|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 June 03 2017 06:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 06:40 Plansix wrote:On June 03 2017 06:37 LegalLord wrote:
So refresh my memory. Have electric cars become feasible yet? Have those old industry naysayers been proven wrong yet? Has Tesla turned that profit tap on, or have they just blabbered on and on about that mythical economy of scale that will finally make everything right based on ideas rightly decried as impractical? It is impossible to put a man on the Moon or or build a wireless phone, so we shouldn't even try. Yeah, yeah. They said it about the Wright brothers, they said it about going to the moon, they said it about solar roadways. Those fucking naysayers are always wrong.
Ask reductive questions, get reductive answers.
|
Jesus, this question is so easy to answer.
City business (people and goods transport) --> yes
small scale machinery (forklifts) --> yes
rural business, long distance delivery and such --> no
do they have a significant share? no
Why? infrastructure, costs, unknown future supply situation
basically teething problems of every technology
|
Electric cars aren't feasible at these gas prices. If gas cost 10$ a gallon then you would see a flood of viable electric cars enter the market and capital backed their production. Early adopters and capital (Tesla) are pushing innovation forwards steadily. Let the process work itself out and you will see more electric cars in high density areas. Electric is always going to suck in the great plains American West where nobody lives and drives are 4 hours long.
|
On June 03 2017 06:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 06:42 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 06:40 Plansix wrote:On June 03 2017 06:37 LegalLord wrote:
So refresh my memory. Have electric cars become feasible yet? Have those old industry naysayers been proven wrong yet? Has Tesla turned that profit tap on, or have they just blabbered on and on about that mythical economy of scale that will finally make everything right based on ideas rightly decried as impractical? It is impossible to put a man on the Moon or or build a wireless phone, so we shouldn't even try. Yeah, yeah. They said it about the Wright brothers, they said it about going to the moon, they said it about solar roadways. Those fucking naysayers are always wrong. Ask reductive questions, get reductive answers.
So you say those naysayers have been proven wrong cuz god dang it, we can't win if we don't try?
|
On June 03 2017 06:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 06:43 Plansix wrote:On June 03 2017 06:42 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 06:40 Plansix wrote:On June 03 2017 06:37 LegalLord wrote:
So refresh my memory. Have electric cars become feasible yet? Have those old industry naysayers been proven wrong yet? Has Tesla turned that profit tap on, or have they just blabbered on and on about that mythical economy of scale that will finally make everything right based on ideas rightly decried as impractical? It is impossible to put a man on the Moon or or build a wireless phone, so we shouldn't even try. Yeah, yeah. They said it about the Wright brothers, they said it about going to the moon, they said it about solar roadways. Those fucking naysayers are always wrong. Ask reductive questions, get reductive answers. So you say those naysayers have been proven wrong cuz god dang it, we can't win if we don't try?
My response is that the naysayers are not worth our attention and ever have been.
|
On June 03 2017 06:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 06:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 06:43 Plansix wrote:On June 03 2017 06:42 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 06:40 Plansix wrote:On June 03 2017 06:37 LegalLord wrote:
So refresh my memory. Have electric cars become feasible yet? Have those old industry naysayers been proven wrong yet? Has Tesla turned that profit tap on, or have they just blabbered on and on about that mythical economy of scale that will finally make everything right based on ideas rightly decried as impractical? It is impossible to put a man on the Moon or or build a wireless phone, so we shouldn't even try. Yeah, yeah. They said it about the Wright brothers, they said it about going to the moon, they said it about solar roadways. Those fucking naysayers are always wrong. Ask reductive questions, get reductive answers. So you say those naysayers have been proven wrong cuz god dang it, we can't win if we don't try? My response is that the naysayers are not worth our attention and ever have been.
