Global Warming, CO2...

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:51 am

sonofccn wrote:That would be because a green economy is a no profit economy,hence why the EU tends to ignore the various carbon limits it's signs. Now when and if this changes that's another thing but at that point it will occur naturally via the evolution of free markets. So no need for heavy handed tactics.
My demand was, to show, where I have said or propagated, what PunkMaister has imputed to me.

Your post does not answer that question.

And it is wrong.

Have you read the from me already provided articles at all? And even if not, your own post shows, if it would be true that green economy, as you have called it, is a no profit economy, why it could not work via the evolution of free market. If it is a no profit economy, no economist would do it, irrelevant how necessary it is. That's the problem with a free market economy: All are aiming for short- or long-term profit. In the majority of cases they are aiming for short-term profits because they can't really imagine, what will happen in hundred years, when they are all already dead. And even in cases, where one can imagine it, the majority will ignore it. I have described the problem already in my first post:
  • »[...] global warming is something that does not happen in next to no time. And it will affect the people of poor nations more and earlier than the people of rich nations. That makes it difficult for dunderheads like you to understand the long-ranging dangers respectively it makes it easy for you to ignore them because you will probably not be affected by them and what happens to other people and nations or to your descendants maybe does not matter to you.«

sonofccn wrote:You said and I quote Make a law:
  1. Only non-polluting cars are to be produced after 2010.
  2. Only non-polluting cars are allowed to be driven after 2015.
One that is draconianaly heavy handed and yes reeks of fascism. Second that fact that you proposed that and somehow think that it wouldn't send every industry reeling for the forseeable future is a very good example of you not thinking beyond talking points.


Do you know, what fascism is at all? It seems not because such a law would have nothing to do with fascism.

And it may be, that it is not the best solution. But it is a solution and better than to do nothing. If you have a better solution, I'd pleased to hear it.

I've never said, that such changes wouldn't »send every industry reeling for the forseeable future«. Quite the contrary:
  • »It's good for your economy if all have to buy new cars. It's good for your economy, if the whole infrastructure has to be changed because that means work for workers. Yes, that means also, that certain jobs no longer exists, but new jobs are created in the same time. «
Again: read the following articles: It seems as if recognised economists don't think, that »green economy is a no profit economy« and that it will results »in millions in both the US and Europe impoverished and starving« or would »amounts to placing millions of people's lives at risk for the possibility that it might just might save perhaps a billion in the short term«.


sonofccn wrote:The problem or at least the specific problem being addressed is the abundance of their fuel sources and ease of extraction. Face it fossil fuels are almost the only thing on this planet plentiful enough and cheap enough to use as a fuel source either directly in your tank or in your power plant producing power for your clean electric car shaped toy unless you prefer nuclear energy but I don't think that is considered "green".
  1. I have not necessary a problem with the use of fossil fuels. I have a problem with polluting. The one does not necessary mean the other. You have to differentiate and to recognise the real problem. There are filter techniques, who can solve the problem. But they are not cheap. And, as I have said already, that means, that an economist will not decide to install such a filter, if he is not compelled by a law.
  2. I have nothing against nuclear energy as long as it is reasonable safe the wast is safely stored.
But I think, both should be only interim solutions. The ultimate goal should be to generate energy only renewable energy. There are enough studies, who are confirming, that it is possible to meet the power requirement of the world with renewable energy. And in the long run, it is necessary to become independent from fossil fuels or even nuclear fuel elements because these are in the end limited, even if there would be enough for the next ten thousand years. And their extraction will become increasingly difficult.


sonofccn wrote:Punkmaister never claimed that you dream of the above, or at least I didn't read it as such, he is saying that your goal if accomplished would cripple industry, reduce first world nation citizens to live as peasants and in general make everyone, excepting our ruling elite, lives miserable.
He has said: »Again it would be short term because once the world is in the devastated impoverished economy you seem to dream off there won't be anybody left to pick up the pieces as everybody will be impoverished, starving and dying equally...« His words are clear: I seem to dream off a devastated impoverished economy.

And, although I have asked already several times, he still has not answered, why that would be the result.

