Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Durin]

I was recently poking around concerning solar myself, and the problem is that it is not cheap to make the panels. Oh, they are easier to make than semiconductor CHIPS, but they are still not cheap, and they do wear out over time, meaning that there is a continual cost of maintaining an already expensive physical structure.

So that's why that is not working out as hoped.

The hard truth concerning fossil fuels is they represent millions of years of stored energy, they are relatively easy to get at, and if we do not use them other countries will. So this idea that we should artificially make them expensive in order to drive energy innovation is basically self destructive.

If fossil fuels are as bad for the environment as the left says, then we really have almost no choice but to go to war with China and then suffocate the developing world. I somehow doubt that is the appropriate way forward. I suspect the real issue is that the rich in America and Europe are going to have to start sacrificing a lot of their affluence in order to share clean energy with the rest of the world and help build the worldwide energy infrastructure. Places like China and India also need help with other industries as their agricultural practices are part of what make them such horrific places for the environment compared to western countries.

The more you look, the more it seems unrestrained wealth accumulation in the hands of a tiny western minority has led to mismanagement of worldwide resources. When western working class folks finally snap to that, hopefully sooner than later, we can begin the somewhat daunting task of determining in what manner to also lift the working men and women of the so called "third world" out of the cesspool our leaders have made out of their lands.

We'd have to break the power that the interests tied into energy control have over the government, fund alternate energy research, and hope desperately that it gets cheaper and better. If research gets alternate energy sources competitive with fossils, and developing nations can be made to change over through the use of other incentives (popular pressure, government planners persuaded to take environment into account, less economic imperialism by the World Bank), market forces should facilitate the shift on their own.

Of course, that's a really big IF. ;P

Well, we need to work together to get that big IF turned into a WHEN. Because right now things are not looking good, you know?

[Durin]

Yeah because war with china or let the earth burn are the only possible avenues... 

Seriously?

My post is just one page back. Just three or four posts back in fact. Only one out of three responses so far make any sense at all in relation to what I actually wrote.....

Wow...

[Reelya]

It's not "the left" making claims of environmental damage, it's almost all scientists who are in the fields of climate, ecosystems etc. Global warming is based on scientific, not political roots. And the vast majority of working scientists are not "lefty" hippie types. It really doesn't go with the research scientist lifestyle (working for large universities or large corporations).

Everything you think is bad is from this mythical "the left"? That means as much as saying "they" did it or "it's the system, maaaan".

It's not the left, it's people who read the science journalism and since we're not scientists in those domains (specialists in a particular field) we need to assume that the people who do work in a field are actually the people who know more about that than "john doe" you or me. If there are credible people within a field disputing the findings then you can weigh what they're saying (STILL with a lot more FAITH than knowledge, because just reading a debate doesn't make you an expert able to judge) and see who seems more credible.

Politicians and other people who aren't experts in a field, are not credible to talk about it.

I'm talking about leftist politicians. The scientific community is pretty leftist, sorry to disturb your world view, but I am specifically talking about leftist politicians scare tactics on the issue. If we are inches from global disaster, and China is a gigantic source of the kinds of environmental damage that is leading us there, whereas the U.S.  and other western nations mitigate a lot of their CO2 footprint with more modern practices in fuel consumption and agriculture, then we need a war with China.

Or are you arguing we need a war with China?

Or did you just not care to address the rest of the post at all and wanted to whine about people identifying leftist political agendas?

I guess the funniest part of this is that a lot of what I expressed is supportive of a lot of what comes from the left. Just apparently not quite leftists enough to suit you.

"War with China" is the most insane "Straw Man" i've ever heard.

How about we stop buying their shit? That'd get them changing their game quicker than a war. And the sheer amount of pollution from a full-scale war between superpowers would be enormous (planes, missiles, tanks by the 1000's, detruction of oil pipelies and other interdiction).

Economic sanctions would be more effective, and ALSO economic slow-down decreases pollution, not increases it.

The only one "whining" is you, since you want to make this about accusations of whining.

Another straw man - where does it say "I" am a leftist. I said science isn't leftist. And that "the left" is very much a fiction. How is that saying things MUST be more leftist. You're logic is lacking by making that jump. That's like saying if I said there's lack of evidence of wide-ranging satanic cults running around must automatically mean I'm endorsing satanism.

" Just apparently not quite leftists enough to suit you." = whiny troll-talk. Since what i said was a belief that the left isn't even a thing.

[Durin]

Certainly a more aggressive approach to China's various human rights violations would be a good idea. I do think though that we tend to overlook our own role in sustaining China as it exists today, and economic sanctions tend to hurt the population more than the people that need to be replaced.

