In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 21 2016 12:49 GreenHorizons wrote: Americans (and much of the first world) needs to just come to grips with the reality that we built a society on a foundation of practices that were inevitably unsustainable. It's ironic this would fall on such deaf ears in the US, a nation who partially owes it's existence to the realization hundreds of years ago that humanity had become dependent on spreading, but also that the earth was indeed round, and therefore humanity could only expand so far before it was doubling back onto itself (the snake eating it's own tail).
The problem is that even if we recognize this as true, most of the people voting don't give a shit. They'll be long dead before the fire burns out and we fuck ourselves over. People will rather protect their short-term interest rather than worry about how sustainable American society is after they're dead, so they vote for politicians that will protect their short-term interest, and we never get sound long-term policy. By the time the segment of the population that will be alive for us fucking ourselves over is sufficiently large, it'll be too late.
On November 21 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote: Birth controlling the first world into oblivion while the third world continues to expand does not strike me as a sane plan to stop climate change.
My understanding was that Fiwifaki's idea was more aggressive population control policy in the developing world, with less aggressive incentives-based population control in developed countries.
But, well, good luck implementing that.
If the climate alarmists were really serious, they'd be whipping up the developed world into a military frenzy and launch a global climate crusade to force their green environmental standards upon the world.
This is a completely ridiculous post for multitudes of reasons. The biggest polluters per capita are either western, developed nations or oil producing ones. The biggest not-per-capita are china and the US. I fail to see the benefit of more war in the middle east, and I fail to see the benefit of a war between the US, Europe and China. African countries, countries that can be strong-armed, have emission levels that actually are sustainable.
There are many ways of criticizing leftist rhetoric and policy on climate that make sense. I think it's dumb how the car rather than the cow has been targeted, not having cars would be far more inconveniencing than not having steak, and cars make up a pretty small percentage of overall emissions. But the suggestion that 'unless you're arguing for the installment of an oppressive world government, you're just not serious about the issue', that's just silly.
On November 21 2016 03:42 radscorpion9 wrote: There was a very interesting interview with Noam Chomsky written on www.truth-out.org, its actually fairly shocking how much global warming has been ignored in this election and even after it (with certain exceptions).
Thought I would add a quote:
On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government -- executive, Congress, the Supreme Court -- in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history. Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand...
During the Republican primaries, every candidate denied that what is happening is happening -- with the exception of the sensible moderates, like Jeb Bush, who said it's all uncertain, but we don't have to do anything because we're producing more natural gas, thanks to fracking. Or John Kasich, who agreed that global warming is taking place, but added that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it." The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible...
It is hard to find words to capture the fact that humans are facing the most important question in their history -- whether organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know -- and are answering it by accelerating the race to disaster.
It is no less difficult to find words to capture the utterly astonishing fact that in all of the massive coverage of the electoral extravaganza, none of this receives more than passing mention. At least I am at a loss to find appropriate words.
You guys already doubled your oil production under Obama.
45 years ago, your emissions were at 4.5 billion metric tonnes, they peaked at 6.0 billion metric tonnes right before the recession. There's no way that under Trump that emissions will go up, states have plenty of power there, and economically, with the current technology it's just not worth it. Btw, Trump has admitted global warming exists, so yeah, it's a bit of a blow, but quite small in the grand scheme of things. Might be the difference of 0.5 billion metric tonnes by the end of his presidency... Compared to the 10 billion that China will be producing in not too long, it's just a drop in the ocean.
Some significant change in our institutions is necessary for anything to happen, and population control is essential. These policies maybe lower emissions by 30-50% compared to them not existing, and that's the best case scenario. That's really nothing, that's like are we going to be fucked in 75 years or 125 years... Until we start talking about population control, were not taking the issue seriously, and it's all a half assed attempt at a bandaid solution.
what population control measures do you support?
I think while pretty harsh on the surface we need one child China type policies, particularly in developing countries. Developed countries can maintain their current populations just by adjusting economic benefits a little bit here and there.
We're so set on growing, that we force our populations to keep increasing, to pay off pensions, etc.
So I think one child free, and additional children require additional taxes as a percentage of income, say raising your effective tax rate from 20% to 30%, expanding free abortion programs, and so forth. I think in the same way we have emission targets, we should have birth rate targets, and countries who don't meet the standards will receive some form of sanctions.
I know it's not pretty, but it needs to enter the conversation somehow, especially from the people thinking about the environment. A fully industrialized China and India is an immense source of pollution, and many other countries in worse shape than China will be soon to follow.
But yeah, wealthy countries just by playing with child tax breaks is sufficient, in developing countries similar to what China did, and developed countries to put pressure on developing ones.
I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more... currently we complete remove population by expressing targets per capita.
China's one child policy is already showing its effects which are about to get worse over the next couple of decades with an increasingly aging population that directly affects its economy and productivity. Currently there are 5 working people for about every retiree. In 2040 this would have collapsed to 1.5 working people for every retiree. The current median age in China is about 30. It will go upto 46 in 2040, and with advances in medical technology and increasing lifespan, this is going to become an increasingly bigger problem.
Remember that this not only affects the economy - This is also going to affect the military, with fewer able bodied men available to enter armed services, and is also going to affect geopolitical dynamics indirectly.
Also China/India supplies most of the cheap labor of the world currently. Once we have successfully decimated their working population, where will we get the cheap labor needed to sustain our consumption habits?
I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more
The current way population is distributed has a lot to do with how white men went and took over vast continents and then redrew the boundaries to suit their needs. Most of Asian countries by contrast, were brutally subjugated by the British, and therefore could not indulge in the same degree of empire building.
Essentially your solution would once again benefit white people further due to the aggressive militaristic tendencies of your ancestors, in addition to all the benefits that you have already reaped due to your nation building (such as increased access to natural resources).
Also, it really smacks of elitism - what you're essentially saying is that a person in a developed country has the right to do whatever the fuck he pleases, whereas a person in a less developed country can't do the same, just because of the country he was born in - a factor he has no control over?
China did it more rapidly than others, and obviously there's going to be an economic cost, but its a hit we will have to take, we can't just keep expanding our population forever to keep that working age percentage the same, people are living longet, etc. Eventually it'll catch up to us... I don't know the ideal policy details, but some way that minimizes intrusion, economic cost, etc.
My intention isn't to be elitist, but the other alternative is we let the rest of the world fully develop on their accord, and then we will have a world population of 15-20 billion, and then what? Unless we have a massive breakthrough technology how do we deal with that long term? Or maybe that's what we wat to bank on, idk.
