|
Does anyone ask conservatives why a shift to green energy production (which means a massive increase in *domestic* energy production) is bad? Are some folks just really that into kissing the ring of Saudi kings? FFS, even if you don't believe in climate change, why not endeavor to get the hell off foreign oil?
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Most refinery's and oil companies are in the west. The Sauds only provide the raw product, the money is made after refining. Right, I'm asking why the rank-and-file "support are troops" conservatives don't want clean energy. I doubt they know that a lot of oil is refined domestically. Besides, it's pretty obvious that installing a new energy infrastructure will create more jobs than domestic refineries will. And you're probably right about the "clean coal" - but why wouldn't they be pro-coal, and pro-green energy, then? They'd have to admit people they hate could help a problem our nation faces? I guess it's a pointless question - you'd think conservatives would be conservative (as in not wanting to be dependent on foreign powers for energy, realizing that that energy at a good price will require massive investment in the military, etc.). Whatever happened to pragmatic, Rockefeller style conservatism? Radbot fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Jan 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:The climate is an ideological issue. You can track belief in anthropogenic climate change on a graph with lines for Democrats and Republicans; they stick close up to a point but then climate change becomes a political issue and the Republican line plummets. Conservatives refuse to believe that man-made climate change exists, going so far as to petulantly encourage more fossil fuel use, simply because Liberals (Lieberals) are against fossil fuels, and they'll be damned if they agree with lieberals on anything. I appreciate the response, but did you read what I posted? Shelving climate change entirely, why are conservatives so desperate to make our national security something largely beyond our control? I get why those in power want it (sweet sweet consulting gigs at Lockheed and BP), but the average conservative voter? I guess it just surprises me that there doesn't seem to be a contingent of people that are very conservative but have the ability to see that dependence on foreign oil makes the US very vulnerable in many ways. Hell, even if you didn't believe that we could ever be independent from foreign oil, why not at least try to get ahead of the Chinese in what is a serious growth industry? This was precisely the issue that made me start thinking politically, by the way. While I may not agree with conservatives on many issues, at least many of these viewpoints are logically consistent with their world view. The torpedoing-at-all-costs attitude towards alternative energy simply doesn't make sense to me. