US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3566

On April 07 2016 07:17 Nyxisto wrote:


I don't think that reducing energy consumption means reducing trade. Actually over the last two decades that is provably falls. The global economy is making energy production more efficient and less dependent on carbohydrates at a rather fast pace, and a significant amount of products is digital or in other ways more resource independent. Pretty much all developed countries are reducing their waste and emission products while steadily growing and increasing trade.

On April 07 2016 07:33 WhiteDog wrote:

I added "for traveling". We're still leaps and bound from any reasonable consumption of energy in the US. We might have the technology, but the actual effect on our consumption of energy is really scarce. The little advancement in developped countries is directly compensated by the increase of consumption in other countries and if the entire world would consume as much as a french, a german (let alone an american citizen) then the world would be burning.

On April 07 2016 08:15 m4ini wrote:
So in an entirely unrelated note, how's american politics doing?

All good?

On April 07 2016 07:09 WhiteDog wrote:

If you take seriously global warming (meaning if you actually think that we cannot solve it without changing our consumption and our energy production without any kind of scientific innovation that could completly solve its problem), then, somewhere in your head, you didn't came to the conclusion that reducing energy consumption will most likely lessen our hability to travel, and thus to trade ?


False on Africa, false on China. Nice try. What it shows is your lack of knowledge on the subject ; colonialism destroyed most african infrastructures, due to the lack of knowledge of the colonial powers mostly. They were unable to adapt to the environment ; one famous exemple, they put cities near water (lake and such), mimicking europe, but those wet area were also the place where most insect strive, so much that they greatly enhanced the effect of malaria and such (while pre colonial tribes had "cities" in dry areas).

WASHINGTON — This spring, the Environmental Protection Agency plans to finalize rules to curb methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said at a breakfast for reporters sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor Tuesday.

Methane, the main component of natural gas, is of special concern, advocates for climate change say, because it traps planet-warming heat around 80 times faster than carbon dioxide. Last month, the EPA announced that it planned to expand its regulations of methane emissions.

“You will see that these rules continue our commitment to achieve the US goal of reducing methane emissions by 40 to 45 percent below 2012 levels,” Ms. McCarthy said. “We’re going to be moving that forward.”

Experts say a small number of oil and gas facilities are responsible for most methane leaks in the United States. Left over fluids from hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), a method for extracting natural gas, have some of the highest levels of methane.

But methane emissions have proven challenging to measure. On Tuesday, the administrator said the EPA would carry out an information collection request to help accurately determine the extent of emissions throughout the country.

She also emphasized the need to cut emissions from other sources of greenhouse gas, such as agriculture and livestock production and food waste.

The US has at least two different systems of what gets termed "socioeconomic class". They are everywhere conflated, and this is bad.

Two of them I will term economic class and social class.

Economic class refers to money. It refers to the wealth or poverty of a person, and to the privileges they do or do not have because of their economic might or lack thereof.

Social class is what is being referred to by such terms as "middle class", "working class", "white collar", "professional", "blue collar", and the pejoratives "white trash" and "townie".

It is a common confusion – or intellectual dodge – to conflate social class with economic class. But what what differentiates, say, the middle class from the working class is not mere wealth or earning power; as we all know, a plumber (presumed working class) may make much more money than a professor (presumed professional).

To use myself as an illustration: I make very little money, so I am heir to the misfortunes that disproportionately impact the impecunious – the almost-certain forthcoming hike in T fares looms large in my anxieties right now – but I am a professional with an advanced degree and possession of the shibboleths of the professional class. I didn't stop being in the social class I had been in when I dropped to a much lower economic class. The privileges I lost were only those attendant to economic might; I retained the privileges of social position.

On April 07 2016 09:32 kwizach wrote:
Sanders' campaign is literally proving Hillary's point that receiving donations from people who work in an industry doesn't mean you're going to work for that industry. I mean seriously, attacking Hillary with the insinuation that she's cozy with the gun industry?! She's the only candidate pushing to hold gun manufacturers accountable for violence committed with the weapons they sell! The NRA rates her positions F for a reason.

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/717845731789447168

On April 07 2016 08:56 KwarK wrote:

You're stretching my credulity at "colonialism destroyed African infrastructures due to lack of colonial knowledge".

What African infrastructure are we talking about here? Modern infrastructure came to Africa with the European colonialism. You might argue that they made some planning mistakes by trying to stamp Europe onto Africa but it's not like they rerouted the native African railways. I'm sure pre-colonial Africa had many rich and vibrant cultures with a lot to offer but I'm skeptical that the Europeans ruined their modern industrial infrastructure.

I'm calling bullshit on this one unless you cite some sources.

Top officials with the Obama administration said Wednesday that they'll redirect $589 million toward the Zika virus response. Most of that money was to be used to deal with Ebola virus.

Almost two months ago, the Obama administration requested $1.9 billion from Congress to respond to the Zika threat.

"But Congress has yet to act," Shaun Donovan, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said in a news conference. "In the absence of congressional action, we must scale up Zika preparedness and response activities right now."

Over 600 people with Zika, including 64 pregnant women, have been reported in U.S. states and territories. In most cases, people contracted the virus while traveling.

But Sylvia Burwell, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, says she expects to see local Zika virus transmission in the continental U.S. in coming months.

The redirected funds will go to mosquito control and surveillance; education about how to prevent transmission; supporting states and territories in their own Zika virus responses; and developing vaccines and better diagnostic tests.