If we have 15-20 billion people living like all of Europe does, that's like 10x larger population that the Earth can currently sustain. We can only cut out emissions so far before we live like cavemen.
There's nothing indicating that we're going to reach 15-20 billion. Changes in demographics have already happened, through most of the developing world as well. We're going to reach ~11 billion (regardless of any policy that can possibly be implemented) simply because people are getting older. You can talk about idealizing population control measures on like, a 100+ year scale, but we need to curb emission levels. The way it sounds to me is that you pointing towards population control is mostly just an argument for not doing other things, but as has been discussed before, climate change is not a binary either it happens or it doesn't thing. Global temperature increase of 1 degree is vastly different from 2 degrees, and how long it takes us to reach either of those matters a lot for the welfare of billions of people.
On November 21 2016 09:19 LegalLord wrote: A lot of the worst emitters per capita are indeed the less developed nations that haven't developed proper controls to decrease their polluting. You could make an argument that they emit more so that the first worlders don't have to make what they make but they produce less efficiently for sure.
Insofar as I know, this is patently false. The only developing nation that might qualify is China, but their population is too huge for per capita to be anywhere near the west. Here's a map of co2 per capita:
The middle East is not the developing world. So not sure where countries you're talking about. Some Caribbean island nation whose emission stats are high because of all the western tourists there?
On November 21 2016 09:19 LegalLord wrote: A lot of the worst emitters per capita are indeed the less developed nations that haven't developed proper controls to decrease their polluting. You could make an argument that they emit more so that the first worlders don't have to make what they make but they produce less efficiently for sure.
Insofar as I know, this is patently false. The only developing nation that might qualify is China, but their population is too huge for per capita to be anywhere near the west. Here's a map of co2 per capita:
The middle East is not the developing world. So not sure where countries you're talking about. Some Caribbean island nation whose emission stats are high because of all the western tourists there?
Among oil producers, it's usually the smaller or less technologically advanced ("developing" is your term and it's a semantic game anyhow; I said "less developed"). Of course for emissions you usually need industry, so third world nations probably don't emit much.
On November 21 2016 09:19 LegalLord wrote: A lot of the worst emitters per capita are indeed the less developed nations that haven't developed proper controls to decrease their polluting. You could make an argument that they emit more so that the first worlders don't have to make what they make but they produce less efficiently for sure.
Insofar as I know, this is patently false. The only developing nation that might qualify is China, but their population is too huge for per capita to be anywhere near the west. Here's a map of co2 per capita:
The middle East is not the developing world. So not sure where countries you're talking about. Some Caribbean island nation whose emission stats are high because of all the western tourists there?
Among oil producers, it's usually the smaller or less technologically advanced ("developing" is your term and it's a semantic game anyhow; I said "less developed"). Of course for emissions you usually need industry, so third world nations probably don't emit much.
On November 21 2016 03:42 radscorpion9 wrote: There was a very interesting interview with Noam Chomsky written on www.truth-out.org, its actually fairly shocking how much global warming has been ignored in this election and even after it (with certain exceptions).
Thought I would add a quote:
On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government -- executive, Congress, the Supreme Court -- in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history. Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand...
During the Republican primaries, every candidate denied that what is happening is happening -- with the exception of the sensible moderates, like Jeb Bush, who said it's all uncertain, but we don't have to do anything because we're producing more natural gas, thanks to fracking. Or John Kasich, who agreed that global warming is taking place, but added that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it." The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible...
It is hard to find words to capture the fact that humans are facing the most important question in their history -- whether organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know -- and are answering it by accelerating the race to disaster.
It is no less difficult to find words to capture the utterly astonishing fact that in all of the massive coverage of the electoral extravaganza, none of this receives more than passing mention. At least I am at a loss to find appropriate words.
You guys already doubled your oil production under Obama.
45 years ago, your emissions were at 4.5 billion metric tonnes, they peaked at 6.0 billion metric tonnes right before the recession. There's no way that under Trump that emissions will go up, states have plenty of power there, and economically, with the current technology it's just not worth it. Btw, Trump has admitted global warming exists, so yeah, it's a bit of a blow, but quite small in the grand scheme of things. Might be the difference of 0.5 billion metric tonnes by the end of his presidency... Compared to the 10 billion that China will be producing in not too long, it's just a drop in the ocean.
Some significant change in our institutions is necessary for anything to happen, and population control is essential. These policies maybe lower emissions by 30-50% compared to them not existing, and that's the best case scenario. That's really nothing, that's like are we going to be fucked in 75 years or 125 years... Until we start talking about population control, were not taking the issue seriously, and it's all a half assed attempt at a bandaid solution.
what population control measures do you support?
I think while pretty harsh on the surface we need one child China type policies, particularly in developing countries. Developed countries can maintain their current populations just by adjusting economic benefits a little bit here and there.
We're so set on growing, that we force our populations to keep increasing, to pay off pensions, etc.
So I think one child free, and additional children require additional taxes as a percentage of income, say raising your effective tax rate from 20% to 30%, expanding free abortion programs, and so forth. I think in the same way we have emission targets, we should have birth rate targets, and countries who don't meet the standards will receive some form of sanctions.
I know it's not pretty, but it needs to enter the conversation somehow, especially from the people thinking about the environment. A fully industrialized China and India is an immense source of pollution, and many other countries in worse shape than China will be soon to follow.
But yeah, wealthy countries just by playing with child tax breaks is sufficient, in developing countries similar to what China did, and developed countries to put pressure on developing ones.
I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more... currently we complete remove population by expressing targets per capita.
China's one child policy is already showing its effects which are about to get worse over the next couple of decades with an increasingly aging population that directly affects its economy and productivity. Currently there are 5 working people for about every retiree. In 2040 this would have collapsed to 1.5 working people for every retiree. The current median age in China is about 30. It will go upto 46 in 2040, and with advances in medical technology and increasing lifespan, this is going to become an increasingly bigger problem.
Remember that this not only affects the economy - This is also going to affect the military, with fewer able bodied men available to enter armed services, and is also going to affect geopolitical dynamics indirectly.
Also China/India supplies most of the cheap labor of the world currently. Once we have successfully decimated their working population, where will we get the cheap labor needed to sustain our consumption habits?
I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more
The current way population is distributed has a lot to do with how white men went and took over vast continents and then redrew the boundaries to suit their needs. Most of Asian countries by contrast, were brutally subjugated by the British, and therefore could not indulge in the same degree of empire building.
