Export thread

Happy Earth Day everyone. I'm trying to figure out exactly why people like Beck, Limbaugh, and the GOP are so anti-environmentalist without resorting to "invested interest in existing infrastructure" or "because Democrats support it".

I mean, you have a ton of myths about global warming, Limbaugh calling the scientific community "idiots", and Beck saying that he will celebrate Earth Day by burning stryofoam in his backyard.

Seriously, I just don't get it.

I think it originated in thinking that environmentalists are over-reacting to the world's problems, to the point where the ideas that environmentalists push end up harming society for the sake of something that wasn't nearly as consequential as they claimed.

Then, after numerous games of telephone, that line thinking degraded into "the environment is evil, and must be destroyed!"

Meh, it's just the old human proclivity of whenever opposing something to taking the opposite extreme instead of being moderate about it... so yeah, people are idiots.

I do have to say that I never thought captain planet's villains would seem realistic.

Soliloquy said:

I do have to say that I never thought captain planet's villains would seem realistic.

Click to expand...

Limbaugh is the pig guy, and Glen Beck that rat guy... who are the others?

JONJONAUG said:

Seriously, I just don't get it.

Click to expand...

The fact that you quote mediamatters like it's a peer reviewed journal might be some indication of why you don't get it. I'll give you a hint... Mediamatters is the National Review Online of the left.

But anyway, to answer your original question, it's because the man-made global warming movement isn't really about saving the earth, or even saving ourselves - it's about damaging the engines of the (formerly) strongest capitalist system in the world and redistribution of wealth. When it fell out of style to be communist (and to a lesser degree, socialist), the anticapitalists found refuge in the "environmentalist" movement. This is where the term "watermelon environmentalist" comes from... green on the outside, but red to the core. The "environment" argument has been co-opted by these people, who are using it simply as brakes on the American Economy. After all, if CO2 is so horrible, where were the limits in any of the economy-killing carbon treaties for China? India?

The truth of the matter is, for "real" pollution, America is one of the cleanest nations and is getting cleaner every year. Mercury. Sulphur. These are real pollutants we need to worry about. Carbon Dioxide isn't. Carbon Dioxide is necessary for plant growth and is a natural, beneficial chemical. It's turned into a witch hunt.

Graphs are great. You can make them say anything you want. Look at this one!



Does that mean our temperature isn't rising or falling? Who knows! In such a politically charged topic, graphs are always tailored to show what the presenter wants them to show. It's the same with any of the mediamatters graphs. Remember the infamous "hockey stick" graph that got all this started? It's long been debunked.

Climate change is the new religion, albeit a secular one. Carbon credits are the new indulgences. And when we weren't looking, we practically became a theocracy. But why is it that the high priest of this church, Al Gore, has a huuuuuuuuuuge "carbon footprint?" Associated Press reported his home as having 12x the national average, other sources said as much as 20... though since 2007, Gore has allegedly "made improvements." Sure, once he got caught with his pants down.

So some mean spirited people who aren't converted to the church of global warming like ticking off the faithful the same way certain atheists like ticking off the theists. Saying "I'm gonna celebrate earth day by burning styrofoam in my back yard" comes from the same schadenfreude-laden urges that cause people to post pictures of the flying spaghetti monster.

What he really means is:

$

Krisken said:

What he really means is:

$

Click to expand...

Krisken, what do you have to say about people who don't want to live in caves?

Krisken said:

$

Click to expand...

Krisken, what about the man who wants to better provide for his family?

Krisken said:

$

Click to expand...

Krisken, what's the real impetus behind all the global warming stuff, the carbon credits, the lawsuits over allegedly rising sea levels?

Krisken said:

$

Click to expand...

Ah so.

Replace $ with almost any crime and it works too.

Maybe CO2 emision is not a problem now. You want to wait for it to become a problem to do something about it?

GasBandit;375421][QUOTE=Krisken said:

What he really means is:

$

Click to expand...

Krisken, what do you have to say about people who don't want to live in caves?

Krisken said:

$

Click to expand...

Krisken, what about the man who wants to better provide for his family?

Krisken said:

$

Click to expand...

Krisken, what's the real impetus behind all the global warming stuff, the carbon credits, the lawsuits over allegedly rising sea levels?

Krisken said:

$

Click to expand...

Ah so.[/QUOTE]
Are you trying to illicit an ad hominem attack from me?

Pretending we don't have an effect on our environment isn't just asinine. It's willful ignorance.

Go ahead and keep pretending it's not about money.

Cog said:

Replace $ with almost any crime and it works too.

Maybe CO2 emision is not a problem now. You want to wait for it to become a problem to do something about it?

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said "carbon dioxide witch hunt." The very premise of this sentence is flawed.

Oxygen emission isn't a problem now. You want to wait for it to become a problem before we do something about it? (and yes, there is such a thing as too much oxygen)

Space aliens aren't a problem now. Do you want to wait until they become one to do something about them too?

Spontaneous human combustion is not a problem right now, but...

Killer rabid weasels are not much of a problem right now, but...

Liberty isn't a problem right now, but...



---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 PM ----------

Krisken said:

Are you trying to illicit an ad hominem attack from me?

Click to expand...

Elicit! Not Illicit! BAM! That's for "infer!"

Damn, I hate when I do that.

Yes, elicit. So that's a 'yes' then?

aaand... This thread is now just another krisken/gasbandit shit-flinging fest.

Hooray.

Soliloquy said:

aaand... This thread is now just another krisken/gasbandit shit-flinging fest.

Hooray.

Click to expand...

Relax, John Cusack.

But... But I made a chart and everything!

I tell you what, I'll make a serious post.

There are many aspects of environmental and anti-environmental that get blown out of proportion. Many companies are against environmental regulations for the obvious reasons, being money. It costs more to ensure things are safe, waste is renewable, and letting people know they are being 'responsible' by advertising it. On the other side environmentalists take extreme positions and make unrealistic expectations of people, all the while encouraging the purchase of products which use an excessive amount of resources to create (land, money, time) and ignore the benefits of modernization in our current culture.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us to be responsible for our own knowledge. Knowing that both sides of this argument use bumper sticker slogans to further their position and collect very real concerns along with the hyperbole is the first important step to take. Plastics from the ocean really are connected to a decline in not just fish birth rates, but in miscarriages in Japanese women. Increases in costs for renewing resources really do cause products to cost more, leading to potential job losses.

Overall, it's a complex issue that can't be summed up with words like Global Warming.

Cog said:

Replace $ with almost any crime and it works too.

Maybe CO2 emision is not a problem now. You want to wait for it to become a problem to do something about it?

Click to expand...

I don't think you've robbed a bank yet, but I don't want to wait until you do so I'm going to go ahead and arrest you.

You want a real-life Captain Planet villain? I'll give you one. Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy.

If anyone in state or federal government had any balls, he'd be looking at hard prison time after the Upper Big Branch Mine. 28 dead because he's a greedy, arrogant pile of dog shit.

If not prison, then shove that son of a bitch face-first into a running wood chipper. He's got blood on his hands and he doesn't care.

DarkAudit said:

You want a real-life Captain Planet villain? I'll give you one. Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy.

If anyone in state or federal government had any balls, he'd be looking at hard prison time after the Upper Big Branch Mine. 28 dead because he's a greedy, arrogant pile of dog shit.

If not prison, then shove that son of a bitch face-first into a running wood chipper. He's got blood on his hands and he doesn't care.

Click to expand...

See, now this is something that does need more scrutiny. From what I've read, conditions in that mine were unsafe despite repeated audits saying "we could really use more ventilation shafts in here" and whatnot going back years. Those in charge should be held accountable. But that's more of a worker safety issue, not really an environmental issue.


All I've got left to say on the environmental issue is this - Krisken's right in that it is an extremely complex issue with "real" scientists on both sides of the debate, and it has been hyperpoliticized both by the hardcore statists who want to strangle capitalism and the plutocrats who would dump gallons of pure ebola in a drinking reservoir if it'd turn them a profit and they thought they could do it without going to jail. This is unfortunate because it causes even people who are otherwise reasonable and independent of thought to distrust the motives of those who disagree with them because they could be part of the above two groups. What gets lost in the shuffle are the common sense policies - that we should be doing everything we can to curb emissions of sulphur and mercury and carbon monoxide (known, demonstrable toxins); that nuclear energy is much safer, cleaner and more efficient than fossil fuels for electricity generation; that we could be safely and cleanly burning solid waste for power like denmark does instead of piling it up in huge landfills. But none of these things make any select elite group more powerful or wealthy, so they're not pushed. Make no mistake about any huge debate on the federal level these days - it's never about the problem it claims to address. It's always about deciding who has the power.

That's one of the biggest problems I have being a political reporter right now. I can never shake the feeling that every single word coming out of a politician's mouth is a carefully-manipulated half-truth that serves no other purpose than to gain the voters' affection.

This has the side-effect of me not giving a care what politicians have to say, so I guess that makes me unbiased? Kinda? Maybe?

(The people who I work for are biased, though, so that kind of defeats that)

Ah yes, the Magnificent GasBandit and his "It's Dem Socialists and Liberals and Intellectuals" Torch and Pitchfork Hour.

I thought we were due for one already...

Soliloquy said:

That's one of the biggest problems I have being a political reporter right now. I can never shake the feeling that every single word coming out of a politician's mouth is a carefully-manipulated half-truth that serves no other purpose than to gain the voters' affection.

This has the side-effect of me not giving a care what politicians have to say, so I guess that makes me unbiased? Kinda? Maybe?

(The people who I work for are biased, though, so that kind of defeats that)

Click to expand...

Truth is in between the lies.

Gas, I feel the need to ask: do you seriously believe that this environmentalist hooplah is all about stunting the progress of the West? (or to be more specific, perhaps, America?) You also make mention of communism. Do you think that, too, was simply an effort to challenge the 'developed world'?

That makes you sound a heck of a lot like Frank Burns, so I hope I'm misunderstanding. But it would be useful to see better where it is you are coming from.

I gotta agree to a degree with Gas and Krisken I think this is hyperpolarizing debate, that is causing major problems because it has super extremes. Gas has a point, if this is such dire we going to lose the planet in 5-10 years then why isn't China and India being sanctioned, why aren't there tougher restrictions placed on them?
I think policies should be in place and they should be realistic and well thought out.

crono1224 said:

I gotta agree to a degree with Gas and Krisken I think this is hyperpolarizing debate, that is causing major problems because it has super extremes. Gas has a point, if this is such dire we going to lose the planet in 5-10 years then why isn't China and India being sanctioned, why aren't there tougher restrictions placed on them?
I think policies should be in place and they should be realistic and well thought out.

Click to expand...

A fine example of a polarizing argument, since short of an all-out nuclear gangbang it's physically impossible to "lose the planet". If anything, the climate change issue is about trying not to fuck up the planet too bad. At least, that's my understanding of the more level-headed voices in this clusterfuck.

North_Ranger;375704][QUOTE=crono1224 said:

I gotta agree to a degree with Gas and Krisken I think this is hyperpolarizing debate, that is causing major problems because it has super extremes. Gas has a point, if this is such dire we going to lose the planet in 5-10 years then why isn't China and India being sanctioned, why aren't there tougher restrictions placed on them?
I think policies should be in place and they should be realistic and well thought out.

Click to expand...

A fine example of a polarizing argument, since short of an all-out nuclear gangbang it's physically impossible to "lose the planet". If anything, the climate change issue is about trying not to fuck up the planet too bad. At least, that's my understanding of the more level-headed voices in this clusterfuck.[/QUOTE]

I realized my statement was polarizing and it's a statement i have read several times. But lets even just slightly back up on it, and say the world is in danger in the semi-near future, why aren't the upcoming economic powers being punished like the already established ones?

That's a whole 'nother fettle of kish, one which I am not qualified to answer.

crono1224 said:

I realized my statement was polarizing and it's a statement i have read several times. But lets even just slightly back up on it, and say the world is in danger in the semi-near future, why aren't the upcoming economic powers being punished like the already established ones?

Click to expand...

Because they don't have the means to develop AND go green all at once. The established world powers have not only high standards of living, but also the means to develop new technologies and phase out outmoded/dirty ones. The developing world's first priority, on the other hand, is to raise it's standards of living to that of the developed world, which right now comes with more pollution.

On the other hand, if the developed world develops green technologies faster, then the developing world can make the effort to adopt those innovations instead of the ones that cause so much trouble.

Besides, look at it from their perspective: we've had decades to piss all over the earth, and it's gotten us so far. Now, when they're finally getting a chance to catch up, we're telling them that they can't. Why the hell should they listen to that? Maybe it's about saving the earth, but all the middle class Indian man knows is that they're finally starting to catch up, and some foreigner is telling them that they can't. The underdeveloped world gets indignant, the developed world gets strict, and international relations are strained.

It might be less direct than saying 'everyone stop polluting now!' but a more gentle approach to developing economies and a harsher attitude towards the established ones might do a lot more to curb the threat of climate change.

But this is only my understanding. I've done a decent amount of reading on the subject, and I attended a seminar by a fairly renowned environmental scientist a few months back on the subject. I myself can only coalesce so much data, though, and make sense of the mess however I can. And that's how the whole thing looks to me.

Rob King;375729][QUOTE=crono1224 said:

I realized my statement was polarizing and it's a statement i have read several times. But lets even just slightly back up on it, and say the world is in danger in the semi-near future, why aren't the upcoming economic powers being punished like the already established ones?

Click to expand...

Because they don't have the means to develop AND go green all at once. The established world powers have not only high standards of living, but also the means to develop new technologies and phase out outmoded/dirty ones. The developing world's first priority, on the other hand, is to raise it's standards of living to that of the developed world, which right now comes with more pollution.

On the other hand, if the developed world develops green technologies faster, then the developing world can make the effort to adopt those innovations instead of the ones that cause so much trouble.

Besides, look at it from their perspective: we've had decades to piss all over the earth, and it's gotten us so far. Now, when they're finally getting a chance to catch up, we're telling them that they can't. Why the hell should they listen to that? Maybe it's about saving the earth, but all the middle class Indian man knows is that they're finally starting to catch up, and some foreigner is telling them that they can't. The underdeveloped world gets indignant, the developed world gets strict, and international relations are strained.

It might be less direct than saying 'everyone stop polluting now!' but a more gentle approach to developing economies and a harsher attitude towards the established ones might do a lot more to curb the threat of climate change.

But this is only my understanding. I've done a decent amount of reading on the subject, and I attended a seminar by a fairly renowned environmental scientist a few months back on the subject. I myself can only coalesce so much data, though, and make sense of the mess however I can. And that's how the whole thing looks to me.[/QUOTE]

I agree with most of what you say, the perspective of "they had the chance to do it why are we punished" could be applied to our past generations and us now. But really lets be honest I bet you its more than development vs environmental care. I would say at least in China it's an all out build up, as fast as possible and if you can skimp on regulation than screw it we need it.

Yeah, unfortunately that attitude can be used as an excuse to be reckless.

China is a difficult one, too. They are growing so fast, and need to expand their electricity production so rapidly that the coal industry is exploding there. Coal. Exploding. As in, they are building more coal-powered plants, and using more coal. I know there are still coal-powered plants in the developed world, but that's a fact that we're generally ashamed of, and are working on eliminating.

It's a very awkward spot, though, because I'm sure if the cleaner sources were feasible they'd be used, so I have a hard time condemning all of these coal-burning facilities, persoanlly.

Rob King said:

Yeah, unfortunately that attitude can be used as an excuse to be reckless.

China is a difficult one, too. They are growing so fast, and need to expand their electricity production so rapidly that the coal industry is exploding there. Coal. Exploding. As in, they are building more coal-powered plants, and using more coal. I know there are still coal-powered plants in the developed world, but that's a fact that we're generally ashamed of, and are working on eliminating.

It's a very awkward spot, though, because I'm sure if the cleaner sources were feasible they'd be used, so I have a hard time condemning all of these coal-burning facilities, persoanlly.

Click to expand...

Agree with everything till the if cleaner source were feasible, I think they would simply use both, the sheer amount that they are producing is probably limited only by time it takes to start production and areas to produce from, so I doubt a cleaner substance (not cleaner way of doing things) would as much stop coal production as simply cause them to use it in addition to what they already are doing.

Here's the issue, as I see it:

People are using the environmentalist movement as a polarizing issue.

That's it. The ONLY reason people are going on and on and on about going green is BECAUSE it gets people involved and committed to whatever each side is saying.

Acid rain was going to kill the planet by the year 2000. Then the ozone depletion was going to kill the planet within a few decades. Now it's carbon dioxide? We made some _small_ improvements in acid rain (EPA emissions reduction of sulfer, etc), and some _small_ improvements in ozone depletion (CFC reduction). Has the acidity in rain dropped? A tiny amount. Not significant. Have the ozone 'holes' gotten smaller? A tiny bit, but it turns out a lot of what we saw was the result of natural cycles and the fact that we started measuring it.

Global warming was going to kill us, but try as they might scientists couldn't find a reason that linked human activity to increasing temperatures. It took awhile, but eventually they _decided_ that carbon dioxide must be the reason, and so they started pushing on high CO2 levels, and dropped global warming like a hot potato, because, as it turns out, we can't conclusively prove that global warming will kill us outright (you know, like acid rain, overpopulation, and ozone depletion was going to kill us outright). But CO2! That can kill us outright!

What's even more interesting is that many people in that group are now moving away from CO2 specifically, because evidence is coming forth that even if we reduced our CO2 output to 0, we wouldn't make a significant impact due to natural CO2 emissions. Now they're searching for another "problem" that they can "solve" while they are still pushing on CO2.

It's a racket.

Yes, we can and should do more, and people are doing more.

But the effects of our changes to "fix" the sulfer and CFC "problems" have resulted in very small, but measurable improvments. But we certainly weren't in any danger of destroying the earth or ourselves, and a lot of what we were seeing turned out to be natural and/or acceptable (ie, due to solar cycles, and natural pollutants in the atmosphere, such as volcanic activity, forest fires, etc).

We spent billions to 'fix' these problems.

The 'fixes' continue to cost our economy billions EACH YEAR.

So you'll have to excuse us backwards thinking neanderthals if we don't drink the kool aid this time.

No one has concrete proof that the earth shattering claims are true. At best people can offer is, "CO2 captures light from the sun more efficiently, which raises temperatures globally, and humans generate CO2, THEREFORE THE WORLD IS ENDING."

Yes, we need to make some improvements. But the violent furor that both sides are generating is at best unhelpful, and at worst going to put us in a worse position than we started with.

Idiots, the lot of them. And those that buy into this and insist that we are only opposing these things for the money are shortsighted and have a poor memory of the recent past, which is just sad. Notice that the environmental groups are largely funded by and consist of people under 30?

It's easy to sell snake oil to someone that's never seen it before.

The reason for Anti-Environment Actions?

Those that actually take real steps and care and try and do right by the earth tend to go about it on their own, but the biggest people in the movement are in-your-face pretentious assholes who tell you if you don't suddenly stop using all your electricity, and begin wiping your ass with a single sheet of toilet paper the world will end in 10 years all while flying around on their private jets and having a much bigger effect on the environment then you ever will.

Don't tell me how to live my life and then go around doing ten times worse while justifying it as being needed to spread the message.

Doesn't help that they take a non-losing arguement.

My issues with the environmental movement are centered around how the most visible elements (who are usually not the scientists) tend towards gross hyperbole and misinterpretation of data in pushing their agenda, which as GB mentions is focused more on income re-distribution than green technologies.

Not only do people not take it well when they, as opposed to the speaker, are told it's their fault, every time one of those extreme statements is shown to be ridiculously overstated (at best) or completely wrong (at worst), it's another can of gas thrown on anti-intellectual fire that's running amok throughout the US. Those are the kinds of things that prompt Texas Board of Education into saying things like "someone needs to stand up to the experts" when it comes to evolution.

I hold the vast, vast majority of climate scientists totally blameless in this. If we ignore the deniers, I think there's a huge gap in-between the skeptics and the believers where tangible progress can be made, though I'm completely mystified by the fear of nuclear energy that pervades the environmental movement.

Covar;375523][QUOTE=Cog said:

Replace $ with almost any crime and it works too.

Maybe CO2 emission is not a problem now. You want to wait for it to become a problem to do something about it?

Click to expand...

I don't think you've robbed a bank yet, but I don't want to wait until you do so I'm going to go ahead and arrest you.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure they do arrest people for planning to rob a bank even if they never get to go through with it...

@Li3n;375842][QUOTE=Covar;375523][QUOTE=Cog said:

Replace $ with almost any crime and it works too.

Maybe CO2 emission is not a problem now. You want to wait for it to become a problem to do something about it?

Click to expand...

I don't think you've robbed a bank yet, but I don't want to wait until you do so I'm going to go ahead and arrest you.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure they do arrest people for planning to rob a bank even if they never get to go through with it...[/QUOTE]

Yeah... you can charge them with Conspiracy.

Explain Anti-Enviroment Actions

Click to expand...

Hey! Mother Nature started this fight, but I'm sure as hell gonna finish it!

Espy said:

Explain Anti-Enviroment Actions

Click to expand...

Hey! Mother Nature started this fight, but I'm sure as hell gonna finish it!

Click to expand...

Twenty on mother nature!

(I love ya man, but I ain't pickin' the loser, see?)

Espy said:

Explain Anti-Enviroment Actions

Click to expand...

Hey! Mother Nature started this fight, but I'm sure as hell gonna finish it!

Click to expand...

Good start: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8642518.stm

Krisken said:

I tell you what, I'll make a serious post.

There are many aspects of environmental and anti-environmental that get blown out of proportion. Many companies are against environmental regulations for the obvious reasons, being money. It costs more to ensure things are safe, waste is renewable, and letting people know they are being 'responsible' by advertising it. On the other side environmentalists take extreme positions and make unrealistic expectations of people, all the while encouraging the purchase of products which use an excessive amount of resources to create (land, money, time) and ignore the benefits of modernization in our current culture.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us to be responsible for our own knowledge. Knowing that both sides of this argument use bumper sticker slogans to further their position and collect very real concerns along with the hyperbole is the first important step to take. Plastics from the ocean really are connected to a decline in not just fish birth rates, but in miscarriages in Japanese women. Increases in costs for renewing resources really do cause products to cost more, leading to potential job losses.

Overall, it's a complex issue that can't be summed up with words like Global Warming.

Click to expand...

HOLY FUCKING SHIT! It's like you took this whole concept of environmentalism and broke it down into gray areas that are more than simple black and white logic.

---------- Post added at 10:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 AM ----------

GasBandit;375546][QUOTE=DarkAudit said:

You want a real-life Captain Planet villain? I'll give you one. Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy.

If anyone in state or federal government had any balls, he'd be looking at hard prison time after the Upper Big Branch Mine. 28 dead because he's a greedy, arrogant pile of dog shit.

If not prison, then shove that son of a bitch face-first into a running wood chipper. He's got blood on his hands and he doesn't care.

Click to expand...

See, now this is something that does need more scrutiny. From what I've read, conditions in that mine were unsafe despite repeated audits saying "we could really use more ventilation shafts in here" and whatnot going back years. Those in charge should be held accountable. But that's more of a worker safety issue, not really an environmental issue.