Cool. Well I have a perpetual motion machine I'm developing and since the naysayers are always wrong, fork over those billions in subsidies so I can finish developing.
|
On June 03 2017 05:25 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 04:25 jcarlsoniv wrote:On June 03 2017 03:30 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:43 jcarlsoniv wrote:On June 03 2017 02:30 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:14 jcarlsoniv wrote:On June 03 2017 02:04 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:00 jcarlsoniv wrote:On June 03 2017 01:51 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
This is part of the reason I linked a fairly reasoned article concluding that it's likely the last step and people that think otherwise are fooling themselves. What's rich and deep is your deflection and misdirection while claiming others do so. I wonder if it will ever sink it that inattention to counterarguments isn't sufficient to restate your primary argument. I conclude x, and any articles that conclude otherwise are obvious misdirection. But I'm not really following the conclusion that he believes it's the last step and not the first. I think that’s the case here. I think Paris was not just the first step, I think it was likely the last step, that those who hoped it would lead to “deepening future commitments” were fooling themselves and others. I think Paris was agreed to only because national leaders realized it was impossible to get a numerically meaningful set of binding national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by specific large amounts. If I'm trying to address a problem, especially a big problem (and affecting long term positive change for the environment is big), I'd start by defining it. Put some framework around an issue, get consensus, start working towards solutions. I acknowledge that you don't believe the costs of action are being sufficiently considered, and that's an ok argument to have. But the US staking the position of "nah, we're just gonna go home instead" doesn't put us in a better position to solve the problem. Unless I'm missing something, I don't get the assumption that there would be not further steps taken beyond Paris. Getting the globe on the same page is where it starts, but it feels like the US was spacing out while reading, so we've had to flip back to the last chapter before we can move forward again. You quote a paragraph in the middle of the article that follows from the argumentation in the paragraphs preceding. Pay special attention to the political interest and comparison between changing direction in inches when different outcomes are miles apart. I did read it, and I don't necessarily disagree with your point that symbolic gestures are meaningless if there's no plan for follow through. But it seems that he (and you) are starting on the assumption that there will be no follow through, and as a result, this gesture is meaningless. If it were up to many of us, there would but a more expedited and stringent framework for follow through. But when we have to continually argue internally about whether or not we even have to do anything about the problem (or, in some cases, whether the problem even exists), that significantly slows down the capacity for follow through. So, I guess my question to you is - what should be done to make it (any plan, not necessarily Paris) less symbolic and actually effective? I'm kind of at a loss if you only want to draw from what "seems" to be a starting assumption, but not what arguments were ineffective and why, or how they were reliant on those assumptions and collapse without them. I could just as easily respond to "whether or not we even have to do anything about the problem/problem exists" with "whether or not anybody that acknowledges the problem actually wants to pay the associated costs with fixing it in this manner" which also slows follow through. I would raise my hand and say "here is someone who is interested in paying the associated costs with fixing the problem this way". With that said, though, I would agree with y'all that I'd like better understanding of what those costs are and more concrete plans of moving forward. But, again, I would think that gathering the consensus, even if symbolic at the beginning, is the start of formulating the plan forward. Do you agree with xDaunt that it would be better to create more bandaids instead of looking for ways to treat the wound? Is there a good/better way to do both at the same time? A consensus on signing symbolic agreements is a consensus to talk about how serious we are to continue talking about how big, huge, impactful the problem is. It's not a useful consensus. Why try to repaint what xDaunt said and ask for my agreement? If this is an important issue, surely you can take the man at his word and not mischaracterize his description. I'm not trying to misconstrue what he said: On June 03 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 02:23 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:21 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 02:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, the most important link in the Paris Accords and why I put so much stock into it is not as much the US as it is China. Sure, first worlders will get greedy and attempt to skirt the regulations to the extent that it is possible. But China is notorious for dragging their feet something fierce, almost unwilling to even acknowledge that climate change is a problem worth addressing. Yet China finally started to "get it" and have made efforts to (albeit slowly) reduce their carbon footprint.
