|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 21 2012 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 08:57 oneofthem wrote:
the answer to canadian tar sand is clearly american oil shale. DOUBLE IT jay wilson style The answer to oil being dirty is clearly not to switch to the dirtiest form of oil out there. NIMBY isn't the same as clean.
while that is true, in this case we don't have to participate in a race to the bottom and put america further at risk of environmental degradation. with the amount of the stuff out in the midwest, mass scale mining will destroy quite a bit of land and water that may have greater economic value a few decades down the line.
i don't find the lack of standards on the canadian side an argument to do it here.
i have no problem with letting oil price rise further and give economic incentive to develop scaling alternative energy, or to force lifestyle changes that are more sustainable.
|
6 lines? Wow, I'm really impressed. That's more than your last 5 posts combined.
Oil has quite a long ways to go in rising price before ANY alternative energy becomes viable. The reason alternative energy is so difficult to implement is because oil and other fossil fuels are so much more efficient and cost effective. By the time oil is expensive enough to make them viable, our civilization will already be in huge trouble. I'm talking Great Depression level economic decline. Look at the relative costs per kilowatt. Lifestyle changes will not come close to making up the difference.
|
On October 21 2012 09:13 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 08:57 oneofthem wrote:
the answer to canadian tar sand is clearly american oil shale. DOUBLE IT jay wilson style The answer to oil being dirty is clearly not to switch to the dirtiest form of oil out there. NIMBY isn't the same as clean. i don't find the lack of standards on the canadian side an argument to do it here.
But that is precisely the dynamic of transnational capitalism. Capital forces territorial powers to race to the bottom in order to woo it.
edit: play nice now, boys
|
On October 21 2012 09:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:
6 lines? Wow, I'm really impressed. That's more than your last 5 posts combined.
Oil has quite a long ways to go in rising price before ANY alternative energy becomes viable. The reason alternative energy is so difficult to implement is because oil and other fossil fuels are so much more efficient and cost effective. By the time oil is expensive enough to make them viable, our civilization will already be in huge trouble. I'm talking Great Depression level economic decline. Look at the relative costs per kilowatt. Lifestyle changes will not come close to making up the difference.
very few kilowatts are made from oil. But yeah, you're right. What should we do about that? Business as usual?
|
On October 21 2012 09:25 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 09:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:
6 lines? Wow, I'm really impressed. That's more than your last 5 posts combined.
Oil has quite a long ways to go in rising price before ANY alternative energy becomes viable. The reason alternative energy is so difficult to implement is because oil and other fossil fuels are so much more efficient and cost effective. By the time oil is expensive enough to make them viable, our civilization will already be in huge trouble. I'm talking Great Depression level economic decline. Look at the relative costs per kilowatt. Lifestyle changes will not come close to making up the difference. very few kilowatts are made from oil. But yeah, you're right. What should we do about that? Business as usual?
Yes, business as usual. When the costs from fossil fuels actually become as high as environmentalists like to pretend they are, then the change to alternatives will come naturally. Funding them now might speed the transition, but the majority of it is simply subsidizing inefficiency.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if you want to raise your game and actually offer interesting positions so they warrant more than one lines (generous here) feel free. i'm not a teacher lol.
But that is precisely the dynamic of transnational capitalism
that dynamic has to be carried out by people. on a scale like this, decisions are usually made by a small group of lobbied interests away from the public view. (or in the case of other places, small elites disproportionally interested) there's enough popular energy to stop any particular slide. the question is whether this is done or not. and of course, your very agreement or disagreement with a rule that predicts your behavior is itself a contributing cause to the rule's veracity.