Mr. Oragahn has spoken of »[...] a hypothesis has gained support in a way or another, and has progressively turned into a truth or religion [...].«

The same applies here. Why would lead the forced adaption of a green economy, as you have called it, to »a devastated impoverished economy«, »where everybody will be impoverished, starving and dying«? As I have shown, there are recognised economists, who have another opinion and are seeing a real chance for the U.S. economy in it. I really see no reason, why I should assume, that the whole economy will collapse.


sonofccn wrote:The fact that you feel it needed to basically put a gun to people's head to carry out your goal, that whole no more car law you proposed, pretty much proves that their is no profit in it. If people could expect a reasonable chance of a payoff down the road someone would have already done it. Yet every green tech fails and is only due to government funds and or edicts that any of this stuff gets built.
People are stupid and are not always doing, what would be the wisest. Insofar, what you have said is not a real argument but a fallacy. It is an appeal to authority or majority without a shred of a further going argument.

And I have never said, that green economy, as you have called it, would be in each branch of industry as profitable as the hitherto existing economy. Yes, it is easier to preserve the the status quo. But that leads probably to a climatic change. And that is probably much worse than the disadvantages, an adaption of a green economy would bring. Not necessary to you. But to many million other people.

And with that argument, you are also confirming, that profits are more important to you than environment and these people.


sonofccn wrote:Also I admit to not being a climate scientist guy but if you are afraid of global warming shouldn't the planet be you know be getting warmer as this one hasn't been since 1998 I believe, after rising the blistering amount of 3/4 or so of a degree over the last hundred years, with the bulk of that being 1950 earlier when there was less of the so called problem around. I mean at this rate I'll die of frost bite before I get my water front property.
I'm also not a climatologist. If you have such a question. You should not ask me but a climatologist.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:55 am

PunkMaister wrote:snip
You have not answered one single challenge.

If you do it, consider my objection to the post of sonofccn.

And you are confirming only my impression of you, if you agree to stupid arguments or repeat them without giving it any thought.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:35 am

Cocytus wrote:snip
I mostly agree to your post. I also don't think, that the transportation sector is the greatest polluter.

And, as I have said already, I wish me power plants, that are not polluting.

That can be hydroelectric plants, solar plants, wind turbine plants, geothermal power plants, wave power plants or whatever else is possible.

I would even prefer a decentralised energy supply with a centralised energy supply as back-up. Each house has its own solar cells and energy storage and is only drawing energy from the public grid, if the solar cells can not supply enough energy and the energy storage is depleted. Each community has its own geothermal power plant (if possible) that provides the back-up. And than, there can be bigger plants, who are supplying the still needed energy for the whole nation.

I know, that this is not possible everywhere. But it should be done, where it is possible. And I know that this is not something that can be achieved in next to no time. But it schould be the ultimate goal.

And if the energy stems from renewable energy, the energy for electric cars is also green energy.

With what I do not agree is, that you seem to think, that each demand has to be met by the market. Only because whole sections of the American auto market love trucks and SUVs does not mean, that this demand has to be fulfilled. I know that many Americans are loving their weapons. Could you imagine, that they are forbidden nevertheless? In most European nations there are strict laws on arms. The same applies to trucks and SUVs. If they are harmful, it is reasonable to restrict their availability. I don't think, that is is necessary to totaly forbid such cars. But one should only be able to get it, if one can prove, that it is really needed and not only a status symbol to compensate a too little self-esteem. And at the same time, there should be rules, that are compelling their manufactures to make them as non-polluting as possible.

And I do not agree with your opinion, that there are no alternatives for fossil fuels until we develop the replicator. As I have shown already, there are enough alternatives (e.g.: Bioplastic). And if you use renewable energy, you don't need coal to heat something. And even there, where are no alternatives, the ongoing use of fossil fuels is not a problem, if filters are used to prevent polluting.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Post by 2046 » Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Also I admit to not being a climate scientist guy but if you are afraid of global warming shouldn't the planet be you know be getting warmer as this one hasn't been since 1998 I believe, after rising the blistering amount of 3/4 or so of a degree over the last hundred years, with the bulk of that being 1950 earlier when there was less of the so called problem around. I mean at this rate I'll die of frost bite before I get my water front property.
I'm also not a climatologist. If you have such a question. You should not ask me but a climatologist.
So folks like you (in your post from which this quote is drawn) posit fundamental and possibly less-profitable alterations to the economy at the point of a governmental gun, taxpayer dollars used to chase after specific technological goals designed to counter warming, and average citizens forced at the point of a gun to get new or modified cars.

But when this runaway global warming we're supposed to be having is shown to not be occurring in contradiction to all the models, you freeze and tell people to go find a climatologist.

Should I go talk to the guys from the old UN IPCC report, the source for most of the "consensus" talk, many of whom are not climatologists anyway?