Essentially your solution would once again benefit white people further due to the aggressive militaristic tendencies of your ancestors, in addition to all the benefits that you have already reaped due to your nation building (such as increased access to natural resources).
Also, it really smacks of elitism - what you're essentially saying is that a person in a developed country has the right to do whatever the fuck he pleases, whereas a person in a less developed country can't do the same, just because of the country he was born in - a factor he has no control over?
China did it more rapidly than others, and obviously there's going to be an economic cost, but its a hit we will have to take, we can't just keep expanding our population forever to keep that working age percentage the same, people are living longet, etc. Eventually it'll catch up to us... I don't know the ideal policy details, but some way that minimizes intrusion, economic cost, etc.
My intention isn't to be elitist, but the other alternative is we let the rest of the world fully develop on their accord, and then we will have a world population of 15-20 billion, and then what? Unless we have a massive breakthrough technology how do we deal with that long term? Or maybe that's what we wat to bank on, idk.
If we have 15-20 billion people living like all of Europe does, that's like 10x larger population that the Earth can currently sustain. We can only cut out emissions so far before we live like cavemen.
There's nothing indicating that we're going to reach 15-20 billion. Changes in demographics have already happened, through most of the developing world as well. We're going to reach ~11 billion (regardless of any policy that can possibly be implemented) simply because people are getting older. You can talk about idealizing population control measures on like, a 100+ year scale, but we need to curb emission levels. The way it sounds to me is that you pointing towards population control is mostly just an argument for not doing other things, but as has been discussed before, climate change is not a binary either it happens or it doesn't thing. Global temperature increase of 1 degree is vastly different from 2 degrees, and how long it takes us to reach either of those matters a lot for the welfare of billions of people.
But everything is indicating we are going to reach 15-20b,maybe even 50b by the end of the next century. Why would it stop at 12b? 12b we will reach around 2040-2050 I think, maybe 20b by the end of this century. There is so much room left to grow,just look at africe and south America. They have very young populations,and there are plenty of countries in asia that could easily double as well.
On a slightly related topic,i just got to know about bridge gate. I new the name though I was not aware what it was until yesterday. How on earth is Christie even considerd for a top position? He is unfit to do anything basicly,i hope trump gets rid of him completely,its a huge liability.
On November 21 2016 03:42 radscorpion9 wrote: There was a very interesting interview with Noam Chomsky written on www.truth-out.org, its actually fairly shocking how much global warming has been ignored in this election and even after it (with certain exceptions).
Thought I would add a quote:
On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government -- executive, Congress, the Supreme Court -- in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history. Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand...
During the Republican primaries, every candidate denied that what is happening is happening -- with the exception of the sensible moderates, like Jeb Bush, who said it's all uncertain, but we don't have to do anything because we're producing more natural gas, thanks to fracking. Or John Kasich, who agreed that global warming is taking place, but added that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it." The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible...
It is hard to find words to capture the fact that humans are facing the most important question in their history -- whether organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know -- and are answering it by accelerating the race to disaster.
It is no less difficult to find words to capture the utterly astonishing fact that in all of the massive coverage of the electoral extravaganza, none of this receives more than passing mention. At least I am at a loss to find appropriate words.
You guys already doubled your oil production under Obama.
45 years ago, your emissions were at 4.5 billion metric tonnes, they peaked at 6.0 billion metric tonnes right before the recession. There's no way that under Trump that emissions will go up, states have plenty of power there, and economically, with the current technology it's just not worth it. Btw, Trump has admitted global warming exists, so yeah, it's a bit of a blow, but quite small in the grand scheme of things. Might be the difference of 0.5 billion metric tonnes by the end of his presidency... Compared to the 10 billion that China will be producing in not too long, it's just a drop in the ocean.
Some significant change in our institutions is necessary for anything to happen, and population control is essential. These policies maybe lower emissions by 30-50% compared to them not existing, and that's the best case scenario. That's really nothing, that's like are we going to be fucked in 75 years or 125 years... Until we start talking about population control, were not taking the issue seriously, and it's all a half assed attempt at a bandaid solution.
what population control measures do you support?
I think while pretty harsh on the surface we need one child China type policies, particularly in developing countries. Developed countries can maintain their current populations just by adjusting economic benefits a little bit here and there.
We're so set on growing, that we force our populations to keep increasing, to pay off pensions, etc.
So I think one child free, and additional children require additional taxes as a percentage of income, say raising your effective tax rate from 20% to 30%, expanding free abortion programs, and so forth. I think in the same way we have emission targets, we should have birth rate targets, and countries who don't meet the standards will receive some form of sanctions.
I know it's not pretty, but it needs to enter the conversation somehow, especially from the people thinking about the environment. A fully industrialized China and India is an immense source of pollution, and many other countries in worse shape than China will be soon to follow.
But yeah, wealthy countries just by playing with child tax breaks is sufficient, in developing countries similar to what China did, and developed countries to put pressure on developing ones.
I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more... currently we complete remove population by expressing targets per capita.
China's one child policy is already showing its effects which are about to get worse over the next couple of decades with an increasingly aging population that directly affects its economy and productivity. Currently there are 5 working people for about every retiree. In 2040 this would have collapsed to 1.5 working people for every retiree. The current median age in China is about 30. It will go upto 46 in 2040, and with advances in medical technology and increasing lifespan, this is going to become an increasingly bigger problem.
Remember that this not only affects the economy - This is also going to affect the military, with fewer able bodied men available to enter armed services, and is also going to affect geopolitical dynamics indirectly.
Also China/India supplies most of the cheap labor of the world currently. Once we have successfully decimated their working population, where will we get the cheap labor needed to sustain our consumption habits?
I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more
The current way population is distributed has a lot to do with how white men went and took over vast continents and then redrew the boundaries to suit their needs. Most of Asian countries by contrast, were brutally subjugated by the British, and therefore could not indulge in the same degree of empire building.
Essentially your solution would once again benefit white people further due to the aggressive militaristic tendencies of your ancestors, in addition to all the benefits that you have already reaped due to your nation building (such as increased access to natural resources).
Also, it really smacks of elitism - what you're essentially saying is that a person in a developed country has the right to do whatever the fuck he pleases, whereas a person in a less developed country can't do the same, just because of the country he was born in - a factor he has no control over?
China did it more rapidly than others, and obviously there's going to be an economic cost, but its a hit we will have to take, we can't just keep expanding our population forever to keep that working age percentage the same, people are living longet, etc. Eventually it'll catch up to us... I don't know the ideal policy details, but some way that minimizes intrusion, economic cost, etc.