What I said was that we in the West need to get our own house in order and do what it takes to force some austerity and sharing of resources on that small percentage of our population that is consuming resources in a hugely disproportionate manner all the while claiming to be the source of all work, progress, and anything else of any value. Specifically, human resources are finite, and we need to be employing far fewer people in pampering the rich and far more of them in developing our energy infrastructure and enabling developing nations to do so for themselves rather than making things cheaply for us.

The whole war with China diatribe was meant to be hyperbole, but then if you are going to argue that there is no "left wing" to politics I think it is safe to say we are not going to have a lot more productive to speak about. That's just silly talk. So I suppose we can just drop the war with China issue altogether.

[Reelya]

Yeah because war with china or let the earth burn are the only possible avenues... 

Seriously?

My post is just one page back. Just three or four posts back in fact. Only one out of three responses so far make any sense at all in relation to what I actually wrote.....

Wow...

You said that because i didn't agree there was a movement called "the left" controlling all environmental issues the only alternative was war with China. It's your words. How can you attack maniac over repeating your own assertion?

Which to REMIND YOU was the exact post before maniac replied :

f we are inches from global disaster, and China is a gigantic source of the kinds of environmental damage that is leading us there, whereas the U.S.  and other western nations mitigate a lot of their CO2 footprint with more modern practices in fuel consumption and agriculture, then we need a war with China.

Or are you arguing we need a war with China?

Well, there was nothing in MY post that said "inches from global disaster". I NEVER mentioned CHINA. And even in that circumstance, war's one of many options.

[Glowcat]

I'm talking about leftist politicians. The scientific community is pretty leftist, sorry to disturb your world view, but I am specifically talking about leftist politicians scare tactics on the issue. If we are inches from global disaster, and China is a gigantic source of the kinds of environmental damage that is leading us there, whereas the U.S.  and other western nations mitigate a lot of their CO2 footprint with more modern practices in fuel consumption and agriculture, then we need a war with China.

Because those backwards Chinese people don't bother with alternative energy sources. It's not like they're at the forefront of expanding the use of those technologies, they aren't modern like the USA. 

Nevermind that "the politicians" who're advocating about global warming might think it's just a teensy-bit INSANE to declare war on a country whose population numbers in the billions and whose economy is irrevocably linked to ours. I mean, there are no ethical or practical ramifications at all! /insane troll logic

[Reelya]

Code: [Select]

The whole war with China diatribe was meant to be hyperbole, but then if you are going to argue that there is no "left wing" to politics I think it is safe to say we are not going to have a lot more productive to speak about. That's just silly talk. So I suppose we can just drop the war with China issue altogether.

Now, at no point did i say the was no left-wing to politics. I challenged one SINGLE assertion from you that all environmental issues stem from this "the left" as you called it. You started the "war with china" red herring. so don't sound all high-and-mighty about dropping it.

[Durin]

.... Since what i said was a belief that the left isn't even a thing.

[Durin]

I'm talking about leftist politicians. The scientific community is pretty leftist, sorry to disturb your world view, but I am specifically talking about leftist politicians scare tactics on the issue. If we are inches from global disaster, and China is a gigantic source of the kinds of environmental damage that is leading us there, whereas the U.S.  and other western nations mitigate a lot of their CO2 footprint with more modern practices in fuel consumption and agriculture, then we need a war with China.

Because those backwards Chinese people don't bother with alternative energy sources. It's not like they're at the forefront of expanding the use of those technologies, they aren't modern like the USA. 

Nevermind that "the politicians" who're advocating about global warming might think it's just a teensy-bit INSANE to declare war on a country whose population numbers in the billions and whose economy is irrevocably linked to ours. I mean, there are no ethical or practical ramifications at all! /insane troll logic

This is the sort of thing I am referencing.

http://bases.bireme.br/cgi-bin/wxislind.exe/iah/online/?IsisScript=iah/iah.xis&src=google&base=REPIDISCA&lang=p&nextAction=lnk&exprSearch=76314&indexSearch=ID

[Reelya]

.... Since what i said was a belief that the left isn't even a thing.

It's not a thing, the Democrats are not a left-wing party by any stretch of the imagination. That's going by standard definitions of socialist. The Democrats push free markets same as the Republicans.

Band-aids to help the poor / welfare etc get pushed by both conservatives and progressive elements in capitalist societies. Those are not part of socialist doctrine itself (they are appeasement to stop rebellions and "opiates of the masses" in an elite heirarchial system).

20th century "socialist" nations push 100% direct employment programs, not "welfare". In 20th century communist countries, you didn't eat if you didn't work. Everybody worked - or else. Very different to a capitalist nation applying welfare (which is a stop-gap measure meant to deal with under employment due to a labor market system). Now that China's moving to a capitalist system, I wouldn't be surprised if they're having to implement direct welfare programs for excess workers.