The US will, as it always has, move slowly. The writing on the wall suggests that it's not economically feasible to skimp on climate forever. It still looks stupid though. Please. The Paris Accords were a boon to China. Built-in comparative advantages and subsidies afforded to the Chinese with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that the Chinese meet their own obligations? Yeah, that's a tough one for the Chinese to accept.... Then what do we need? A stronger deal? A symbolic withdrawal from the commitment as a means of protest? A show of "two can play at that game" and an unwillingness to reduce emissions? While I'm skeptical of a lot of aspects of the deal, even this is a big deal compared to the attitude China had towards this as recently as five years ago which could be effectively summarized as "fuck the environment that shit don't matter to us." China is going to get its own shit in order regardless of the Paris Accord because its people are tired of living in filth. But if you're going to bother with a treaty, then it needs an enforcement mechanism. Ok, that much is fair. Would you support such a treaty? If you want a specific treaty, say, Paris plus incorporated trade consequences for non-compliance? No, because the cost-benefit analysis is still out of whack for the reasons discussed yesterday. I'd rather spend the money on mitigating the consequences of global warming instead of trying to stop global warming. We don't have an effective means of doing the latter. "mitigating the consequences of global warming" = bandaid "trying to stop global warming" = treating the wound What I'm trying to find out is what you suggest we do instead. I think you have some valid points in your opposition to Paris (whether or not I agree with them), so I'm curious what your preferred alternative is. Do we focus on addressing consequences as they emerge? Do we try to design a different agreement that is enforceable? Do we not address the problem(s) at all? Out of the full spectrum of options, I don't know where you stand beyond opposing the agreement before us. "We don't have an effective means of doing the latter." That means we have no effective measures of treating the wound. It doesn't mean to stop looking for measures. He's already on the record supporting green energy development and investment. Your analogy is fallacious and misrepresentative. I hardly know if you're ignorant or deliberate with the flurry of responses and posters. Then throw out the analogy, it couldn't matter less. I understand where xDaunt stands, and you're doing a fantastic job of not giving your own alternative (again, beyond opposition of what's in front of us).
Indeed, the contrary. Tell me, how much do you expect to get done when withdrawing from symbolic, nonbinding agreements generates the furor like we've just doomed the planet? The first step is to use sense and logic to evaluate (and doom) deals like Paris & Kyoto. And for fuck's sake stop demonizing people that look at cost/benefit in the short term. We could use a little more adult conversation on the topic. No international framework is possible with the near-religious rhetoric on this issue, so solutions on that front will have to rely on massive political landscape change (unlikely due to the green lobby) or high-cost damaging effects appearing on coasts around the world. For the US acting apart from international utopiast dreaming, a high investment in next-gen nuclear (MSRs breeder reactors) and reg nuclear to meet power demands at good cost. Also, broadcast education programs on the shortcomings of solar and wind for our green energy needs+ Show Spoiler [one ex] +. I say all this just on current proven technology: if we don't shoot our economy in the foot, I expect successors. China, sad to say, is way in front of us in adoption and research into this critical green energy field.
|
True, people have to look short term.
As to long term thinking, that's what we have governments and all the associated experts and panels and think-tanks for.
If a government like the US doesn't look forward they're not doing their job and should be voted out of office
|
Then I hope they look forward far enough to realize that while emissions need to go down, funding scammers with promises of green technology is not the way forward.
|
On June 03 2017 06:57 LegalLord wrote:
Then I hope they look forward far enough to realize that while emissions need to go down, funding scammers with promises of green technology is not the way forward.
If Clinton ran with Musk as VP, would you phonebank for them?
|
On June 03 2017 07:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 06:57 LegalLord wrote:
Then I hope they look forward far enough to realize that while emissions need to go down, funding scammers with promises of green technology is not the way forward. If Clinton ran with Musk as VP, would you phonebank for them?
I'd quietly vote Trump and promptly celebrate "four more years."
Admittedly 90% of that is because it's time for Hillary to just fuck off.
|
On June 03 2017 06:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 06:49 Plansix wrote:On June 03 2017 06:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 06:43 Plansix wrote:On June 03 2017 06:42 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 06:40 Plansix wrote:On June 03 2017 06:37 LegalLord wrote:
So refresh my memory. Have electric cars become feasible yet? Have those old industry naysayers been proven wrong yet? Has Tesla turned that profit tap on, or have they just blabbered on and on about that mythical economy of scale that will finally make everything right based on ideas rightly decried as impractical? It is impossible to put a man on the Moon or or build a wireless phone, so we shouldn't even try. Yeah, yeah. They said it about the Wright brothers, they said it about going to the moon, they said it about solar roadways. Those fucking naysayers are always wrong. Ask reductive questions, get reductive answers. So you say those naysayers have been proven wrong cuz god dang it, we can't win if we don't try? My response is that the naysayers are not worth our attention and ever have been. Cool. Well I have a perpetual motion machine I'm developing and since the naysayers are always wrong, fork over those billions in subsidies so I can finish developing.