Maybe I'll go talk to climatologist George Taylor, or folks named in here, climatologist Patrick Michaels, or climatologist Tim Ball, the climatologists among these 400 scientists and economists, the IPCC-quoted scientists among the 2500 (or maybe 51) who weren't signing on to the whole thing, or assorted folks from this list or this huge-mongous list of 31,000, or . . . well, you get the idea.

In any case, the truth is not based on consensus or lack thereof. The truth is the truth, whichever it is. Certainly I don't think one absolutely has to be a climatologist to recognize flaws in (or make defenses of) the so-called science of global warming. When good science gets abused by global warming's religioneers like Al Gore, when bad science gets elevated to the good, and when better science gets ignored, so on and so forth, you don't have to be aware of the more esoteric minutiae of climate change research to be able to call bullshit.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:51 pm

2046, I think your post was already answered:
    • If one is a politician and has to make a decision, but is no climatologist, one has to trust in what the later are saying. And if they are divided but one is not able to decide, which side is correct, one has not many possibilities to decide with objective criteria. The most obvious would be to hear, what the majority of climatologist is saying. Yes, they can err. But what else can one do - besides studying climatology?

      I can't say, if mankind is responsible for climate changes. I can only decide, which side I trust. That's not necessary the majority. But as long as I see no sound argument, why I should not trust them, I will continue to trust them.
If you think, that the thoeries are flawed, show it.
If you think, that good science gets abused by global warming's religioneers, show why it is good science and where and how it is abused by global warming's religioneers.
If you think that bad science gets elevated to the good, show why the one is bad science and the other is good science and where the one gets elevated to the other.
If you think, that better science gets ignored, show, why it is better science and where it is ignored.

All you, PunkMaister and sonofccn are doing is complaining about the state of the climate research because you don't like the consequences or the proposed measures to prevent the prognosticated catastrophe. But neither of you are showing, why the state of the climate research is wrong nor are you proposing other solutions.

It's very simple: show that the models are most likely wrong or show that the proposed measures to prevent or lessen the prognosticated catastrophe are most likely not adequate to do that and propose other measures, that are adequate to prevent or lessen the prognosticated catastrophe.



Besides, there were always fluctuations in the global temperature. The question would be, if the fact, that the temperature has not risen since a few years (assuming that this fact is really true) indicates, that the long-term models are wrong or is it only the consequence of a fluctuations and does change nothing in the long-term development.
  • Image

    Image . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Image
But I am the wrong person to answer that question. The only thing I know is, that the the fact, that the temperature has not risen since a few years (assuming that this fact is really true) does not necessary mean, that the models are wrong - unless these models are saying, that such a fluctuation should not happen any more.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:32 pm

sonofccn wrote:If I had said I supported that law you would have a point. However I don't for the exact same reason, no one has the authority to say from now on only this, that goes for digital tv to green tech.
My point wasn't that I thought you supported the law, sorry for not being clear on this.
My point was that the Governments pass "oppressive" laws everyday for "stupid" reasons, so I have no issue with a law that would at least be passed for the greater good of the planet.

And also, I was wondering why you thought such a law would be bad...
It isn't bad but is limited to places where water is flowing and as an extension can not be the primary power generator of your country.
Agreed, but it is still a better alternative when possible.
I'm lucky enough to live in a province with lots and lots of flowing water.
electric cars use electricty not produce them
Yeah, but they're still greener then oil dependent cars... :)
Windmills, solar power etc are virtually worthless as energy sources and have never to my knowledge been run for a profit.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with the windmills.
There are many wide, windy open spaces that would allow for production of much energy using windmills.
It is a technology that is getting more and more use and exposure in Canada, and we're realizing the potential it has.

Solra energy, yeah, a bit less, since our current collectors are still not that good, but still, imagine all the newer houses built with collectors on their roofs.
Even such small amounts of energy not required by traditionnal power plants will have an impact on pollution.

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Post by Cocytus » Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:05 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:With what I do not agree is, that you seem to think, that each demand has to be met by the market. Only because whole sections of the American auto market love trucks and SUVs does not mean, that this demand has to be fulfilled. I know that many Americans are loving their weapons. Could you imagine, that they are forbidden nevertheless? In most European nations there are strict laws on arms. The same applies to trucks and SUVs. If they are harmful, it is reasonable to restrict their availability. I don't think, that is is necessary to totaly forbid such cars. But one should only be able to get it, if one can prove, that it is really needed and not only a status symbol to compensate a too little self-esteem. And at the same time, there should be rules, that are compelling their manufactures to make them as non-polluting as possible.
Yes, Britain has very restrictive gun laws, basically amounting to a complete ban on private ownership. Britain also has rampant knife crime. I can well imagine that guns are forbidden, which is why I retain my NRA membership despite being a moderate liberal. One popular target for thugs in this country is the elderly, and I don't want a phone call from the police telling me my parents have been murdered. They own guns, and I keep the membership to ensure they keep them. Responsible gun owners don't own them to show off (those who do aren't responsible at all). Responsible gun owners are pragmatic idealists, as I am. They believe in the ideal that no-one should wish or have to kill another, but recognize the possibility, and so defend against it. And your statement about "proving need" is something I take serious issue with, because many gun laws in this country in big cities use that. The only response should be "because it is my right under the Constitution." Period.
W.I.L.G.A. wrote:And I do not agree with your opinion, that there are no alternatives for fossil fuels until we develop the replicator. As I have shown already, there are enough alternatives (e.g.: Bioplastic). And if you use renewable energy, you don't need coal to heat something. And even there, where are no alternatives, the ongoing use of fossil fuels is not a problem, if filters are used to prevent polluting.
My statement was hyperbole, WILGA, but the proof is in the very article you posted. "With the exception of cellulose, most bioplastic technology is relatively new and is currently not cost competitive with petroleum-based plastics" and "Many bioplastics are reliant on fossil fuel-derived energy for their manufacturing"

Here's the issue. Many of these technologies, particularly in the transportation and energy arenas, are not new. Hybrid technology is not new, nor is the concept of clean coal. The parallel hybrid design commonplace in most fuel-efficient cars dates from the 1960s. The problem there was not development so much as it was implementation. The problem with bioplastics is development, not necessarily that they don't work, but that they don't yet work at competetive costs, and in a capitalist system, money is the bottom line.

Bioplastics are not yet cost competetive, and the market will not sustain the forced introduction on a large scale of a product which is not cost competetive. It is seeing some distribution on a small scale, and as the technology improves, that scale will grow ever larger.

The hybrid vehicle IS cost competetive. The 2010 Insight will retail for $19,800, and get 43 MPG. The technology has reached the tipping point. It is no more expensive than most traditional vehicles and offers practical reductions in fuel costs. From here on out, hybrids will explode in popularity among their target demographic, and if hybrid SUVs continue to develop, American consumers can have their cake and eat it too. Want a big car to get your five kids to their soccer game? No problem. Don't want to spend 70 bucks at the pump? No problem.

Finally, let me get back to my hyperbolic, yet instructive, point about the replicator. You see a final product, like a cosmetic, or a bag of concrete or a wide-flange steel beam, and all most people see is the object. They don't see the process of manufacture. Conservatives like to deride environmentalists as naive (that's their catchphrase for everyone who disagrees with them) and much as I hate to admit it, its true for a large sections of environmentalists. However well-intentioned they are, they don't see beyond the end product. But nowadays those of us working in the field of architecture, for example, (though it isn't limited to us) are taught to consider the problem of embodied energy, which is the sum total of all the processes used to make that beam, or that bag of concrete, or that cosmetic. Most steel in the U.S. is manufactured nowadays in either Texas, Pennsylvania or Illinois, and barged through the river system. Manufacturing steel is obviously massively energy-intensive, with the energy deriving from fossil fuels. The barge runs on fossil fuels. The raw steel sections are taken to a fabricator, who creates the actual pieces which will be erected such as, say, a tree column for a skyscraper. That process uses fossil fuels. The finished tree column is barged through the river system. If its headed for New York, for example, it arrives in the harbor and it taken to a repository where it is tagged according to its position in the building skeleton, then it waits. When it is time, it is put on a flatbed truck (which uses fossil fuels) driven to the site, typically at 2 or 3 in the morning to avoid other traffic, then craned up (the crane uses fossil fuels) then bolted into place. Most modern construction tools are battery-driven, which requires electrcity (fossil fuels) and the batteries themselves (lithium ion, for the most part, which equals fossil fuels). See what I'm driving at here? Fossil fuels play roles across the entire spectrum of our lives, from the scale of 60-storey towers right down to your bottle of shampoo. We're not simply going to be able to eliminate fossil fuels from our lives with the passage of a law. And even if we could instantly convert all the manufacturing processes to green energy, we're still left with the problem of what to do with literally billions upon billions of dollars of existing product.

Fossil fuels are in use at every scale of construction, transportation, in every commercial venue, at every point in our daily lives. Against that, overarching government laws would be not only inadvisable, they would be impotent. Some want people to suspend their use of fossil fuels while our generation and manufacturing methods are converted. It cannot happen that way. Only when the solution is in place and operable can fossil fuels be abandoned.

And finally, the rationale of "better to believe and be right, then not believe and be wrong" is a fallacy employed by both ends of the political spectrum, from global warming to Iranian nukes. They threaten us with either a 20-foot sealevel rise, or a mushroom cloud over an American city, to make us act out of fear rather than sound judgement. I do not accept this fallacy for action against Iran, so I cannot expect conservatives to accept it for action against global warming.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Post by sonofccn » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:24 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:My demand was, to show, where I have said or propagated, what PunkMaister has imputed to me.

Your post does not answer that question.

And it is wrong.
Punmiaster and I both appear to believe that your actions would lead to the collaspe of industry. You may disagree but please do not pretend that I did not answer your question.
nd even if not, your own post shows, if it would be true that green economy, as you have called it, is a no profit economy, why it could not work via the evolution of free market. If it is a no profit economy, no economist would do it, irrelevant how necessary it is. That's the problem with a free market economy: All are aiming for short- or long-term profit. In the majority of cases they are aiming for short-term profits because they can't really imagine, what will happen in hundred years, when they are all already dead.
So in other words you feel justified to cause the collapse of industry because of the grave threat of global warming? So you are fully prepared to give up your mordern luxuries right. Goodbye electric lights and internet unless you think we could build enough solar panels to power it all:)
Do you know, what fascism is at all? It seems not because such a law would have nothing to do with fascism.

And it may be, that it is not the best solution. But it is a solution and better than to do nothing. If you have a better solution, I'd pleased to hear it.
If you can think of a better term for someone who believes he has a right to arbitrary decided who get's what for an entire nation I would like to hear it.

As for a solution how about building green cars people actually want? THen they buy them on thier own free will.
It seems as if recognised economists don't think, that »green economy is a no profit economy« and that it will results »in millions in both the US and Europe impoverished and starving« or would »amounts to placing millions of people's lives at risk for the possibility that it might just might save perhaps a billion in the short term«.
Then simply show me a green company that is compatative with a non green company and that makes a profit and isn't supported on government charity. It should be easy if this economists are right.
have not necessary a problem with the use of fossil fuels. I have a problem with polluting. The one does not necessary mean the other. You have to differentiate and to recognise the real problem. There are filter techniques, who can solve the problem. But they are not cheap. And, as I have said already, that means, that an economist will not decide to install such a filter, if he is not compelled by a law.
If it isn't worth the price for the layman then the problem obviously isn't that critical. I mean I'm not against pollution laws to keep the air breathable but I"m not paying my hard earned cash for a filter that doesn't actually do anything tangible.
But I think, both should be only interim solutions. The ultimate goal should be to generate energy only renewable energy. There are enough studies, who are confirming, that it is possible to meet the power requirement of the world with renewable energy. And in the long run, it is necessary to become independent from fossil fuels or even nuclear fuel elements because these are in the end limited, even if there would be enough for the next ten thousand years. And their extraction will become increasingly difficult.
You consider ten thousand years limited? You realise we are likely to be AI programs in a vaste nanite computer network at that point right with powers and energy generation a million years beyond solar or anything else we have currently?

Look I care about efficient energy production not political browny points. Build a solar plant that produces more then a fusion reactor and I would support it but until then I support coal and nuke reactors.
He has said: »Again it would be short term because once the world is in the devastated impoverished economy you seem to dream off there won't be anybody left to pick up the pieces as everybody will be impoverished, starving and dying equally...« His words are clear: I seem to dream off a devastated impoverished economy.

And, although I have asked already several times, he still has not answered, why that would be the result.
Let see it's illegal to drive your car by 2015 so basically the combustion engine has been abolished and you think company's will prosper? HOw will things get moved, how will people get to work, etc. I mean it's one thing if you had a gradual change but you think we could even attempt to build the infrastructure in the alloted time, in a recession? Your idea would cause financial collapse and anyone who says differently without a detail plan on how to do it is either naive or a lair.
People are stupid and are not always doing, what would be the wisest. Insofar, what you have said is not a real argument but a fallacy. It is an appeal to authority or majority without a shred of a further going argument.
That is your problem. People are quite intelligent. People built the internet your using right now. People built the cars you use and the planes you fly in. They are not stupid in fact I'd wager a person who has actually done something with their life against a room full of schoolers any time. I'd rather drown in melted ice bergs if that is what the people decided on then force them to do something against their will. The fact that going against the will of the people doesn't send up red flags to you says a lot about you in my opinion. I don't know about Germans but Americans value freedom and liberty, to the death if need be.
And with that argument, you are also confirming, that profits are more important to you than environment and these people.
Of course profits are more important then the environment when we are talking about industrial collapse. I'd rather kill the planet and save humanity then save the planet and kill humanity or force them to regress back to the dark ages because a small ruling elite feel it is better for them. It exists solely for us to exploit after all, as do the rest of the planets in this universe. Now as to people I care about people. I simply assume they are intelligent enough to make their own decisions. Good, bad if you do not have freedom nothing else matters.
I'm also not a climatologist. If you have such a question. You should not ask me but a climatologist.
That's rich. I mean so far I'm basically assuming that global climate change is actually occurring via man made sources. Since we are in fact getting colder it makes your super drastic edict even that more silly.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Post by sonofccn » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:30 pm

Praeothmin wrote:
sonofccn wrote:If I had said I supported that law you would have a point. However I don't for the exact same reason, no one has the authority to say from now on only this, that goes for digital tv to green tech.
My point wasn't that I thought you supported the law, sorry for not being clear on this.
My point was that the Governments pass "oppressive" laws everyday for "stupid" reasons, so I have no issue with a law that would at least be passed for the greater good of the planet.

And also, I was wondering why you thought such a law would be bad...
It isn't bad but is limited to places where water is flowing and as an extension can not be the primary power generator of your country.
Agreed, but it is still a better alternative when possible.
I'm lucky enough to live in a province with lots and lots of flowing water.
electric cars use electricty not produce them
Yeah, but they're still greener then oil dependent cars... :)
Windmills, solar power etc are virtually worthless as energy sources and have never to my knowledge been run for a profit.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with the windmills.
There are many wide, windy open spaces that would allow for production of much energy using windmills.
It is a technology that is getting more and more use and exposure in Canada, and we're realizing the potential it has.

Solra energy, yeah, a bit less, since our current collectors are still not that good, but still, imagine all the newer houses built with collectors on their roofs.
Even such small amounts of energy not required by traditionnal power plants will have an impact on pollution.
1. I don't support it because I view it as a blow against my freedom, through in this case a very minor one, and more importantly as an overstep of the goverment which has two jobs. Kill enemies of my freedom both forgein and domestic and maintain a basic infrastructure like roads.

2. The problem is when possible hence why I discounted it from the primary power generation. I mean otherwise it seems like a hardy viable process.

3.Wind...if you can build one that can compete with a coal or nuclear plant of equal square footage I"d support it. As I have said it's actual output I'm concerned with.

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Post by PunkMaister » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:38 pm

Arbour may I ask why you feel that Americans and Westerners in general need to be placed a gun in their temples so they change their damn cars, especially when you yourself admit that the transportation industry is not the biggest polluter. When it comes down to it would it not be better if instead the government simply encourages the industry and the public to buy such cars by challenging the industry to make such cars, trucks etc as fast and reliable as those that rely on fossil fuels. Some are close but not quite there yet (Yes I do watch the Discovery and National Geographic channels so I do know a thing or 2 about all these). And give tax incentives (reductions/returns) to those that make the switch.

See no need to force people at gunpoint to change their cars, trucks etc...

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:00 am

Cocytus wrote:Yes, Britain has very restrictive gun laws, basically amounting to a complete ban on private ownership. Britain also has rampant knife crime. I can well imagine that guns are forbidden, which is why I retain my NRA membership despite being a moderate liberal. One popular target for thugs in this country is the elderly, and I don't want a phone call from the police telling me my parents have been murdered. They own guns, and I keep the membership to ensure they keep them. Responsible gun owners don't own them to show off (those who do aren't responsible at all). Responsible gun owners are pragmatic idealists, as I am. They believe in the ideal that no-one should wish or have to kill another, but recognize the possibility, and so defend against it. And your statement about "proving need" is something I take serious issue with, because many gun laws in this country in big cities use that. The only response should be "because it is my right under the Constitution." Period.
I didn't want to debate weapons law. That was only an example, that in democracy states things can be forbidden, although many people want them.

I could have also taken the restrictions on pornography or prostitution as an example. And please don't start to argue, why you think, that these restrictions are justified or not justified. Fact is, that it is, especially in some states of the USA, heavily regulated if not even forbidden although there would be a market for it.


