maybe it will work. Only time will tell. But my skeptical mind always goes back to alternative fuels, only substitute "sequestration plants" for "windmills and wheat fields". This is the core of my skepticism and it's earned. To me we can wring our hands until they bleed or we can put our faith in the belief that the models are wrong. And having had my share of interaction with complex system modelling, my money's on "they're wrong".
|
|
|
Post by lar on Nov 19, 2019 11:34:26 GMT -5
One of the difficult things about discussing fixes is that there is a wide variety of opinion regarding what the problem(s) is/are. And, as has been pointed out here, some of the opinions firmly reject any suggestion that continued use of fossil fuels might be feasible if ways to mitigate the emissions can be found. If we indeed are in big trouble I believe that it's important to find solutions, regardless of where they come from.
I listened to a portion of a BBC broadcast yesterday. A representative from the party that considers itself to be Britain's "green party" was being interviewed. They are running on a platform that calls for zero fossil fuel use by 2030. As nearly as I can tell they don't have a specific plan to achieve that. They seem to think that making that goal a legal mandate will somehow make it happen.
The interviewer asked about costs and the effects on the lives of British citizens. According to the representative, British citizens support the party's plans by an overwhelming margin and they aren't concerned about the cost or about having to replace their autos with some other form of transportation.
I also read the other day that the success and growth of public transportation has been stymied by automobiles. According to the article, and now I can't remember where I saw it, the auto industry is involved in a conspiracy to wreck public transportation.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 19, 2019 11:42:50 GMT -5
Peter, I think there may be more openness to nuclear power than there used to be. That suspicion is based on nothing more than conversations with friends. Nuclear power has its problems but so do fossil fuels. I'd say the evidence is making nuclear power look like the lesser of two poisons.
You don't mention a carbon tax. My understanding is that where it's been adopted, it has succeeded in reducing carbon emissions. I double-checked and some oil companies have advocated the adoption of one in the US, as have some conservative economists. Do you see a problem with that?
I'd love to believe the climate projections are wrong but I have no reason to think so. The studies that produce them are typically explained in scientific journals. A few years back I read a number of articles about projections for my own region. Such articles aren't really all that arcane or inaccessible, although I ran into some terms that sent me googling. I also looked to see if anyone had questioned the methodology used in these projections. I didn't find any criticisms (which isn't dispositive).
I don't want to wring my hands or put faith in any belief. I want us to do what we can and get busy trying to find better ways to tackle the problem.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 19, 2019 12:37:09 GMT -5
Peter, I think there may be more openness to nuclear power than there used to be. That suspicion is based on nothing more than conversations with friends. Nuclear power has its problems but so do fossil fuels. I'd say the evidence is making nuclear power look like the lesser of two poisons. Last I heard there hasn't been a new nuclear plant in the US for something like 40 years. Can't get permits. If the attitude is changing (and I don't know any better), somebody has to do something particularly to hit end of this century projections. A carbon tax is just an old school and less ominous sounding Cap and Trade scheme. Sure, raise taxes. And kill the economy. Works quite well for those that can afford it. But then, genocide always does. And there's the core rub. I've run into several valid criticisms, but then I've dealt with this for a living. Models have limits of accuracy and can be very useful if the system is limited and the errors are not fatal. The atmosphere, climate, geology, physics, chemistry, etc. of the entire planet is virtually boundless. And if you get it wrong, people will die. Most likely horribly. It's the same thing that happened to Cap and Trade. When taken out of the antiseptic confines of scientific journals and made plain, it rightfully scares the shit out of you. It's a hard truth, but truth nonetheless. Basic 7th grade chemistry, my friend. Hydrocarbons plus oxygen burns and leaves water and CO2 (incidentally, if you really want to boost your cynicism, change CO2 to water vapor in all those scientific journals). And we're only talking about a 10 or 20 percent change in 0.04% of the atmosphere. That's a basic 3 atom molecule. That's colorless and odorless. And vital to life on the planet. Then ask how exactly does that work. There is no good way out yet (although you can wonder why the alarmists are all alarm and no solutions). When there is, I'm all in. Until then, I'm believing the models are wrong. Again.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 19, 2019 12:58:15 GMT -5
You guys kill me with your “left this” and “leftist that” red scare shit. There is no meaningful left in this country and hasn’t been for decades. You seem to think that anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the current Republican line is “on the left.” That is crap. The problem you are trying to rail against is neoliberalism, not “the left.” It’s as though you removed the left half of the color spectrum so that the leftmost color is green and then started referring to green as violet because the leftmost color is supposed to be violet. IOW, Bruce is no true Scotsman.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 19, 2019 13:31:33 GMT -5
You guys kill me with your “left this” and “leftist that” red scare shit. There is no meaningful left in this country and hasn’t been for decades. You seem to think that anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the current Republican line is “on the left.” That is crap. The problem you are trying to rail against is neoliberalism, not “the left.” It’s as though you removed the left half of the color spectrum so that the leftmost color is green and then started referring to green as violet because the leftmost color is supposed to be violet. IOW, Bruce is no true Scotsman. Well, in truth I'm not. I only have Scottish ancestry on one side of the family, English and possibly French on the other side. I'm a U.S.A. natural born citizen with frugality like a Scot but with no loyalty to any monarchy or country outside the U.S.A. I'm a believer in the foundation of the U.S.A, federal system with a small central government responsible for maintaining security of the borders, resolving disputes between the states and very little else. Lately, that makes me a white supremacist, baby killer, capitalist and deplorable being. Anyone outside that definition is a leftist, communist, socialist or whatever they want to call themselves today other than right.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 19, 2019 13:56:28 GMT -5
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,903
|
Post by Dub on Nov 19, 2019 15:04:04 GMT -5
|
|