All I've got left to say on the environmental issue is this - Krisken's right in that it is an extremely complex issue with "real" scientists on both sides of the debate, and it has been hyperpoliticized both by the hardcore statists who want to strangle capitalism and the plutocrats who would dump gallons of pure ebola in a drinking reservoir if it'd turn them a profit and they thought they could do it without going to jail. This is unfortunate because it causes even people who are otherwise reasonable and independent of thought to distrust the motives of those who disagree with them because they could be part of the above two groups. What gets lost in the shuffle are the common sense policies - that we should be doing everything we can to curb emissions of sulphur and mercury and carbon monoxide (known, demonstrable toxins); that nuclear energy is much safer, cleaner and more efficient than fossil fuels for electricity generation; that we could be safely and cleanly burning solid waste for power like denmark does instead of piling it up in huge landfills. But none of these things make any select elite group more powerful or wealthy, so they're not pushed. Make no mistake about any huge debate on the federal level these days - it's never about the problem it claims to address. It's always about deciding who has the power.[/QUOTE]

Oh you mean all that stuff the Obama administration is pushing for? Cool!

---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------

crono1224 said:

I gotta agree to a degree with Gas and Krisken I think this is hyperpolarizing debate, that is causing major problems because it has super extremes. Gas has a point, if this is such dire we going to lose the planet in 5-10 years then why isn't China and India being sanctioned, why aren't there tougher restrictions placed on them?
I think policies should be in place and they should be realistic and well thought out.

Click to expand...

This goes back to Krisken's point: $

Anti-environmentalism has the same roots as anti-intellectualism. People are too willfully ignorant about the topics at hand to believe what they're being told The layman doesn't believe the intellectual because of the complexity of the issues the intellectual explains, as well the layman sees the natural world as something "too big to fail". In a sense the layman is correct. The Earth is too big to fail all life on it, but it can fail to sustain humanity. I disagree with Steinman. Where he sees things like improvements towards atmospheric emissions as a waste of money because we only put a small dent into what nature does, I don't believe it's a waste of money to invest in a society that places less strain on the environment. It's really for our own benefit.

I'm hardly a tree hugging hippie, but take the example of "lights out day": I had posted a thread about it as a way to promote the event and was immediately greeted with negative comments about how it wasn't going to impact anything, and folks countering with turning on everything in their house as a protest to the event. And that was just turning out your lights for an hour! I wasn't demanding it; the event wasn't about moving to the woods for a week and shitting on rocks. It was simply turning out your fucking lights for an hour, and people had a fit over it! No. Staunch Anti-environmentalism is far less about being skeptical of what 'the man' tells you and more like a child doing the complete opposite of what their mommy tells them as a pathetic form of rebellion. I can picture Glenn Beck burning Styrofoam in his backyard thinking, "man, I totally got them good. This'll teach them to tell me how I should act." That's what it's all about, folks"

And there's also the fact that some info is contradictory... though i guess that would be part of the layman not knowing how science works...

It seems like "too long, didn't read" has become a hallmark of any science opposition in this country. Many arguments I see (admittedly the intellectually poor sample from FSTDT.com) against Global Warming and Evolution come from the standpoint of "lol, whut? but it's called global waring, so it can't be cold! And if evolution is true, why are there still monkies?" Seriously, five minutes on wikipedia can explain this shit.

Sorry for the minor tangent, but when a twenty year old (me) has a better grip on important scientific concepts than people twice his age it can get mondo frustrating...especially because this arcane, specific knowledge was imparted to me in high school.

Norris said:

It seems like "too long, didn't read" has become a hallmark of any science opposition in this country. Many arguments I see (admittedly the intellectually poor sample from FSTDT.com) against Global Warming and Evolution come from the standpoint of "lol, whut? but it's called global waring, so it can't be cold! And if evolution is true, why are there still monkies?" Seriously, five minutes on wikipedia can explain this shit.

Sorry for the minor tangent, but when a twenty year old (me) has a better grip on important scientific concepts than people twice his age it can get mondo frustrating...especially because this arcane, specific knowledge was imparted to me in high school.

Click to expand...

that part is about what people wish to see or wish to be true. I do like Krisken's sumation of global warming. It all boils down to money. People want to have jobs, companies want to make profit, people want to buy stuff cheap AND have quality (if possible), people want to have clean air, people want to have safe environment etc etc etc

but you can't have it all without spending a lot of money and pretty much change the "culture" of many country to make it happen. It will be a slow slow process or something drastic that cause a total rebuilt (WW III or Mother Nature decides to open a barrel of whoop ass)

Chibibar said:

(... a barrel of whoop ass)

Click to expand...

More like a couple hundred thousand barrels of whoop ass.

Krisken;380873][QUOTE=Chibibar said:

(... a barrel of whoop ass)

Click to expand...

More like a couple hundred thousand barrels of whoop ass. [/QUOTE]

Nah. I would imagine a pissed off mother nature can pretty much wiped us out with Tornadoes, Typhoon, earthquakes and floods.

Chibibar;380886][QUOTE=Krisken;380873][QUOTE=Chibibar said:

(... a barrel of whoop ass)

Click to expand...

More like a couple hundred thousand barrels of whoop ass. [/QUOTE]

Nah. I would imagine a pissed off mother nature can pretty much wiped us out with Tornadoes, Typhoon, earthquakes and floods.[/QUOTE]

I don't know, there may be a limit to the number of those that she can do over a set period of time. Like, maybe it drains her mana or something.

Soliloquy;380888][QUOTE=Chibibar;380886][QUOTE=Krisken;380873][QUOTE=Chibibar said:

(... a barrel of whoop ass)

Click to expand...

More like a couple hundred thousand barrels of whoop ass. [/QUOTE]

Nah. I would imagine a pissed off mother nature can pretty much wiped us out with Tornadoes, Typhoon, earthquakes and floods.[/QUOTE]

I don't know, there may be a limit to the number of those that she can do over a set period of time. Like, maybe it drains her mana or something.[/QUOTE]
Eventually she'll draw into her Armageddon and tap two white and two colorless.

Krisken;380893][QUOTE=Soliloquy;380888][QUOTE=Chibibar;380886][QUOTE=Krisken;380873][QUOTE=Chibibar said:

(... a barrel of whoop ass)

Click to expand...

More like a couple hundred thousand barrels of whoop ass. [/QUOTE]

Nah. I would imagine a pissed off mother nature can pretty much wiped us out with Tornadoes, Typhoon, earthquakes and floods.[/QUOTE]

I don't know, there may be a limit to the number of those that she can do over a set period of time. Like, maybe it drains her mana or something.[/QUOTE]
Eventually she'll draw into her Armageddon and tap two white and two colorless.[/QUOTE]

And I'll be waiting, Counterspell in hand

Denbrought;381134][QUOTE=Krisken;380893][QUOTE=Soliloquy;380888][QUOTE=Chibibar;380886][QUOTE=Krisken;380873][QUOTE=Chibibar said:

(... a barrel of whoop ass)

Click to expand...

More like a couple hundred thousand barrels of whoop ass. [/QUOTE]

Nah. I would imagine a pissed off mother nature can pretty much wiped us out with Tornadoes, Typhoon, earthquakes and floods.[/QUOTE]

I don't know, there may be a limit to the number of those that she can do over a set period of time. Like, maybe it drains her mana or something.[/QUOTE]
Eventually she'll draw into her Armageddon and tap two white and two colorless.[/QUOTE]

And I'll be waiting, Counterspell in hand [/QUOTE]
Sorry. As you can see, all your islands have been turned into swamps.

Krisken;381138][QUOTE=Denbrought;381134][QUOTE=Krisken;380893][QUOTE=Soliloquy;380888][QUOTE=Chibibar;380886][QUOTE=Krisken;380873][QUOTE=Chibibar said:

(... a barrel of whoop ass)

Click to expand...

