A) On a large scale, I would certainly stand behind the claim that solar is not a large scale solution. I mean, even assuming massive gains in solar efficiency, life-span of panels, price, ect. it's gonna be a long, hard fought argument to convince me that the amount of land and management it'd take would be worth it. Now, nuclear, geothermal, and a nice, healthy chunk of coal gasification, that's a whole
'nother ball game.
Solar is more than PV, Strife. PV wouldn't be good for heavy industry, but there are other types of solar power. PV is excellent for residential power, however. There is also the added bonus that it gives us a robust and decentralized power grid that cannot be attacked effectively, unlike centralized powerplants.
Geothermal is the real fools errand, I'm afraid. There are few locations in which we can implement it and geothermal vents have not proven to be as renewable as previously thought. Geothermal is going to have to be shelved until we can tap the mantel.
Coal has currently unacceptable environmental consequences. Improvements such as CCS and location restrictions are needed, unfortunately the industry fights hard against them and has plenty of money to bribe the legislature.
Nuclear is....okay. Still way more fickle and dangerous than renewables, and also has the centralization problem. I won't state active opposition, but we have better options available to us.
I'd say that Nuclear's better than you give it credit for, being that it's a helluva lot closer to being a good idea *right now* than any other option. Coal's got the pretty major advantage of being domestic and a not inconsiderable chunk of blue collar work, besides the political capital factor. And geothermal's iffy, sure, but I see no reason not to push on ahead full steam trying to figure out how to tap the mantel, or at the least make those cool zero-input house-temperature moderators more economical.
B) Heck, if we want to be most economical, I'd argue that we're better off taking all those juicy non-renewable resources now while we're still comfortably the world's sole hyperpower. Who knows how long that'll lost?
We can't expend them without serious consequences. Fossil fuels are a Faustian bargain, Strife. A double-edged sword, a treacherous ally, whatever. Renewables, as the name suggests, last. We are only better off with fossil fuels in the extreme short term. Everything else goes to the renewables.
And no, I'd very much guess that the rest of the world will very politely tell us and the UN to fuck off until everything's gone completely to shit. Not that it's not worthwhile for us to do these things, but I don't think that the US completely greenificating it's self would push back the clock all that much.
The US, EU, and PRC are responsible for the vast majority of C02 emissions. We don't need to worry overmuch about African dictatorships adopting green energy. The three most important areas for C02 reduction are luckily also the ones that understand the need for it. Say what you will about the PRC, their leadership isn't stupid. They'll exploit while they can grow from it, but that age is quickly coming to and end. [/quote]
I dunno, that'd depend on how you define stupid. Let's say that the big three cut our emissions to hell and back. How long until the rest of the second and third and first world work themselves right up to where we left off, pushed by the exact same economic pressures to make the most of what people want at the best prices? Fifteen years? Twenty-five? Not much from where I stand, you know?
C) Yeah, that's bad. However, that's clearly within what should be regulated by our own system without another iota of effort to environmental causes. That's a problem with agency capture mostly, I'd say, a pretty tangental issue.
It is not a tangental issue. The same forces hindering environmental protection are the same ones that throw their money at Congress to be able to do this sort of stuff.
I'd always take projections like the sinking of Florida with a grain of salt. Yeah, it's perfectly possible, but how much can we affect it?
Consider:
Point A. Florida is not underwater.
Point B. Florida is going to be underwater due to sea rise.
Point C. Sea rise is due to our C02 emissions.
Therefore: We can prevent Florida from being underwater by lessening C02 emissions.
[/quote]
Yes, maybe, maybe. Now, I'm not willing to go through the source hunting to properly argue this, but how much damage have we already done irreparably? How much would the sea levels rise in next twenty years even without a CO2 overabundance?
Moreover, is it worth tanking the US's remaining economic and therefore overall power on it?
If we do this we
might lose some power. If we don't do this we
will lose our power. Societal collapse does not a strong nation make.
Is it worth dropping another one percent of people below the poverty line?
This is not why people are impoverished, but not acting will lead to more impoverished people as our civilization stops functioning.
Not being as competitive?
Competitiveness is a result of economic prosperity, which we will not have if we can't feed our people or protect them from storms and flooding.
[/quote]
Yeah, but we can't have economic prosperity now if we're going to hobble ourselves in hopes that the future won't suck. And, I'd argue that if need be, we can certainly find a way to do all three.
Reducing people's freedoms?
What are you even talking about?
Eh, I was almost drifting into a tangent there, honestly. Weak point that I didn't fully excise. How much of my personal freedom should we restrict for the cause of environmentalism? Should I still be able to take the two hour drive I did tonight? Should I still be able to conduct training in my tank? I mean, both of those things burn fuel, doncha know. There was also something about incandescent light bulbs, but it looked super weak even for this argument.
And no, I don't believe your worse case scenario. We can always get better at using the resources we've got, and in any case, if stuff comes down to shooting, I'm confident in the United States remaining strong (and getting stronger, in fact) as a psuedo-nation-state.
Oh, well then, by all means, I'm glad you've got it figured out that we can just magic up more resources and institute martial law when things go to shit. Man, that is so much better than just keeping this all from happening in the first place.
[/quote]
Yeah, it is. Much rather have a US lead martial law in a world gone to shit, than a Chinese one ten years later. Give me a little credit here, okay, this is a stretchy, unprepared argument path I'm treading. The core point that the United States shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot over the environment is a perfectly valid one, though.
Author
Topic: American Election Megathread - It's Over (Read 763831 times)