Cocytus wrote:My statement was hyperbole, WILGA, but the proof is in the very article you posted. "With the exception of cellulose, most bioplastic technology is relatively new and is currently not cost competitive with petroleum-based plastics" and "Many bioplastics are reliant on fossil fuel-derived energy for their manufacturing"

[...]

ossil fuels are in use at every scale of construction, transportation, in every commercial venue, at every point in our daily lives. Against that, overarching government laws would be not only inadvisable, they would be impotent. Some want people to suspend their use of fossil fuels while our generation and manufacturing methods are converted. It cannot happen that way. Only when the solution is in place and operable can fossil fuels be abandoned.
I'm aware of the fact, that a product needs energy to be produced. That does not only mean the energy for the manufacturing process but also the energy for the mining and fabrication of the basic materials and their transportation around the whole world.

But if these energy is renewable energy - and I have given enough examples for renewable energy plants - that's no problem.

I'm also aware, that it is impossible to shut off all not renewable energy plants at once because there are not already enough renewable energy plants. But it should be the ultimate goal, that there are enough renewable energy plants in the near future, that energy plants, depending on fossil fuels, are no longer necessary.

And it is with the today's technology already possible to power the whole world with renewable energy [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. But that would mean, that a lot of investments have to be made and that the opposition from operating companies of conventionally plants has to be overcome.


Cocytus wrote:And finally, the rationale of "better to believe and be right, then not believe and be wrong" is a fallacy employed by both ends of the political spectrum, from global warming to Iranian nukes. They threaten us with either a 20-foot sealevel rise, or a mushroom cloud over an American city, to make us act out of fear rather than sound judgement. I do not accept this fallacy for action against Iran, so I cannot expect conservatives to accept it for action against global warming.
A risk assessment is no fallacy.

And we don't speak of »believe« like in »believe in a god«. There is no evidence for the existence of god and to believe in a god is illogical because, if there is no objective reason, why one should believe, that a god exists, but nevertheless believes in god, one could as well believe in all other things for which existence there is no evidence.

But that does not apply to a scientific theory, that may still not be proven, but where for their existence are at least evidence. It is not as if climatologist have made up their theories out of the blue. They have observations and mathematical models and see, that their observations are confirming their mathematical models and conclude, that this shows, that the models are correct. And if they are correct, then the projections made with these models, are likely also correct. And until it is shown that the models are not correct or at least a reasonable doubt is cast, it is plausible to assume, that the prognoses made with the models are correct.

And concerning Iranian nukes: that is not a question, if they are trying to build them, but a legal question and an example of double standard. Don't understand me wrong. I don't like, that the Iran is likely trying to build nukes. But I also don't like, that the USA (and other nations) have already nukes. And what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. As the US citizens have to live with the risk of a mushroom cloud over an American city from a Iranian nuke, the rest of the world have to live with the risk of a mushroom cloud over their cities from an American nuke. Such a risk is no reason to start an illegal war of aggression.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:02 am

sonofccn, I have started to reply to your post. But that's stupid. You are again and again claiming, that the whole economy would collapse and humanity gets killed, if energy stems only from renewable energy sources but you have given not one single reason for that apocalyptic scenario.

Yes, to build renewable energy plants needs investments. And as long as these investments are not amortized, the production of energy from this plants will cost more, than the production of energy from plants, that are already amortized. Insofar it is only logical that there is a reluctance to invest in renewable energy if an investment in established plants could be more profitable. But that does not mean, that it is the correct choice in the long run.

Yes, certain jobs will no longer exist. But new jobs are created in the same time. Who do you think is supposed to build and operate the new plants? Who do you think is supposed to build the non-polluting cars?

You attitude is very simple: environment protection yes, but only if it does not costs you anything.

But because that is not possible, you don't really want environment protection. As you have said, you are only willing to invest in a filter, if it does anything tangible. That means, that for you, only your perspective is relevant. Yes, the pollution of your car will not show an effect at once. And you will not be affected by the results of the climate change. But if millions of cars over years are polluting, it will have an effect. But that other people in other nations or your descendants will suffer from it does not matter to you.

You rather kill the planet and save humanity, which means in reality nothing more than that you are ready to kill the planet to save the living standard of only your generation of your nation.