More like a couple hundred thousand barrels of whoop ass. [/QUOTE]

Nah. I would imagine a pissed off mother nature can pretty much wiped us out with Tornadoes, Typhoon, earthquakes and floods.[/QUOTE]

I don't know, there may be a limit to the number of those that she can do over a set period of time. Like, maybe it drains her mana or something.[/QUOTE]
Eventually she'll draw into her Armageddon and tap two white and two colorless.[/QUOTE]

And I'll be waiting, Counterspell in hand [/QUOTE]
Sorry. As you can see, all your islands have been turned into swamps.[/QUOTE]
How lucky of me, I packed a handful of Dash Hopes just in case something like this should happen.

Denbrought;381139][QUOTE=Krisken;381138][QUOTE=Denbrought;381134][QUOTE=Krisken;380893][QUOTE=Soliloquy;380888][QUOTE=Chibibar;380886][QUOTE=Krisken;380873][QUOTE=Chibibar said:

(... a barrel of whoop ass)

Click to expand...

More like a couple hundred thousand barrels of whoop ass. [/QUOTE]

Nah. I would imagine a pissed off mother nature can pretty much wiped us out with Tornadoes, Typhoon, earthquakes and floods.[/QUOTE]

I don't know, there may be a limit to the number of those that she can do over a set period of time. Like, maybe it drains her mana or something.[/QUOTE]
Eventually she'll draw into her Armageddon and tap two white and two colorless.[/QUOTE]

And I'll be waiting, Counterspell in hand [/QUOTE]
Sorry. As you can see, all your islands have been turned into swamps.[/QUOTE]
How lucky of me, I packed a handful of Dash Hopes just in case something like this should happen.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, as her bazaar of wonders is already out and she used a Dash Hopes, it would be countered.

Ever since i went to Belgium with a guy that played M:tG it's like the game is stalking me... it's D&D i want to play/learn with someone dammit.

Norris said:

. Many arguments I see (admittedly the intellectually poor sample from FSTDT.com) against Global Warming and Evolution come from the standpoint of "lol, whut? but it's called global waring, so it can't be cold! And if evolution is true, why are there still monkies?" Seriously, five minutes on wikipedia can explain this shit.

Click to expand...

5 minutes of thinking would also achieve same.

Honestly, I'm hesitant to respond because of GB's nature of lashing out quite visciously instead of responding constructively. It's a large part of why I tend to steer clear of the politics forum in general. But I came up with a pretty sound argument that I'd like to share:

My argument isn't about just the CO2 levels or the ozone layer or anything like that. It's about finding a balance with nature instead of just taking.

Look at it this way: nature finds a great harmony and there's a use for everything and anything. Minerals in the ground feed the bugs, bugs feed the birds, etc. Even a fallen tree decomposes and creates rich minerals in the earth that continues the cycle. Nature also adapts, such as building an entire ecosystem around a sunken ship. However, it can only adapt so much and our mucking about, destroying forests in the name of "progress" reduces nature's impact to help us. By removing, say, trees around the area that birds can create nests in, they can't live there, so the bug population rises and we have an infestation that previously was stopped by birds and other animals.

I'm not saying we all live in caves, make fires, etc. But there's something to be said about going back to basics a little. For example, in the summers, I don't take transit at all and rely on my bicycle, which I love. In fact, it's a little faster than transit because I don't have to stop at every corner to pick someone up. It's a healthy way of getting outside, getting exercise and getting me to where I need to go. Now, I'm also not saying tha EVERYONE can live this way, either. But suppose more people did? Less cars on the road means less congestion, less air polution, a healthier population, etc. If more people transported themselves like this, there would be a slightly healthier population, meaning a reduced stress on an already stressed healthcare system.

Ditto for, say, electricity. I doubt I could give up my PS3, but just because we can't entirely rely on just wind or solar power doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. Imagine the reduction of emissions if nearly every building had solar panelling and a couple of smaller wind turbines? Imagine the reduction of heating costs if nearly every building with a flat roof had a green roof?

Heck, speaking of green roofs: they can be used to create crops. There's a hotel in Vancouver that produces fruit, herbs & honey worth $16,000 a year from its green roof (read it in National Geographic). There's so much wasted space in cities on those rooftops that could be used for green roofs and suddenly, we have rooftop gardens. Spread that to other parts of the world and local farming becomes a larger, viable option, which cuts the costs of transporting food across seas.

Like I said, I'm not saying that we live in caves, but I am saying that there are viable reasons to "go green" that can reduce costs, create jobs, create a healthier lifestyle for us and still have a similar life to what we live, now. Like I said, it's about creating a balance, rather than just reaping and sowing.

The problem starts when you start talking like wind and solar are going to DECREASE useage of fossil fuels. They won't. Our hunger for energy as a nation, a culture, hell, a planet, is insatiable. There is infinite demand. And anything we're not drilling or burning, China and India are. And they're half the planet's population. And they're excluded from all environmental treaties.

The other problem is, it's all very nice and good to say "I don't drive, I use mass transit and ride my bike." Well that works very well in heavy urban areas. It doesn't work so well everywhere else. Hell, even Colorado Springs, an exploding population center at 600,000 people and rising, can't keep its bus routes open. When I went home last year to visit, I was surprised to see a big signs posted on the bus stops I used to get to school saying "THIS STOP NO LONGER SERVICED DUE TO FINANCIAL REASONS" posted on them. And no, they don't have a rail system. Not even Denver does. The truth of the matter is it's a very, very small percentage of the country where you can reliably transport yourself in a timely manner without an automobile.

Now, planting trees is good, we should do more of it. Alternative energy research and implementation is good, we should do more of it. The problem never comes from "doing more of what we can do," the problems start to crop up when eco-crusaders start proselytizing what you MUST NOT DO, even if it causes suffering, hardship and ruin. We saved the environment from DDT, and doomed millions upon millions to die of Malaria.

Ah, but see, China and India are trying to copy a lot of American's way of life, are they not? If we started doing it more over here in North America, and it became popular, would they not follow suit? Admittedly, maybe too late by that point, given how long it's taken them to start the "everyone owns a car!" policy. BUT, China has also done a great number of tree-planting in comparison to the rest of the world. I don't have a source for that, unfortunately, aside from this website that showed how large a country would be depending on its population per density, use of power, amount of tree-cutting (Canada, sadly, nearly took up the whole planet in that comparison). You say that we have this insatiable hunger for power, which I agree, but technology is growing. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't windows that were also solar panels or at least being worked on. Imagine those tall skyscrapers with windows galore, all sucking in solar energy? As I said, it wouldn't do away with fossil fuels entirely, but surely they would reduce our need for them. Heck, just earlier this year (or was it last year? Anyway...), my old town of Summerside, PEI (admittedly, a small town) was powered entirely for a few hours on just wind power. The capability is there.

I'm sorry to hear that about Coloardo Springs. Certainly, living in a densely populated spot like Toronto helps, especially given that I live relatively close to downtown. Maybe that says more about how widely spaced out society has become? More and more people live further away from where they have to go on a regular basis, partly because of living costs being cheaper, or wanting to live in a residential area for their kids. I think that's why there's a growing promotion for living locally, such as buying foods grown locally, etc. Bringing things back to home. As far as transportation goes, unfortunately, you're right. It doesn't work for everyone. But, again, I'm not talking about everyone doing it, but at least some, to reduce the costs. Then, maybe with those reduced costs, maybe the streets could be narrowed to promote bike lanes. Then, with that reduction in street costs, maybe something like a light transit system could be put in place. As you said, C.S. doesn't have a rail system, but that doesn't mean it couldn't. Believe me, coming from Fredericton, New Brunswick, where our bus system stinks as well, I wonder if a streetcar system (even just one major set that goes from one end of town through to the other) would help.