You can argue about political relativism, then any nation can be said to have a "left" and a "right" side. But that doesn't make the Republicans = Nazis and the Democrats = Stalinists. So the terms don't have any straight meaning.

[mainiac]

This is the sort of thing I am referencing.

http://bases.bireme.br/cgi-bin/wxislind.exe/iah/online/?IsisScript=iah/iah.xis&src=google&base=REPIDISCA&lang=p&nextAction=lnk&exprSearch=76314&indexSearch=ID

So in order to tell us what unhinged loonies american leftists are, you cite a scholarly paper who's origins appear to be Brazillian (and possibly Indian?  Don't know, I don't read Portuguese.)

God, when will someone stand up to the Brazillian infiltration of our nations political institutions?

[Durin]

Also this

Although this study finds China a modest gainer in
agriculture under business as usual warming (increase in agricultural capacity by about 7 percent with carbon fertilization),
the estimate turns to a loss (7 percent reduction in agricultural capacity) if carbon fertilization effects
do not materialize or are offset by excluded damages. For India, prospective losses are massive (as large as about
40 percent in the absence of carbon fertilization).

http://www.iie.com/publications/briefs/cline4037.pdf

China can add a lot and still be way behind in terms of green energy sources given the amount of coal they burn and the manner in which they burn it.

I'm not sure how many more times I am going to have to address the comment about war with China. Scare tactics about global warming coupled with the reality that developing nations cannot be expected to abandon cheaper energy sources simply means demonetization of the energy market, and ultimately policy that will damage developing nations. It's not something I made up out of a hat.

[Durin]

Also this

Although this study finds China a modest gainer in
agriculture under business as usual warming (increase in agricultural capacity by about 7 percent with carbon fertilization),
the estimate turns to a loss (7 percent reduction in agricultural capacity) if carbon fertilization effects
do not materialize or are offset by excluded damages. For India, prospective losses are massive (as large as about
40 percent in the absence of carbon fertilization).

http://www.iie.com/publications/briefs/cline4037.pdf

China can add a lot and still be way behind in terms of green energy sources given the amount of coal they burn and the manner in which they burn it.

I'm not sure how many more times I am going to have to address the comment about war with China. Scare tactics about global warming coupled with the reality that developing nations cannot be expected to abandon cheaper energy sources simply means demonetization of the energy market, and ultimately policy that will damage developing nations. It's not something I made up out of a hat.

My original post, and pretty much every one since then, has been pretty much pro left with the caveat that it is not productive to demonize fossil fuels. It wold be nice if someone, somewhere, would actually read my posts at some point in this discussion.

[Reelya]

Durin you linked a 20-year-old Indian research paper (1991) who's synopsis is :-

"Discusses the issue of the current global inequality in the use of the earth's environment and its resources. Examines problems faced by developing countries in adjusting to the global warming policies put foward by developed countries"

So, acknowledging "current global inequality in the use of the earth's environment and its resources" make you leftist?

You can be a right-wing business type in a developing country and still be pissed off that multinationals are exporting all the resources. Hell, that's less for the local business's to exploit.

Also, local business's and entrepeneurs in India are ALSO affected by "problems faced by developing countries in adjusting to the global warming policies put foward by developed countries" because that negatively affects local capitalist development.

So, can you explain exactly how this paper proves that leftists are running the show? Or is this to do with the idea that we need a war with China, etc?

As far as I can see you linked some random article with no relevance.

[Durin]

.... Since what i said was a belief that the left isn't even a thing.

It's not a thing, the Democrats are not a left-wing party by any stretch of the imagination. That's going by standard definitions of socialist. The Democrats push free markets same as the Republicans.

Band-aids to help the poor / welfare etc get pushed by both conservatives and progressive elements in capitalist societies. Those are not part of socialist doctrine itself (they are appeasement to stop rebellions and "opiates of the masses" in an elite heirarchial system).

20th century "socialist" nations push 100% direct employment programs, not "welfare". In 20th century communist countries, you didn't eat if you didn't work. Everybody worked - or else. Very different to a capitalist nation applying welfare (which is a stop-gap measure meant to deal with under employment due to a labor market system). Now that China's moving to a capitalist system, I wouldn't be surprised if they're having to implement direct welfare programs for excess workers.

You can argue about political relativism, then any nation can be said to have a "left" and a "right" side. But that doesn't make the Republicans = Nazis and the Democrats = Stalinists. So the terms don't have any straight meaning.

I kind of like the idea of a 100% employment policy, and am disappointed that U.S. policy makes that more difficult for nations that choose to pursue it.

Nevertheless, I am not going to kowtow to your demand that we use terms as you dictate. Left and right mean what they mean, and if you choose to purposefully misunderstand the terms in their context that is your right. I am still going to use the terms though.