And concerning a better term »for someone who believes he has a right to arbitrary decided who get's what for an entire nation.«: parliamentary democracy. It's not a new concept. You should know it. Parliamentarians are deciding for the entire nation. They enact laws which are compelling for the entire nation and everyone in it, irrelevant if the addressee likes the law or if he has elected the ruling party. And a good parliamentarian does not do, what the electors are wanting, but what is the best for the all people of a nation. Both is not always the same and too often parliamentarians are only doing what they are doing because they hope to be re-elected. That usually results in a short-sighted policy, where the solution of long-term problems is not approached.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:18 am

PunkMaister wrote:Arbour may I ask why you feel that Americans and Westerners in general need to be placed a gun in their temples so they change their damn cars, especially when you yourself admit that the transportation industry is not the biggest polluter. When it comes down to it would it not be better if instead the government simply encourages the industry and the public to buy such cars by challenging the industry to make such cars, trucks etc as fast and reliable as those that rely on fossil fuels. Some are close but not quite there yet (Yes I do watch the Discovery and National Geographic channels so I do know a thing or 2 about all these). And give tax incentives (reductions/returns) to those that make the switch.

See no need to force people at gunpoint to change their cars, trucks etc...
If you would have read that thread carefully, you would have noticed, that I don't only want a non-polluting transportation industry. Yes, it is not the biggest polluter. But it is a polluter and that's why it has also to change. It's not the only thing, that has to change.

I have nothing against alternative methods to encourage the industry to develop and build non-polluting cars. But it has to work.

A law, that prohibits polluting cars after a certain time was only one possibility.

Besides, such a law would not »force people at gunpoint to change their cars, trucks etc...«. That's a bit exaggerated. Or do you don't know laws, that are prohibiting something? It's totally normal, that in a society not all is allowed and especially things, that could be harmful, are forbidden. Cars, if they pollute the environment, are harmful. The question is, if it is appropriate to forbid such cars at once, to have transition periods, or to forbid them at all.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:45 am

Who is like God arbour wrote: A law, that prohibits polluting cars after a certain time was only one possibility.
You don't need a law.

You just need to make clean energy available in spades and almost free, if not totally free.
People won't think twice about going for the easiest and cheapest solution. If it gives them a good conscience, all the better. People have been concerned about environmental care for years, thanks to the hammered ecofriendly message (although in truth, the message is largely used to make people feel guilty and push a lot of updates to their own goods and houses, which supposedly helps the industries -- just imagine how in a worse shape these industries would be if people did not care about ecology).

If the billions and billions of dollars had been spent into anything related to chemistry, magnetism and electricity a long time ago, what is being found now would have been found earlier.
The problem being that exploration in science has a cost, and there's just too many conflicts of interest at play.

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Post by PunkMaister » Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:17 pm

Who is like God arbour wrote:
PunkMaister wrote:Arbour may I ask why you feel that Americans and Westerners in general need to be placed a gun in their temples so they change their damn cars, especially when you yourself admit that the transportation industry is not the biggest polluter. When it comes down to it would it not be better if instead the government simply encourages the industry and the public to buy such cars by challenging the industry to make such cars, trucks etc as fast and reliable as those that rely on fossil fuels. Some are close but not quite there yet (Yes I do watch the Discovery and National Geographic channels so I do know a thing or 2 about all these). And give tax incentives (reductions/returns) to those that make the switch.

See no need to force people at gunpoint to change their cars, trucks etc...
If you would have read that thread carefully, you would have noticed, that I don't only want a non-polluting transportation industry. Yes, it is not the biggest polluter. But it is a polluter and that's why it has also to change. It's not the only thing, that has to change.

I have nothing against alternative methods to encourage the industry to develop and build non-polluting cars. But it has to work.

A law, that prohibits polluting cars after a certain time was only one possibility.

Besides, such a law would not »force people at gunpoint to change their cars, trucks etc...«. That's a bit exaggerated. Or do you don't know laws, that are prohibiting something? It's totally normal, that in a society not all is allowed and especially things, that could be harmful, are forbidden. Cars, if they pollute the environment, are harmful. The question is, if it is appropriate to forbid such cars at once, to have transition periods, or to forbid them at all.
It is basically the same when you are talking about forcing all Americans and Westerners alike to change their cars regardless of their economic status at the time. You are saying, telling that the US and the West have to change all their transportation in 5 years! 5 years are you insane? The move from horse pulled carriages to automobiles took well over a decade when cars first began appearing. You cannot force this kind of change upon people. Is far better to give companies and the public incentives to make the change so it happens naturally over time as opposed to forced upon as you propose. It is impossible to change all cars and trucks oyut there without leaving just about every American virtually jobless as how would they go to work? Oh wit they don't have a car anymore, their house is already mortgaged and they will be in the street in a few days tops. See you cannot force this kind of change it simply does not work that way. Heck I doubt your fellow Germans would like such a thing be forced upon them although your people once elected Adolph Hitler so I could be wrong.

But as others correctly pointed out we value freedom here above all else.

Post Reply