As far as the DDT and malaria is concerned, you're referring to the lack of food to feed a population...I think? Again, green roofs. A matter of having local harvests done right on rooftops cuts the costs of manufacturers transporting it across borders and brings the food right to the mouths of the local population. Plus, less processed foods means less chemicals that go into the waters or our own bodies. Healthier water, healthier people. Everyone wins, right?

EDIT: Also, I want to say thank you. If you responded more like that than, say, this, I'd likely visit this subforum more.

ThatNickGuy said:

Ah, but see, China and India are trying to copy a lot of American's way of life, are they not? If we started doing it more over here in North America, and it became popular, would they not follow suit?

Click to expand...

Not on your life. They'll do the cheapest, most economical and efficient method of generating power for their money - which is currently burning fossil fuels (and probably some nuclear energy for electricity). They don't want to BE us, they want to BEAT us. Us committing economic suicide will not make them follow us back that way.

You say that we have this insatiable hunger for power, which I agree, but technology is growing. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't windows that were also solar panels or at least being worked on. Imagine those tall skyscrapers with windows galore, all sucking in solar energy? As I said, it wouldn't do away with fossil fuels entirely, but surely they would reduce their need for it. Heck, just earlier this year (or was it last year? Anyway...), my old town of Summerside, PEI (admittedly, a small town) was powered entirely for a few hours on just wind power. The capability is there.

Click to expand...

That's great. We should do more of that. Currently though, it's not even putting a dent in fossil fuel consumption, and it won't for a long, long time. And no amount of governmental prohibition will change that. What WILL change that is the steady march of scientific and economic progress. When technology DOES really catch up and becomes more economically efficient to go solar and wind than to burn coal and oil, you won't have to legislate it into practice... it will be swept in on its own. But until then, we should not be hamstringing ourselves for the sake of a witch hunt.

As far as the DDT and malaria is concerned, you're referring to the lack of food to feed a population...I think?

Click to expand...

No. DDT was extremely effective at killing mosquitoes, the carriers of Malaria. Around 1960, malaria had nearly been wiped out in many developing countries. When DDT was banned because it was accused of making birdy eggshells thin and fragile in 1962, the incidence of malaria skyrocketed. "Approved" control methods have had fair to little success at controlling it. Millions suffered and died in developing countries. In 2006, the WHO did an about face and said "You know what, maybe we SHOULD be using DDT to kill mosquitoes."

ThatNickGuy said:

EDIT: Also, I want to say thank you. If you responded more like that than, say, this, I'd likely visit this subforum more.

Click to expand...

GasBandit said:

Currently though, it's not even putting a dent in fossil fuel consumption, and it won't for a long, long time. And no amount of governmental prohibition will change that. What WILL change that is the steady march of scientific and economic progress. When technology DOES really catch up and becomes more economically efficient to go solar and wind than to burn coal and oil, you won't have to legislate it into practice... it will be swept in on its own. But until then, we should not be hamstringing ourselves for the sake of a witch hunt.

Click to expand...

It's always so cute how you think that the world works so well on it's own! Both governments and private enterprises have the same weakness, they're run by people! You ever noticed how much faster technology gets developed during war or other situations where people are forced to do or die?!

Here's a cracked article for you: 7 Incredible Scientific Innovations Held Back by Petty Feuds | Cracked.com

@Li3n;382482][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

Currently though, it's not even putting a dent in fossil fuel consumption, and it won't for a long, long time. And no amount of governmental prohibition will change that. What WILL change that is the steady march of scientific and economic progress. When technology DOES really catch up and becomes more economically efficient to go solar and wind than to burn coal and oil, you won't have to legislate it into practice... it will be swept in on its own. But until then, we should not be hamstringing ourselves for the sake of a witch hunt.

Click to expand...

It's always so cute how you think that the world works so well on it's own! Both governments and private enterprises have the same weakness, they're run by people![/quote] Which is why the private sector is better than the public sector at innovation and efficiency. The private sector competes with itself, company against company (at least when it is working correctly, which is why we STILL need government. Yes, I said it! Shocked, aren't you?). The public sector, however, obtains monopoly in whatever enterprise it deigns it needs one in, and has no practical constraints when it comes to budgets. For example: The private sector got us UPS and Fed Ex. The public sector got us the US Postal service, which is hemorrhaging money and whose quality of service is practically a national joke.

Yes, the problem with either is that they are run by people. The answer is to introduce competition, so those people have motivation - to survive (at least financially).

Here's a cracked article for you: 7 Incredible Scientific Innovations Held Back by Petty Feuds | Cracked.com

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the most high and unassailable bastion of scientific thought - Cracked magazine. :lol: Remember when it was just a snarky parody rag, wishing desperately it was MAD magazine?

I can't believe someone just linked to a comedy site like Cracked as evidence for a political debate.

GasBandit said:

For example: The private sector got us UPS and Fed Ex. The public sector got us the US Postal service, which is hemorrhaging money and whose quality of service is practically a national joke.

Click to expand...

Your point is a good one, but this is actually a very poor example. FedEx, who is the private delivery market leader, delivered 7 million packages per day on average in the last quarter of standard calendar year 2009 (Oct-Dec). In the same time period, the postal service delivered 610 million per day, on average. Even after stripping out the spam and advertising (48% of their volume), USPS delivered over 300 million units per day. To further complicate matters, FedEx and their competitors rent USPS shipping services for their ground mail, and USPS rents shipping services from FedEx and their competitors for packages.

Your statement, and every variant I've seen of it around the Net, whether you intend to or not, strongly implies that the private delivery companies could take over the services of the USPS if their charter was revoked in light of their failure to balance their budget, but this is impossible to credibly substantiate in light of the absurd volume and infrastructure gap between the USPS and private delivery companies. Even if we were to assume that the private delivery companies would be able to buy USPS assets for pennies on the dollar (unlikely), we simply can't assume that they would be able to implement that infrastructure in such a way as to maintain their profitability and quality of service while also serving the mail demands of the US population, which are almost 100 times larger than any of their current volumes, and likely significantly over 100 for smaller companies like UPS and DHL.

TeKeo;382609][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

For example: The private sector got us UPS and Fed Ex. The public sector got us the US Postal service, which is hemorrhaging money and whose quality of service is practically a national joke.

Click to expand...

Your point is a good one, but this is actually a very poor example. FedEx, who is the private delivery market leader, delivered 7 million packages per day on average in the last quarter of standard calendar year 2009 (Oct-Dec). In the same time period, the postal service delivered 610 million per day, on average. Even after stripping out the spam and advertising (48% of their volume), USPS delivered over 300 million units per day. To further complicate matters, FedEx and their competitors rent USPS shipping services for their ground mail, and USPS rents shipping services from FedEx and their competitors for packages.

Your statement, and every variant I've seen of it around the Net, whether you intend to or not, strongly implies that the private delivery companies could take over the services of the USPS if their charter was revoked in light of their failure to balance their budget, but this is impossible to credibly substantiate in light of the absurd volume and infrastructure gap between the USPS and private delivery companies. Even if we were to assume that the private delivery companies would be able to buy USPS assets for pennies on the dollar (unlikely), we simply can't assume that they would be able to implement that infrastructure in such a way as to maintain their profitability and quality of service while also serving the mail demands of the US population, which are almost 100 times larger than any of their current volumes, and likely significantly over 100 for smaller companies like UPS and DHL.[/QUOTE]

That 610 million units delivered number is not per day, it is for the entire period of Oct-Dec 2009 and it includes all mail, not just packages. (Bottom of page 18 of your link).

Furthermore, according to the top of page 20, those 3 months saw the shipping of 178 million packages, or an average just shy of 2 million packages a day.

Now according to the link you provided for Fedex, at the top of page 26, their average daily package volumes for that same period (Q4 2009) were 3.36 million/day for FedEx express, 3.29 million/day for FedEx Ground, and 68k/day for freight/LTL.

Now, granted, in this same 3 month block, 42 billion standard or first class letters were delivered, which would average out to about 466 million/day. But letters are a different animal than packages, and really (they are lighter, smaller, must be sorted differently, etc), we can't predict how FedEx, UPS, DHL etc would handle them if they had been given the chance to ramp up capabilities like the USPS has for hundreds of years. Nobody in their right might would say that these companies could pick up the slack immediately if the USPS disappeared, but that's not really what the issue is here. The issue is what kind of organization grows up in an atmosphere of competition, versus what kind of organization is created when it grows up in a state-mandated monopoly with no real fear of bankruptcy.

That isn't to say, though, that eventually private enterprise COULDN'T take over the job... there would just have to be a long transition period during which the USPS still operated, but private companies were allowed to start entering the regular mail-carrying business. They'd need years, possibly decades, to ramp their capabilities up to entirely replace the USPS.

GasBandit;382587][QUOTE=@Li3n;382482][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

Currently though, it's not even putting a dent in fossil fuel consumption, and it won't for a long, long time. And no amount of governmental prohibition will change that. What WILL change that is the steady march of scientific and economic progress. When technology DOES really catch up and becomes more economically efficient to go solar and wind than to burn coal and oil, you won't have to legislate it into practice... it will be swept in on its own. But until then, we should not be hamstringing ourselves for the sake of a witch hunt.

Click to expand...

It's always so cute how you think that the world works so well on it's own! Both governments and private enterprises have the same weakness, they're run by people![/QUOTE] Which is why the private sector is better than the public sector at innovation and efficiency. The private sector competes with itself, company against company . The public sector, however, obtains monopoly in whatever enterprise it deigns it needs one in, and has no practical constraints when it comes to budgets. For example: The private sector got us UPS and Fed Ex. The public sector got us the US Postal service, which is hemorrhaging money and whose quality of service is practically a national joke.

Yes, the problem with either is that they are run by people. The answer is to introduce competition, so those people have motivation - to survive (at least financially).[/QUOTE]

Yeah, motivation is the main thing... which is why the government managed to get to the moon and make an atom bomb...

But you said they shouldn't even try to force the private sector to use solar/wind until it becomes better then coal/fossil fuels, which imo isn't necessary. As long as solar/wind is good enough for them to still make enough profit to be able to still compete then cutting their profit margin isn't something we should be against.

Actually that might even make them work harder on solar/wind to make it better faster so they could get their bigger profit margin back. See, motivation. And that too is where the cracked article comes in... Edison didn't want to spend money on switching to AC when he invested in DC already... and that held everyone back.

(at least when it is working correctly, which is why we STILL need government. Yes, I said it! Shocked, aren't you?)

Click to expand...

Nah, you like to scream about your approval of the government breaking up AT&T or whoever like every time your stance on the government comes up. So i'm aware you're not an anarchist.

Here's a cracked article for you: 7 Incredible Scientific Innovations Held Back by Petty Feuds | Cracked.com

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the most high and unassailable bastion of scientific thought - Cracked magazine. :lol: Remember when it was just a snarky parody rag, wishing desperately it was MAD magazine?

Click to expand...

Sure, i could have actually looked for reliable sources on those stories... but where's the fun in that?!

Troll said:

I can't believe someone just linked to a comedy site like Cracked as evidence for a political debate.

Click to expand...

Political debates on internet fori, SERIOUS BUSINESS!!!!!

It still boils down to money.

Even Private corporations are formed to make money. Currently the technology of alternate fuel is expensive The government don't want to take on the project of refitting all the pumps, lines, whatever it takes to go to the next generations. I remember back in early 90s CA (I think it was LA that started it) with electric cars. The city did have some charging station and I saw airport have special parking space, what happen with that? lack of money? political? (probably both)

now at 2010 we are trying to revisit a hybrid/electric car (I use a / cause there are some pure electric car out there) now of course producing electricity requires a turbine turning via steam, water, wind something........ I think what is needed is find an "alternative" energy other than electricity, but that is like a whole new invention.

I do believe we should have some "balance" with nature, but alas, there is no profit in that

Deep Core Geothermal FTW, biatch! Solves our energy AND our waste problems at the same time!

GasBandit said:

Deep Core Geothermal FTW, biatch! Solves our energy AND our waste problems at the same time!

Click to expand...

I remember reading this a while back. I wonder why they (the companies) never really do this. Is it too expensive to drill a hole into the ground?

GasBandit said:

That 610 million units delivered number is not per day, it is for the entire period of Oct-Dec 2009 and it includes all mail, not just packages. (Bottom of page 18 of your link).

Click to expand...

The very page you point to says, very clearly, "average volume per delivery day", and I said it included everything.

That isn't to say, though, that eventually private enterprise COULDN'T take over the job... there would just have to be a long transition period during which the USPS still operated, but private companies were allowed to start entering the regular mail-carrying business.

Click to expand...

I agree, the legal monopoly simply doesn't serve a purpose anymore, regardless of whether you believe it did or not previously.

@Li3n;382689][QUOTE=Troll said:

I can't believe someone just linked to a comedy site like Cracked as evidence for a political debate.

Click to expand...

Political debates on internet fori, SERIOUS BUSINESS!!!!![/QUOTE]

Oh, okay. Since you're relying on that old adage, I'll just assume everything you say is a lame joke from here on out.

TeKeo said:

The very page you point to says, very clearly, "average volume per delivery day", and I said it included everything.

Click to expand...

Gah, I can't believe I messed that up. I looked right at that like 9 times... and now the 10th time it's there plain as day.

I agree, the legal monopoly simply doesn't serve a purpose anymore, regardless of whether you believe it did or not previously.

Click to expand...

There, we are in agreement.

Chibibar;382775][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

Deep Core Geothermal FTW, biatch! Solves our energy AND our waste problems at the same time!

Click to expand...

I remember reading this a while back. I wonder why they (the companies) never really do this. Is it too expensive to drill a hole into the ground?[/QUOTE]

No, but it's got a lot of issues with building the actual generators: You need to find locations that are close enough to the surface to exploit them, you need to make sure the vent will always produce (instead of doing it in bursts like most land geysers), you need to find a group of people with the expertise that are willing to work in an environment that could potentially face them with a horrible boiling death, you need a way to shut it done in case it needs to be repaired...

In short, it's just a huge endeavor at this point. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked into, because the possibly benefits are much greater than solar/wind, but it's going to take a huge amount of funding to get it done.

TL;DR

I was listening to Pacifica this morning (Democracy Now) and heard someone say that in response to the oil spill in the gulf of mexico ALL OFFHORE OIL RIGS should be immediately shut down and no new ones should ever be allowed to start. Amy did her standard "I'm neutral and just asking questions and I am clearly exhausted from the years of standing on the front line but I will keep chugging forward" response and kept moving forward.

That interview right there is one reason why people fight against enviromentalists. Because some of them are REALLY FUCKING STUPID. What that guy offered wasn't a solution, it was a way to cause a global energy crisis the likes of which we have never seen. Many enviromentalists suggest that we out of hand stop doing something permanently with no thought of the reppercussions.

And that leads to the real problem:

As a scientist any time I hear people that are not scientists talk about environmental stuff (which, surprise, is 95% of the time) I sit back and crack open a copy of Modern Jackass. They spout off stuff they have read somewhere else and try to regurgitate it back, when clearly they have no understand of the science behind it. This isn't just a problem with the left, its all sides.

And these are really quite complicated systems we are talking about. Climate Change is an insanely complicated topic, I have a degree in chemistry and most of that science is well beyond me, so if I am to have a view about it I have to accept something someone else is telling me without being able to follow a full fundamental explanation, which means that I am basing my opinion on more things than just the science.