My intention isn't to be elitist, but the other alternative is we let the rest of the world fully develop on their accord, and then we will have a world population of 15-20 billion, and then what? Unless we have a massive breakthrough technology how do we deal with that long term? Or maybe that's what we wat to bank on, idk.
If we have 15-20 billion people living like all of Europe does, that's like 10x larger population that the Earth can currently sustain. We can only cut out emissions so far before we live like cavemen.
There's nothing indicating that we're going to reach 15-20 billion. Changes in demographics have already happened, through most of the developing world as well. We're going to reach ~11 billion (regardless of any policy that can possibly be implemented) simply because people are getting older. You can talk about idealizing population control measures on like, a 100+ year scale, but we need to curb emission levels. The way it sounds to me is that you pointing towards population control is mostly just an argument for not doing other things, but as has been discussed before, climate change is not a binary either it happens or it doesn't thing. Global temperature increase of 1 degree is vastly different from 2 degrees, and how long it takes us to reach either of those matters a lot for the welfare of billions of people.
But everything is indicating we are going to reach 15-20b,maybe even 50b by the end of the next century. Why would it stop at 12b? 12b we will reach around 2040-2050 I think, maybe 20b by the end of this century. There is so much room left to grow,just look at africe and south America. They have very young populations,and there are plenty of countries in asia that could easily double as well.
why do you say everything is indicating such high numbers? woudln't you think the UN people estimating future population numbers have put in a lot more thought and analysis than you have? why do you disagree with them?
on christie, he kinda is being dropped now. in the past he had some sway because he signed up on team trump fairly early, and he's a governor. and a fairly notable figure in general.
On November 21 2016 12:21 LegalLord wrote: That he's receiving subsidies is not really the reason why I claim him to be a scam artist. It is symptomatic, yes, but the reasons run far deeper than that. If you look at his entire business model, very little of it stands up to scrutiny. It survives mostly on hype, to which even government officials are quite susceptible.
The first of his three interlocking and highly interdependent business ventures already folded into one of the others. One would not be wrong to think that that happened due to cash shortages. We will see whether all the economic indicators point to reality, or if pie-in-the-sky fantasy speak and cash infusions can bend reality.
TBH one of the things I'd kind of like is if a Trump admin cut off subsidies to Tesla. I don't think there's anyone who doesn't like Elon's vision and I think he's brilliant, but I think his operations are a load of manure. His products run on electricity and his companies run on hype, and Solarcity is out of hype.
Solarcity folded into Tesla almost purely because of cash issues. All the stuff about synergies is bullshit, or at least the synergies will be realized in such a distant future that it's not even worth mentioning. I have no faith in Musk (or his team's) ability to execute - they have not had a history of doing so and missing a deadline by less than a year is considered GOOD. There is a reason that the purchase price was lower than initially expected.
Solarcity is broke and burning a couple billion a year. No one wants to give them money. They are a company which has been plagued by "one time expenses" year over year. Tesla is also burning a couple billion a year, except they haven't exhausted potential sources of capital. Combined MuskCo is burning a billion a quarter, which gives it about 3 quarters before they need to go out and find money, which will be much harder under a Trump administration. The institutional debt markets are pretty good right now, though IDK if Musk could find someone willing to underwrite/syndicate the amount he'd need - he's looking for like 10x what my company is at a minimum with much worse cash flow.
On November 21 2016 03:42 radscorpion9 wrote: There was a very interesting interview with Noam Chomsky written on www.truth-out.org, its actually fairly shocking how much global warming has been ignored in this election and even after it (with certain exceptions).
Thought I would add a quote:
On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government -- executive, Congress, the Supreme Court -- in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history. Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand...
During the Republican primaries, every candidate denied that what is happening is happening -- with the exception of the sensible moderates, like Jeb Bush, who said it's all uncertain, but we don't have to do anything because we're producing more natural gas, thanks to fracking. Or John Kasich, who agreed that global warming is taking place, but added that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it." The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible...
It is hard to find words to capture the fact that humans are facing the most important question in their history -- whether organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know -- and are answering it by accelerating the race to disaster.
It is no less difficult to find words to capture the utterly astonishing fact that in all of the massive coverage of the electoral extravaganza, none of this receives more than passing mention. At least I am at a loss to find appropriate words.
You guys already doubled your oil production under Obama.
45 years ago, your emissions were at 4.5 billion metric tonnes, they peaked at 6.0 billion metric tonnes right before the recession. There's no way that under Trump that emissions will go up, states have plenty of power there, and economically, with the current technology it's just not worth it. Btw, Trump has admitted global warming exists, so yeah, it's a bit of a blow, but quite small in the grand scheme of things. Might be the difference of 0.5 billion metric tonnes by the end of his presidency... Compared to the 10 billion that China will be producing in not too long, it's just a drop in the ocean.
Some significant change in our institutions is necessary for anything to happen, and population control is essential. These policies maybe lower emissions by 30-50% compared to them not existing, and that's the best case scenario. That's really nothing, that's like are we going to be fucked in 75 years or 125 years... Until we start talking about population control, were not taking the issue seriously, and it's all a half assed attempt at a bandaid solution.
what population control measures do you support?
I think while pretty harsh on the surface we need one child China type policies, particularly in developing countries. Developed countries can maintain their current populations just by adjusting economic benefits a little bit here and there.
We're so set on growing, that we force our populations to keep increasing, to pay off pensions, etc.
So I think one child free, and additional children require additional taxes as a percentage of income, say raising your effective tax rate from 20% to 30%, expanding free abortion programs, and so forth. I think in the same way we have emission targets, we should have birth rate targets, and countries who don't meet the standards will receive some form of sanctions.
I know it's not pretty, but it needs to enter the conversation somehow, especially from the people thinking about the environment. A fully industrialized China and India is an immense source of pollution, and many other countries in worse shape than China will be soon to follow.
But yeah, wealthy countries just by playing with child tax breaks is sufficient, in developing countries similar to what China did, and developed countries to put pressure on developing ones.
I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more... currently we complete remove population by expressing targets per capita.
China's one child policy is already showing its effects which are about to get worse over the next couple of decades with an increasingly aging population that directly affects its economy and productivity. Currently there are 5 working people for about every retiree. In 2040 this would have collapsed to 1.5 working people for every retiree. The current median age in China is about 30. It will go upto 46 in 2040, and with advances in medical technology and increasing lifespan, this is going to become an increasingly bigger problem.
Remember that this not only affects the economy - This is also going to affect the military, with fewer able bodied men available to enter armed services, and is also going to affect geopolitical dynamics indirectly.
Also China/India supplies most of the cheap labor of the world currently. Once we have successfully decimated their working population, where will we get the cheap labor needed to sustain our consumption habits?
I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more
The current way population is distributed has a lot to do with how white men went and took over vast continents and then redrew the boundaries to suit their needs. Most of Asian countries by contrast, were brutally subjugated by the British, and therefore could not indulge in the same degree of empire building.
Essentially your solution would once again benefit white people further due to the aggressive militaristic tendencies of your ancestors, in addition to all the benefits that you have already reaped due to your nation building (such as increased access to natural resources).
Also, it really smacks of elitism - what you're essentially saying is that a person in a developed country has the right to do whatever the fuck he pleases, whereas a person in a less developed country can't do the same, just because of the country he was born in - a factor he has no control over?
China did it more rapidly than others, and obviously there's going to be an economic cost, but its a hit we will have to take, we can't just keep expanding our population forever to keep that working age percentage the same, people are living longet, etc. Eventually it'll catch up to us... I don't know the ideal policy details, but some way that minimizes intrusion, economic cost, etc.
My intention isn't to be elitist, but the other alternative is we let the rest of the world fully develop on their accord, and then we will have a world population of 15-20 billion, and then what? Unless we have a massive breakthrough technology how do we deal with that long term? Or maybe that's what we wat to bank on, idk.
If we have 15-20 billion people living like all of Europe does, that's like 10x larger population that the Earth can currently sustain. We can only cut out emissions so far before we live like cavemen.
There's nothing indicating that we're going to reach 15-20 billion. Changes in demographics have already happened, through most of the developing world as well. We're going to reach ~11 billion (regardless of any policy that can possibly be implemented) simply because people are getting older. You can talk about idealizing population control measures on like, a 100+ year scale, but we need to curb emission levels. The way it sounds to me is that you pointing towards population control is mostly just an argument for not doing other things, but as has been discussed before, climate change is not a binary either it happens or it doesn't thing. Global temperature increase of 1 degree is vastly different from 2 degrees, and how long it takes us to reach either of those matters a lot for the welfare of billions of people.
But everything is indicating we are going to reach 15-20b,maybe even 50b by the end of the next century. Why would it stop at 12b? 12b we will reach around 2040-2050 I think, maybe 20b by the end of this century. There is so much room left to grow,just look at africe and south America. They have very young populations,and there are plenty of countries in asia that could easily double as well.
The above 3 puts us all well below 20b by 2100, even the high fertility model of the UNFPA puts us at slightly below 17b, however that is a quite huge number.
Afaik, everything points to higher standard of living --> lower fertility rates --> low to negative population growth, which is why the population will stop growing towards the end of 2100 if we keep on improving the living conditions of people less fortunate worldwide.
On November 21 2016 12:21 LegalLord wrote: That he's receiving subsidies is not really the reason why I claim him to be a scam artist. It is symptomatic, yes, but the reasons run far deeper than that. If you look at his entire business model, very little of it stands up to scrutiny. It survives mostly on hype, to which even government officials are quite susceptible.
The first of his three interlocking and highly interdependent business ventures already folded into one of the others. One would not be wrong to think that that happened due to cash shortages. We will see whether all the economic indicators point to reality, or if pie-in-the-sky fantasy speak and cash infusions can bend reality.
TBH one of the things I'd kind of like is if a Trump admin cut off subsidies to Tesla. I don't think there's anyone who doesn't like Elon's vision and I think he's brilliant, but I think his operations are a load of manure. His products run on electricity and his companies run on hype, and Solarcity is out of hype.
Solarcity folded into Tesla almost purely because of cash issues. All the stuff about synergies is bullshit, or at least the synergies will be realized in such a distant future that it's not even worth mentioning. I have no faith in Musk (or his team's) ability to execute - they have not had a history of doing so and missing a deadline by less than a year is considered GOOD. There is a reason that the purchase price was lower than initially expected.
Solarcity is broke and burning a couple billion a year. No one wants to give them money. They are a company which has been plagued by "one time expenses" year over year. Tesla is also burning a couple billion a year, except they haven't exhausted potential sources of capital. Combined MuskCo is burning a billion a quarter, which gives it about 3 quarters before they need to go out and find money, which will be much harder under a Trump administration. The institutional debt markets are pretty good right now, though IDK if Musk could find someone willing to underwrite/syndicate the amount he'd need.
I like to joke that the profit model of non-profitable tech companies is to lose a billion, get $2 billion worth of investment by selling stocks, and write it in as a $1 billion profit.
Each of his businesses are so deeply tied by incestuous cash infusions that if one falls, the others are likely to follow. Tesla and SolarCity both owe SpaceX a fair bit of money. The dude knows how to create a "business reality distortion field" for a long time. Ultimately I do expect that his ventures will all come down because economic reality doesn't seem to be on their side. Maybe SpaceX will survive or be a good business to sell off but I have every reason (including some insider info) to believe that it's as problematic as the public ventures he has, which would also look great if we couldn't see their financial situation.
On November 21 2016 23:51 pmh wrote: On a slightly related topic,i just got to know about bridge gate. I new the name though I was not aware what it was until yesterday. How on earth is Christie even considerd for a top position? He is unfit to do anything basicly,i hope trump gets rid of him completely,its a huge liability.
This is a pattern in the people close to Trump, if you haven't noticed. We've given our country to the dregs of the swamp.
On November 21 2016 03:42 radscorpion9 wrote: There was a very interesting interview with Noam Chomsky written on www.truth-out.org, its actually fairly shocking how much global warming has been ignored in this election and even after it (with certain exceptions).
Thought I would add a quote:
On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government -- executive, Congress, the Supreme Court -- in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history. Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand...
During the Republican primaries, every candidate denied that what is happening is happening -- with the exception of the sensible moderates, like Jeb Bush, who said it's all uncertain, but we don't have to do anything because we're producing more natural gas, thanks to fracking. Or John Kasich, who agreed that global warming is taking place, but added that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it." The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible...
It is hard to find words to capture the fact that humans are facing the most important question in their history -- whether organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know -- and are answering it by accelerating the race to disaster.
It is no less difficult to find words to capture the utterly astonishing fact that in all of the massive coverage of the electoral extravaganza, none of this receives more than passing mention. At least I am at a loss to find appropriate words.
