EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1269
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On April 01 2019 23:22 KwarK wrote: The frustrating thing is that we never used to have this problem. We didn’t have it with lead in petrol, or with the hole in the ozone layer. Sure the companies at the time cried about regulation, an overbearing state, and all the rest of it but when it came down to it we trusted scientists and addressed the issues. The current climate “debate” is a product of corporate conservative capture of the media. 1,000% agree with this. You make some really good points/suggestions. | ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
On April 02 2019 04:26 ShambhalaWar wrote: 1,000% agree with this. You make some really good points/suggestions. Yes, I agree about the regulation but controlling the climate is different than other environmental issues imo, mainly because of the very high uncertainty both about what will happen and what we can do to make a difference. When people in big cities get sick from pollution, it is much more concrete. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10637 Posts
I still don't get the argument against "clean" energy or the funding of it. At worst we pollute the enviroment less? What is there to lose? If your not an Oil or Coal company.... | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 02 2019 07:24 Velr wrote: Well, it will get pretty concrete once the wather spills all the trash back into the cities.... I still don't get the argument against "clean" energy or the funding of it. At worst we pollute the enviroment less? What is there to lose? If your not an Oil or Coal company.... Clean energy (solar/wind) is not competitive with fossil fuel energy in terms of price or efficiency. Certain applications will never be satisfied by clean energy. The reality is that we're going to have to invent a brand new form of clean energy (ie fusion or something else) to get rid of reliance on fossil fuels. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
ANY minor steps that can be taken to lessen the environmental impact humans have, should. It's that simple. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 02 2019 08:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: "This cast won't heal your broken arm. We'll need to invent a brand new form of medical care to do that." ANY minor steps that can be taken to lessen the environmental impact humans have, should. It's that simple. This kind of uncritical analysis that does not factor in cost (opportunity or otherwise) is not a basis for sound policy. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8960 Posts
On April 02 2019 08:13 xDaunt wrote: This kind of uncritical analysis that does not factor in cost (opportunity or otherwise) is not a basis for sound policy. It's isn't uncritical since, you know, scientists, urban planners, and the like, kind of agree that a move away from fossil needs to happen sooner than later. But hey, suit yourself. May your air remain forever breathable and your drinking water clean from lead and feces. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On April 02 2019 08:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: It's isn't uncritical since, you know, scientists, urban planners, and the like, kind of agree that a move away from fossil needs to happen sooner than later. But hey, suit yourself. May your air remain forever breathable and your drinking water clean from lead and feces. Plus renewable energy sources are currently the hotspot for R&D all over the world. Current alternatives are being expounded upon, refined, and improved, and people will look for new sources wherever they can find them. All kinds of shit is going on in the world of alternative energy. The key is to have the political will to use all of those things, because ultimately no one source will do it by itself. Doesn't mean you don't try. And meanwhile, fossil fuels are going nowhere. We know what they are, and that they're running out. Environment aside, people should still be clamoring for alternatives because that shit won't be around forever. As much as I like a V8 car, by the time I can think about getting one it'll be a dinosaur. It's not just the "hypothetical catastrophic event". Though that fucks us over too. | ||
KwarK
United States42252 Posts
On April 02 2019 07:46 xDaunt wrote: Clean energy (solar/wind) is not competitive with fossil fuel energy in terms of price or efficiency. Certain applications will never be satisfied by clean energy. The reality is that we're going to have to invent a brand new form of clean energy (ie fusion or something else) to get rid of reliance on fossil fuels. The point is that fossil fuels are only cost efficient if you don’t include externalities, effectively granting them a huge socialized subsidy. That’s manifestly true of industries like coal which require the taxpayer to pay for the health problems of their workers because the coal companies claim paying for it from coal proceeds would put them out of business. In short the costs of burning coal exceed the value of the energy and it would be good government policy to pay the miners to just leave it in the ground. But it’s also true for oil and gas. The only reason they can compete with cleaner energy is because the consumer isn’t paying up front for the negative external environmental impact. They know it will cause problems but due to a failure of regulation they are not required to account for future cleanup costs. This lets them undercut clean energy. It’s effectively the largest government subsidy you could imagine. They make money today, we have to somehow fix the acidification of the oceans in a few years. It’s the same old story, they’re all capitalists until you point out that they’re not creating value, they’re stealing from the public purse. Then they insist that the profit was never important, that their employees have come to depend upon that theft, and it is the public responsibility to continue to fund it. If your business creates negative value after accounting for socialized externalities then it shouldn’t exist. Give them a carbon tax equivalent to the cost of sequestering the carbon released and we’ll see how competitive they really are. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 02 2019 08:16 JimmiC wrote: People always forget about hydro as well. And it is not like pursuing clean energy means you will instantly lose the market for the fossil fuels, especially things like natural gas. It is just moving towards it that is important. Sure, I'm in favor of more hydro. As are most people on my side. Lord knows places like California need more reservoirs anyway. But let's get real -- building hydro plants is damned near impossible thanks to many of the same environmentalist hippies that are demanding that we get off of fossil fuels in the first place. They won't tolerate the environmental and habitat damage that hydro power causes. Hell, they obstruct damned near every highway, railway, or pipeline project of note in the courts due to trumped up environmental impact concerns. Yet these same idiots want us to switch to solar and wind power, notwithstanding the fact that solar and power have huge environmental impacts due to their huge geographic footprints. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And the largest opposition to a hydro-plant would be whatever current energy provider existed in the area. Just like the current energy providers were the biggest opposition to tax benefits for residential solar panels in my state. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
McConnell wrote an editorial complaining about obstruction. Some choice quotes: Enough with the partisan delays. The president's nominees deserve consideration. Noncontroversial lower court nominees have languished for weeks and weeks This new, across-the-board obstruction is unfair to the president and, more importantly, to the American people. Left unchecked, it is guaranteed to create an unsustainable precedent that would see every future presidency of either party obstructed in the same mindless way. There are no words in the English language to express my feeling about Mitch McConnell's level of hypocrisy to my satisfaction. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11321 Posts
There's a cost to every form of energy. It just matters what you are willing to pay. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On April 02 2019 10:37 Kyadytim wrote: www.politico.com McConnell wrote an editorial complaining about obstruction. Some choice quotes: There are no words in the English language to express my feeling about Mitch McConnell's level of hypocrisy to my satisfaction. Dated April 1. This has to be a thinly veiled April fools joke, no? I mean, there is no possible way that McConnel isnt aware of the hypocrisy here, so I'm not sure what else it could be but a troll job. | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada417 Posts
There's a cost to every form of energy. It just matters what you are willing to pay. Agree completely, everything has its upsides and downsides and people who are willing to accept X but not Y. The truth is everyone here on every side would like purely clean energy if that was a real thing. Just need to figure out what steps to take to get closer to that goal with out blowing up society as we know it. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On April 02 2019 12:37 On_Slaught wrote: I think this is one of those times where the date is a coincidence. It's a bit of political posturing written regarding an upcoming Senate vote.Dated April 1. This has to be a thinly veiled April fools joke, no? I mean, there is no possible way that McConnel isnt aware of the hypocrisy here, so I'm not sure what else it could be but a troll job. Also, McConnell seems pretty immune to feeling hypocritical. Or guilty, or ashamed, or anything else that would get in the way of gaining, holding, or exercising power. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2626 Posts
On April 02 2019 07:46 xDaunt wrote: Clean energy (solar/wind) is not competitive with fossil fuel energy in terms of price or efficiency. Certain applications will never be satisfied by clean energy. The reality is that we're going to have to invent a brand new form of clean energy (ie fusion or something else) to get rid of reliance on fossil fuels. Not true as of 2018: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/ From the article: The low end levelized cost of onshore wind-generated energy is $29/MWh, compared to an average illustrative marginal cost of $36/MWh for coal. The levelized cost of utility-scale solar is nearly identical to the illustrative marginal cost of coal, at $36/MWh. Investing in renewables is a sound economic plan no matter which way you look at it. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
On April 02 2019 08:59 xDaunt wrote: Sure, I'm in favor of more hydro. As are most people on my side. Lord knows places like California need more reservoirs anyway. But let's get real -- building hydro plants is damned near impossible thanks to many of the same environmentalist hippies that are demanding that we get off of fossil fuels in the first place. They won't tolerate the environmental and habitat damage that hydro power causes. Hell, they obstruct damned near every highway, railway, or pipeline project of note in the courts due to trumped up environmental impact concerns. Yet these same idiots want us to switch to solar and wind power, notwithstanding the fact that solar and power have huge environmental impacts due to their huge geographic footprints. Yes, western climate fanatics like to croak how China is a renewables powerhouse while failing to mention the massive three gorges dam is the worlds largest power plant.Actually news just came out that China was using 17% more coal than claimed by their government.Many new coal power plants being built there.Westerners focused on Europe where emissions peaked in 90’ and USA where emissions peaked in 07’. | ||
| ||