Now that's me, I can understand some of the fundamentals, but at the end of the day my views could be based heavily on my subjective opinions on the character of someone else presenting the facts. But since most people have the scientific education of a 17th century fire worshipper, environmental/health politics are entirely dominated by cults of personality, which, to me, is the real problem

To me, saying all oil rigs should be shut down because of the Gulf spill is like saying all airlines should be shut down because of an especially bad plane crash. Something can be 99% safe and the best option for a given situation, but there will still be random occasions when something goes wrong. One accident should not be taken as a sign that the entire industry is fundamentally flawed.

Troll said:

To me, saying all oil rigs should be shut down because of the Gulf spill is like saying all airlines should be shut down because of an especially bad plane crash. Something can be 99% safe and the best option for a given situation, but there will still be random occasions when something goes wrong. One accident should not be taken as a sign that the entire industry is fundamentally flawed.

Click to expand...

Sure, but 1 plane crashing out of 100 (or even 1000) doesn't have the same impact as an oil spill in the open sea.

Think about someone saying the same about nuclear plants... "just because 1 out of X will go critical it's no reason not to put them everywhere"! There's a reason why they need to be 100 times safer then other energy generating facilities.

Oh, okay. Since you're relying on that old adage, I'll just assume everything you say is a lame joke from here on out.

Click to expand...

Lame joke >>> dismissing arguments because the source is using comedy in it's presentation.

ThatNickGuy said:

Honestly, I'm hesitant to respond because of GB's nature of lashing out quite visciously instead of responding constructively. It's a large part of why I tend to steer clear of the politics forum in general. But I came up with a pretty sound argument that I'd like to share:

My argument isn't about just the CO2 levels or the ozone layer or anything like that. It's about finding a balance with nature instead of just taking.

Look at it this way: nature finds a great harmony and there's a use for everything and anything. Minerals in the ground feed the bugs, bugs feed the birds, etc. Even a fallen tree decomposes and creates rich minerals in the earth that continues the cycle. Nature also adapts, such as building an entire ecosystem around a sunken ship. However, it can only adapt so much and our mucking about, destroying forests in the name of "progress" reduces nature's impact to help us. By removing, say, trees around the area that birds can create nests in, they can't live there, so the bug population rises and we have an infestation that previously was stopped by birds and other animals.

I'm not saying we all live in caves, make fires, etc. But there's something to be said about going back to basics a little. For example, in the summers, I don't take transit at all and rely on my bicycle, which I love. In fact, it's a little faster than transit because I don't have to stop at every corner to pick someone up. It's a healthy way of getting outside, getting exercise and getting me to where I need to go. Now, I'm also not saying tha EVERYONE can live this way, either. But suppose more people did? Less cars on the road means less congestion, less air polution, a healthier population, etc. If more people transported themselves like this, there would be a slightly healthier population, meaning a reduced stress on an already stressed healthcare system.

Ditto for, say, electricity. I doubt I could give up my PS3, but just because we can't entirely rely on just wind or solar power doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. Imagine the reduction of emissions if nearly every building had solar panelling and a couple of smaller wind turbines? Imagine the reduction of heating costs if nearly every building with a flat roof had a green roof?

Heck, speaking of green roofs: they can be used to create crops. There's a hotel in Vancouver that produces fruit, herbs & honey worth $16,000 a year from its green roof (read it in National Geographic). There's so much wasted space in cities on those rooftops that could be used for green roofs and suddenly, we have rooftop gardens. Spread that to other parts of the world and local farming becomes a larger, viable option, which cuts the costs of transporting food across seas.

Like I said, I'm not saying that we live in caves, but I am saying that there are viable reasons to "go green" that can reduce costs, create jobs, create a healthier lifestyle for us and still have a similar life to what we live, now. Like I said, it's about creating a balance, rather than just reaping and sowing.

Click to expand...

STOP PERSONIFYING NATURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chazwozel said:

STOP PERSONIFYING NATURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

But she's so hot:

View attachment 523

@Li3n;384397][QUOTE=Troll said:

To me, saying all oil rigs should be shut down because of the Gulf spill is like saying all airlines should be shut down because of an especially bad plane crash. Something can be 99% safe and the best option for a given situation, but there will still be random occasions when something goes wrong. One accident should not be taken as a sign that the entire industry is fundamentally flawed.

Click to expand...

Sure, but 1 plane crashing out of 100 (or even 1000) doesn't have the same impact as an oil spill in the open sea.

Think about someone saying the same about nuclear plants... "just because 1 out of X will go critical it's no reason not to put them everywhere"! There's a reason why they need to be 100 times safer then other energy generating facilities.

Oh, okay. Since you're relying on that old adage, I'll just assume everything you say is a lame joke from here on out.

Click to expand...

Lame joke >>> dismissing arguments because the source is using comedy in it's presentation.[/QUOTE]

No one is saying oil rigs should be put everywhere, I just want people to acknowledge how much of a freak accident this is rather that imply it's a systemic problem, implying that all oil rigs/nuclear plants are ticking time bombs.

And guess what, if you use shitty sources be prepared to be made fun of and called out.

Troll said:

No one is saying oil rigs should be put everywhere, I just want people to acknowledge how much of a freak accident this is rather that imply it's a systemic problem, implying that all oil rigs/nuclear plants are ticking time bombs.

And guess what, if you use shitty sources be prepared to be made fun of and called out.

Click to expand...

This is just one of those "worst case scenario" (so far) in terms of accidents. Realistically, you can't shut down all those oil rigs. U.S. alone is VERY power hungry (Gas, Electricity, Energy in general) There is no way to compensate that if they shut down. We just don't have the advance tech that can produce energy cheaply in terms of overall cost right now

"Troll said:

@Li3n;384397 said:

Troll said:

To me, saying all oil rigs should be shut down because of the Gulf spill is like saying all airlines should be shut down because of an especially bad plane crash. Something can be 99% safe and the best option for a given situation, but there will still be random occasions when something goes wrong. One accident should not be taken as a sign that the entire industry is fundamentally flawed.

Click to expand...

Sure, but 1 plane crashing out of 100 (or even 1000) doesn't have the same impact as an oil spill in the open sea.

Think about someone saying the same about nuclear plants... "just because 1 out of X will go critical it's no reason not to put them everywhere"! There's a reason why they need to be 100 times safer then other energy generating facilities.

Oh, okay. Since you're relying on that old adage, I'll just assume everything you say is a lame joke from here on out.

Click to expand...

Lame joke >>> dismissing arguments because the source is using comedy in it's presentation.

Click to expand...

No one is saying oil rigs should be put everywhere, I just want people to acknowledge how much of a freak accident this is rather that imply it's a systemic problem, implying that all oil rigs/nuclear plants are ticking time bombs.

Click to expand...

Then you should have probably not have brought up airplanes, who might be safer then cars, but still crash rather regularly.

Troll said:

And guess what, if you use shitty sources be prepared to be made fun of and called out.

Click to expand...

Oh for fucks sakes... the matter didn't really require much detailing, plus you apparently need to read this (from another untrustworthy source): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

---------- Post added at 07:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------

Chibibar;384567][QUOTE=Troll said:

No one is saying oil rigs should be put everywhere, I just want people to acknowledge how much of a freak accident this is rather that imply it's a systemic problem, implying that all oil rigs/nuclear plants are ticking time bombs.

And guess what, if you use shitty sources be prepared to be made fun of and called out.

Click to expand...

This is just one of those "worst case scenario" (so far) in terms of accidents. Realistically, you can't shut down all those oil rigs. U.S. alone is VERY power hungry (Gas, Electricity, Energy in general) There is no way to compensate that if they shut down. We just don't have the advance tech that can produce energy cheaply in terms of overall cost right now [/QUOTE]

The main advantage the middle east has it that any ooil spills there will kill off a lot of sand and not much more.

@Li3n said:

The main advantage the middle east has it that any ooil spills there will kill off a lot of sand and not much more.

Click to expand...

Environmentally friendly oil disaster! Huzzah!

Well sure, if you set it on fire shit gets real...

But the idea was that it's easier to contain on land, which is one of the reasons off shore drilling has more restrictions.