You guys already doubled your oil production under Obama.
45 years ago, your emissions were at 4.5 billion metric tonnes, they peaked at 6.0 billion metric tonnes right before the recession. There's no way that under Trump that emissions will go up, states have plenty of power there, and economically, with the current technology it's just not worth it. Btw, Trump has admitted global warming exists, so yeah, it's a bit of a blow, but quite small in the grand scheme of things. Might be the difference of 0.5 billion metric tonnes by the end of his presidency... Compared to the 10 billion that China will be producing in not too long, it's just a drop in the ocean.
Some significant change in our institutions is necessary for anything to happen, and population control is essential. These policies maybe lower emissions by 30-50% compared to them not existing, and that's the best case scenario. That's really nothing, that's like are we going to be fucked in 75 years or 125 years... Until we start talking about population control, were not taking the issue seriously, and it's all a half assed attempt at a bandaid solution.
what population control measures do you support?
I think while pretty harsh on the surface we need one child China type policies, particularly in developing countries. Developed countries can maintain their current populations just by adjusting economic benefits a little bit here and there.
We're so set on growing, that we force our populations to keep increasing, to pay off pensions, etc.
So I think one child free, and additional children require additional taxes as a percentage of income, say raising your effective tax rate from 20% to 30%, expanding free abortion programs, and so forth. I think in the same way we have emission targets, we should have birth rate targets, and countries who don't meet the standards will receive some form of sanctions.
I know it's not pretty, but it needs to enter the conversation somehow, especially from the people thinking about the environment. A fully industrialized China and India is an immense source of pollution, and many other countries in worse shape than China will be soon to follow.
But yeah, wealthy countries just by playing with child tax breaks is sufficient, in developing countries similar to what China did, and developed countries to put pressure on developing ones.
I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more... currently we complete remove population by expressing targets per capita.
China's one child policy is already showing its effects which are about to get worse over the next couple of decades with an increasingly aging population that directly affects its economy and productivity. Currently there are 5 working people for about every retiree. In 2040 this would have collapsed to 1.5 working people for every retiree. The current median age in China is about 30. It will go upto 46 in 2040, and with advances in medical technology and increasing lifespan, this is going to become an increasingly bigger problem.
Remember that this not only affects the economy - This is also going to affect the military, with fewer able bodied men available to enter armed services, and is also going to affect geopolitical dynamics indirectly.
Also China/India supplies most of the cheap labor of the world currently. Once we have successfully decimated their working population, where will we get the cheap labor needed to sustain our consumption habits?
I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more
The current way population is distributed has a lot to do with how white men went and took over vast continents and then redrew the boundaries to suit their needs. Most of Asian countries by contrast, were brutally subjugated by the British, and therefore could not indulge in the same degree of empire building.
Essentially your solution would once again benefit white people further due to the aggressive militaristic tendencies of your ancestors, in addition to all the benefits that you have already reaped due to your nation building (such as increased access to natural resources).
Also, it really smacks of elitism - what you're essentially saying is that a person in a developed country has the right to do whatever the fuck he pleases, whereas a person in a less developed country can't do the same, just because of the country he was born in - a factor he has no control over?
China did it more rapidly than others, and obviously there's going to be an economic cost, but its a hit we will have to take, we can't just keep expanding our population forever to keep that working age percentage the same, people are living longet, etc. Eventually it'll catch up to us... I don't know the ideal policy details, but some way that minimizes intrusion, economic cost, etc.
My intention isn't to be elitist, but the other alternative is we let the rest of the world fully develop on their accord, and then we will have a world population of 15-20 billion, and then what? Unless we have a massive breakthrough technology how do we deal with that long term? Or maybe that's what we wat to bank on, idk.
If we have 15-20 billion people living like all of Europe does, that's like 10x larger population that the Earth can currently sustain. We can only cut out emissions so far before we live like cavemen.
There's nothing indicating that we're going to reach 15-20 billion. Changes in demographics have already happened, through most of the developing world as well. We're going to reach ~11 billion (regardless of any policy that can possibly be implemented) simply because people are getting older. You can talk about idealizing population control measures on like, a 100+ year scale, but we need to curb emission levels. The way it sounds to me is that you pointing towards population control is mostly just an argument for not doing other things, but as has been discussed before, climate change is not a binary either it happens or it doesn't thing. Global temperature increase of 1 degree is vastly different from 2 degrees, and how long it takes us to reach either of those matters a lot for the welfare of billions of people.
But everything is indicating we are going to reach 15-20b,maybe even 50b by the end of the next century. Why would it stop at 12b? 12b we will reach around 2040-2050 I think, maybe 20b by the end of this century. There is so much room left to grow,just look at africe and south America. They have very young populations,and there are plenty of countries in asia that could easily double as well.
Where do you have this from? the United Nations Population Fund estimates that we're going to be 8 billion in 2025, 9 billion in 2043, 10 billion in 2083. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth) Countries in Asia have stopped getting more than 2-3 children per family, population growth in India and China now happen because people are growing older, not because too many children are being born. This is why I am so skeptical of 'population control' as an answer to climate problems, because unless we immediately enact some type of global restriction on how many children people can have, we're going to reach 10-11 billion for sure, and it's going to stabilize after that point. The reason why families get more than 2 children is that children keep dying. For every society, developed or not, the period of extreme population growth happens during the 1-2 generations after child mortality has dropped without birth rates dropping - but after those 1-2 generations, the birth rates always drop. There are only a select few, not all that populous african countries where this demographic change has not already happened. Basically, 'population control' has already happened - wanting more than this, on a shorter than 100 year scale, means that you want to 'hinder people from growing old' in some form.
Hans Rosling has some very good videos on the subject, they've been linked by me and others in this very thread in the past. for one of them - there might well be better ones though.
On November 21 2016 23:51 pmh wrote: On a slightly related topic,i just got to know about bridge gate. I new the name though I was not aware what it was until yesterday. How on earth is Christie even considerd for a top position? He is unfit to do anything basicly,i hope trump gets rid of him completely,its a huge liability.
He really went out of his way to help Trump back when his chances of winning the primaries were uncertain.
Bridgegate did cost him a lot of success. Apparently he would've been the VP if not for Bridgeghazi.
What disingenuous bullshit it was for Trump supporters to criticize Hillary's conflicts of interest. The lack of critical thinking that got Trump into power is a dangerous thing for the country.