rossi is that you?
|
Congressional investigators are seeking to determine whether President Trump’s son-in-law was vulnerable to Russian influence during and after the campaign because of financial stress facing his family firm’s signature real estate holding – a Manhattan skyscraper purchased at the height of the real estate boom.
And they are focused, officials told ABC News, on a December meeting Jared Kushner held with executives from a Russian bank.
“It's very peculiar that of all the people he could be talking to in a transition period where you've got lots of balls in the air, that you end up talking to a Russian banker who is under sanction and who is related to Putin and has a KGB background,” said Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat who sits on the House Intelligence Committee. “I think the question has to be asked, was this about you trying to get financing for your troubled real estate that you have in New York City?”
...
Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute, (which was founded by Trump adviser Stephen Bannon and funded in part by a Trump mega-donor, Rebekah Mercer), said the meeting “had conflict of interest written all over it.”
...
Real estate analysts told ABC News that Jared Kushner’s first major acquisition, a Fifth Avenue office tower signifying his family’s move from New Jersey into Manhattan real estate, is shouldering a $1.3 billion in loans coming due in two years, and it is not bringing in sufficient rental income. An attempt by Kushner to broker a deal with a Chinese company to refinance and redevelop the building fell through shortly after the election.
www.yahoo.com
|
On June 03 2017 07:19 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 06:51 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 06:49 Plansix wrote:On June 03 2017 06:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 06:43 Plansix wrote:On June 03 2017 06:42 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 06:40 Plansix wrote:On June 03 2017 06:37 LegalLord wrote:
So refresh my memory. Have electric cars become feasible yet? Have those old industry naysayers been proven wrong yet? Has Tesla turned that profit tap on, or have they just blabbered on and on about that mythical economy of scale that will finally make everything right based on ideas rightly decried as impractical? It is impossible to put a man on the Moon or or build a wireless phone, so we shouldn't even try. Yeah, yeah. They said it about the Wright brothers, they said it about going to the moon, they said it about solar roadways. Those fucking naysayers are always wrong. Ask reductive questions, get reductive answers. So you say those naysayers have been proven wrong cuz god dang it, we can't win if we don't try? My response is that the naysayers are not worth our attention and ever have been. Cool. Well I have a perpetual motion machine I'm developing and since the naysayers are always wrong, fork over those billions in subsidies so I can finish developing. rossi is that you?
mine looks cooler because its made out of environmentally friendly energizers
|
|
|
The Associated Press has learned that the special counsel running the U.S. investigation into possible ties between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia’s government has assumed oversight of an ongoing investigation involving former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
The investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller may also expand to look into the roles of the attorney general and deputy attorney general in the firing of FBI Director James Comey.
The Justice Department’s criminal investigation into Manafort, who was forced to resign in August amid questions over his past business dealings in Ukraine, predated the election and the counterintelligence probe investigating possible collusion between Moscow and associates of Donald Trump.
The move to consolidate the matters indicates that Mueller is assuming a broad mandate in his new role.
apnews.com
|
The fact that christians voted for a guy that literally pretends to be religious and is pretty much the culmination of sins is still very funny to me.
|
United States44439 Posts
At a certain point they're just trolling Jesus.
|
On June 03 2017 07:53 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:The fact that christians voted for a guy that literally pretends to be religious and is pretty much the culmination of sins is still very funny to me.
Interesting observation. Which sins aren't represented by Trump?
|
United States44439 Posts
On June 03 2017 07:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 07:53 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:The fact that christians voted for a guy that literally pretends to be religious and is pretty much the culmination of sins is still very funny to me. Interesting observation. Which sins aren't represented by Trump?
His temperance with regard to substances is one. That's more of a big deal in Islam than Christianity but take virtues where you can get them. The rest though, not so much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