Oil has quite a long ways to go in rising price before ANY alternative energy becomes viable. scaling effects. the present cost of energy from other sources is not indicative of their true potential. but given the amount of externalities involved in some of the extraction choices, rising cost forcing behavior changes on the consumer is the better way to go.
|
costs from fossil fuels ARE high. they only seem low because we pretend that a lot of their costs aren't costs, and we don't think about the long term. By the time the costs of fossil fuel start to get reflected in the market price, we will have lost a lot of valuable time to do the sorts of radical economic transformations that will be necessary and everybody will be poorer than they would have to be if we were smarter and planned ahead for a change
edit: the most important thing that needs to be done is NOT technology of energy production. It is total restructuring of urban geography
edit: you wanna know what's inefficient? Moving two and half tons of steel from point A to B in order to move two three hundred pounds of meat along with it
|
I agree fossil fuel costs are higher than the market price would indicate, but not high enough to make alternative energy viable. I think they still have quite a ways to go in cost before they have any real competitors. As far as "restructuring urban geography," I'm not sure what you are advocating here... But it sounds scary lol... Like massive government infringement of private property rights. I know private property rights isn't such a popular notion anymore, but it should be.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's not the govt taking your house and making you live in the ghetto. it's a part of the process of urban gentrification. commute cost rise means you'd want to get a house in the city.
i dunno if you'll be able to raise pigs on your roof or whatnot though. i had some ducks on the roof and one of them mysteriously disappeared. 
|
Yes, sometimes the future is scary. get used to it
|
On October 21 2012 09:44 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes, sometimes the future is scary. get used to it
Whether the future is scary depends on the future. State control of everything is indeed scary. I don't imagine a utopia as some... I don't even need to evoke Orwell, Huxley, just the centuries of recorded human history come to mind.
|
No. The future is scary. period.
edit: also, I thought we already put this statist utopia nonsense to rest.
|
On October 21 2012 08:46 Amnesty wrote:
I like how you say Florida is gone with authority with its 1.7 lean to Romney.
Then go on to list every state with 1.6 to 5.0 Obama favor is still on the table.
Truth is Obama banked a voting advantage. Which would mean, Obama has a much better chance in upsetting Florida then Romney has upsetting any of Obama lean states. As a banked vote is far superior then a likely vote.
538 has been upticking Obama slightly over the past week as well. It would seem the Denver cascade has stopped and with a slight nod to Obama still.
Which will probably hold since it looks like its getting really hard to move the needle now with the pool of uncommitted voters being really small.
Virginia seems like the most unpredictable state right now. I'm not sure what the banked vote advantage is in this State but if its in line with Ohio, Iowa, or the Wisconsin advantage. It would be impossible for Romney to take it on election day. He would need to show a significant advantage here and not a tie.
What do you mean by "banked vote" and where are you finding that information? Just curious...
|
On October 21 2012 09:57 sam!zdat wrote:
No. The future is scary. period.
edit: also, I thought we already put this statist utopia nonsense to rest.
You can't claim that you aren't a statist when every single solution invokes the state.
|
On October 21 2012 09:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 09:57 sam!zdat wrote:
No. The future is scary. period.
edit: also, I thought we already put this statist utopia nonsense to rest. You can't claim that you aren't a statist when every single solution invokes the state.
states are how societies organize themselves
edit: the modern nation state was invented to serve capitalism and the market. get that through your head. With no state, there is no capitalism.
|
On October 21 2012 10:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 09:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 21 2012 09:57 sam!zdat wrote:
No. The future is scary. period.
edit: also, I thought we already put this statist utopia nonsense to rest. You can't claim that you aren't a statist when every single solution invokes the state. states are how societies organize themselves
That's a fancy way of describing it... But I consider myself a part of society, I don't consider myself part of the state. The state is what what pulls me over on the road to give me a ticket. Ask college kids in a protest getting smack by batons if they are part of the state.
edit: the modern nation state was invented to serve capitalism and the market. get that through your head. With no state, there is no capitalism.
I never advocated a stateless society. I thought we had settled this anarchist nonsense. 
|
yes, we have a bad state. What's your point?
|
On October 21 2012 10:04 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, we have a bad state. What's your point?
My point is that giving a bad state additional powers is irrational.
|
On October 21 2012 10:05 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 10:04 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, we have a bad state. What's your point? My point is that giving a bad state additional powers is irrational.
ok, so let's make a good state then. Why don't you take a little break from your adolescent fantasy of sovereign individual autonomy ex nihilo and think about how one might go about doing that? I would be overjoyed to hear your thoughts on the matter.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the analogous situation in a herd of baboons may be this: it is not coercive or statist for the baboon king to smack the group around, but when a scientist makes a feeding station and assigns a queue it is clear oppression.
the primitiveness of natural morality, though bucolic, is out of place in the modern world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