American real estate mogul Donald Trump is planning "substantial investments" in the Indian property and hotel sectors, betting on Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led new government's efforts to revive the economic growth and boost infrastructure.
"I do see India as a great place to invest, and I think the election made that even better," said Trump, who was in India to launch Trump Tower in Mumbai, his first project in the country's financial capital, in collaboration with India's Lodha Group.
It is a daunting proposition to put $2 million apartments on the market in Pune — a quiet industrial city in the west of India, where even the fanciest neighborhoods are lined with squat housing blocks.
But the developers of Trump Towers Pune, an elegant pair of 23-story black-glass pillars, have an extraordinary new marketing tool they are moving quickly to exploit: the president-elect of the United States.
Since Donald J. Trump won the presidency, they have celebrated the growth that Mr. Trump’s win could bring to their brand, even flying to New York last week to meet with the president-elect and his family as he was assembling his cabinet.
“We will see a tremendous jump in valuation in terms of the second tower,” said Pranav R. Bhakta, a consultant who helped Mr. Trump’s organization make inroads into the Indian market five years ago. “To say, ‘I have a Trump flat or residence’ — it’s president-elect branded. It’s that recall value. If they didn’t know Trump before, they definitely know him now.”
On November 21 2016 03:42 radscorpion9 wrote: There was a very interesting interview with Noam Chomsky written on www.truth-out.org, its actually fairly shocking how much global warming has been ignored in this election and even after it (with certain exceptions).
Thought I would add a quote:
On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government -- executive, Congress, the Supreme Court -- in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history. Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand...
During the Republican primaries, every candidate denied that what is happening is happening -- with the exception of the sensible moderates, like Jeb Bush, who said it's all uncertain, but we don't have to do anything because we're producing more natural gas, thanks to fracking. Or John Kasich, who agreed that global warming is taking place, but added that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it." The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible...
It is hard to find words to capture the fact that humans are facing the most important question in their history -- whether organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know -- and are answering it by accelerating the race to disaster.
It is no less difficult to find words to capture the utterly astonishing fact that in all of the massive coverage of the electoral extravaganza, none of this receives more than passing mention. At least I am at a loss to find appropriate words.
You guys already doubled your oil production under Obama.
45 years ago, your emissions were at 4.5 billion metric tonnes, they peaked at 6.0 billion metric tonnes right before the recession. There's no way that under Trump that emissions will go up, states have plenty of power there, and economically, with the current technology it's just not worth it. Btw, Trump has admitted global warming exists, so yeah, it's a bit of a blow, but quite small in the grand scheme of things. Might be the difference of 0.5 billion metric tonnes by the end of his presidency... Compared to the 10 billion that China will be producing in not too long, it's just a drop in the ocean.
Some significant change in our institutions is necessary for anything to happen, and population control is essential. These policies maybe lower emissions by 30-50% compared to them not existing, and that's the best case scenario. That's really nothing, that's like are we going to be fucked in 75 years or 125 years... Until we start talking about population control, were not taking the issue seriously, and it's all a half assed attempt at a bandaid solution.
what population control measures do you support?
I think while pretty harsh on the surface we need one child China type policies, particularly in developing countries. Developed countries can maintain their current populations just by adjusting economic benefits a little bit here and there.
We're so set on growing, that we force our populations to keep increasing, to pay off pensions, etc.
So I think one child free, and additional children require additional taxes as a percentage of income, say raising your effective tax rate from 20% to 30%, expanding free abortion programs, and so forth. I think in the same way we have emission targets, we should have birth rate targets, and countries who don't meet the standards will receive some form of sanctions.
I know it's not pretty, but it needs to enter the conversation somehow, especially from the people thinking about the environment. A fully industrialized China and India is an immense source of pollution, and many other countries in worse shape than China will be soon to follow.
But yeah, wealthy countries just by playing with child tax breaks is sufficient, in developing countries similar to what China did, and developed countries to put pressure on developing ones.
I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more... currently we complete remove population by expressing targets per capita.
China's one child policy is already showing its effects which are about to get worse over the next couple of decades with an increasingly aging population that directly affects its economy and productivity. Currently there are 5 working people for about every retiree. In 2040 this would have collapsed to 1.5 working people for every retiree. The current median age in China is about 30. It will go upto 46 in 2040, and with advances in medical technology and increasing lifespan, this is going to become an increasingly bigger problem.
Remember that this not only affects the economy - This is also going to affect the military, with fewer able bodied men available to enter armed services, and is also going to affect geopolitical dynamics indirectly.
Also China/India supplies most of the cheap labor of the world currently. Once we have successfully decimated their working population, where will we get the cheap labor needed to sustain our consumption habits?
I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more
The current way population is distributed has a lot to do with how white men went and took over vast continents and then redrew the boundaries to suit their needs. Most of Asian countries by contrast, were brutally subjugated by the British, and therefore could not indulge in the same degree of empire building.
Essentially your solution would once again benefit white people further due to the aggressive militaristic tendencies of your ancestors, in addition to all the benefits that you have already reaped due to your nation building (such as increased access to natural resources).
Also, it really smacks of elitism - what you're essentially saying is that a person in a developed country has the right to do whatever the fuck he pleases, whereas a person in a less developed country can't do the same, just because of the country he was born in - a factor he has no control over?
China did it more rapidly than others, and obviously there's going to be an economic cost, but its a hit we will have to take, we can't just keep expanding our population forever to keep that working age percentage the same, people are living longet, etc. Eventually it'll catch up to us... I don't know the ideal policy details, but some way that minimizes intrusion, economic cost, etc.
My intention isn't to be elitist, but the other alternative is we let the rest of the world fully develop on their accord, and then we will have a world population of 15-20 billion, and then what? Unless we have a massive breakthrough technology how do we deal with that long term? Or maybe that's what we wat to bank on, idk.
If we have 15-20 billion people living like all of Europe does, that's like 10x larger population that the Earth can currently sustain. We can only cut out emissions so far before we live like cavemen.
There's nothing indicating that we're going to reach 15-20 billion. Changes in demographics have already happened, through most of the developing world as well. We're going to reach ~11 billion (regardless of any policy that can possibly be implemented) simply because people are getting older. You can talk about idealizing population control measures on like, a 100+ year scale, but we need to curb emission levels. The way it sounds to me is that you pointing towards population control is mostly just an argument for not doing other things, but as has been discussed before, climate change is not a binary either it happens or it doesn't thing. Global temperature increase of 1 degree is vastly different from 2 degrees, and how long it takes us to reach either of those matters a lot for the welfare of billions of people.
But everything is indicating we are going to reach 15-20b,maybe even 50b by the end of the next century. Why would it stop at 12b? 12b we will reach around 2040-2050 I think, maybe 20b by the end of this century. There is so much room left to grow,just look at africe and south America. They have very young populations,and there are plenty of countries in asia that could easily double as well.
Population of South America has peaked. If everything stays on track, the population of Africa will peak in 10-20 years. Asia peaked already too. Once again, a handy map:
And just to emphasize the point, here's Hans Rosling's talk, again. I can't find the specific TED talk, so linking a longer presentation, skipped straight to the relevant part, but the rest is also very interesting:
E: apparently linking to the corresponding minute/second doesn't work here. Skip to 19:16 for the graphs on population and his explanation of "peak child".
E2: and I got ninja'd by Drone also linking a Hans Rosling video :D
On November 21 2016 12:21 LegalLord wrote: That he's receiving subsidies is not really the reason why I claim him to be a scam artist. It is symptomatic, yes, but the reasons run far deeper than that. If you look at his entire business model, very little of it stands up to scrutiny. It survives mostly on hype, to which even government officials are quite susceptible.
The first of his three interlocking and highly interdependent business ventures already folded into one of the others. One would not be wrong to think that that happened due to cash shortages. We will see whether all the economic indicators point to reality, or if pie-in-the-sky fantasy speak and cash infusions can bend reality.
TBH one of the things I'd kind of like is if a Trump admin cut off subsidies to Tesla. I don't think there's anyone who doesn't like Elon's vision and I think he's brilliant, but I think his operations are a load of manure. His products run on electricity and his companies run on hype, and Solarcity is out of hype.
Solarcity folded into Tesla almost purely because of cash issues. All the stuff about synergies is bullshit, or at least the synergies will be realized in such a distant future that it's not even worth mentioning. I have no faith in Musk (or his team's) ability to execute - they have not had a history of doing so and missing a deadline by less than a year is considered GOOD. There is a reason that the purchase price was lower than initially expected.
Solarcity is broke and burning a couple billion a year. No one wants to give them money. They are a company which has been plagued by "one time expenses" year over year. Tesla is also burning a couple billion a year, except they haven't exhausted potential sources of capital. Combined MuskCo is burning a billion a quarter, which gives it about 3 quarters before they need to go out and find money, which will be much harder under a Trump administration. The institutional debt markets are pretty good right now, though IDK if Musk could find someone willing to underwrite/syndicate the amount he'd need.
I like to joke that the profit model of non-profitable tech companies is to lose a billion, get $2 billion worth of investment by selling stocks, and write it in as a $1 billion profit.
Each of his businesses are so deeply tied by incestuous cash infusions that if one falls, the others are likely to follow. Tesla and SolarCity both owe SpaceX a fair bit of money. The dude knows how to create a "business reality distortion field" for a long time. Ultimately I do expect that his ventures will all come down because economic reality doesn't seem to be on their side. Maybe SpaceX will survive or be a good business to sell off but I have every reason (including some insider info) to believe that it's as problematic as the public ventures he has, which would also look great if we couldn't see their financial situation.
Tesla ran a profit in the last quarter. It's burning trough cash but it has the potential to be profitable. Solarcity shouldn't be bought by Tesla although to be fair a majority of the shareholders (excluding him) will have to agree to it. I think you're too negative on Tesla at least. Dunno about SpaceX though.
On November 21 2016 12:21 LegalLord wrote: That he's receiving subsidies is not really the reason why I claim him to be a scam artist. It is symptomatic, yes, but the reasons run far deeper than that. If you look at his entire business model, very little of it stands up to scrutiny. It survives mostly on hype, to which even government officials are quite susceptible.
The first of his three interlocking and highly interdependent business ventures already folded into one of the others. One would not be wrong to think that that happened due to cash shortages. We will see whether all the economic indicators point to reality, or if pie-in-the-sky fantasy speak and cash infusions can bend reality.
TBH one of the things I'd kind of like is if a Trump admin cut off subsidies to Tesla. I don't think there's anyone who doesn't like Elon's vision and I think he's brilliant, but I think his operations are a load of manure. His products run on electricity and his companies run on hype, and Solarcity is out of hype.
Solarcity folded into Tesla almost purely because of cash issues. All the stuff about synergies is bullshit, or at least the synergies will be realized in such a distant future that it's not even worth mentioning. I have no faith in Musk (or his team's) ability to execute - they have not had a history of doing so and missing a deadline by less than a year is considered GOOD. There is a reason that the purchase price was lower than initially expected.
Solarcity is broke and burning a couple billion a year. No one wants to give them money. They are a company which has been plagued by "one time expenses" year over year. Tesla is also burning a couple billion a year, except they haven't exhausted potential sources of capital. Combined MuskCo is burning a billion a quarter, which gives it about 3 quarters before they need to go out and find money, which will be much harder under a Trump administration. The institutional debt markets are pretty good right now, though IDK if Musk could find someone willing to underwrite/syndicate the amount he'd need.
I like to joke that the profit model of non-profitable tech companies is to lose a billion, get $2 billion worth of investment by selling stocks, and write it in as a $1 billion profit.
Each of his businesses are so deeply tied by incestuous cash infusions that if one falls, the others are likely to follow. Tesla and SolarCity both owe SpaceX a fair bit of money. The dude knows how to create a "business reality distortion field" for a long time. Ultimately I do expect that his ventures will all come down because economic reality doesn't seem to be on their side. Maybe SpaceX will survive or be a good business to sell off but I have every reason (including some insider info) to believe that it's as problematic as the public ventures he has, which would also look great if we couldn't see their financial situation.
Tesla ran a profit in the last quarter. It's burning trough cash but it has the potential to be profitable. Solarcity shouldn't be bought by Tesla although to be fair a majority of the shareholders (excluding him) will have to agree to it. I think you're too negative on Tesla at least. Dunno about SpaceX though.
Yeah Tesla made positive EBITDA, but even Musk warned that it was more an anomaly than a sign of them being on the way to actually making money. It also means pretty much diddly squat with their massive below the line expenses - for a capex heavy business, EBITDA doesn't mean a huge amount because reclassing expenses to capex is one of the oldest accounting tricks in the book.
The Solarcity deal closed this morning, though shareholders approved it last week.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/CO2_per_capita_per_country.png)
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Population_growth_rate_world_2005-2010_UN.PNG)
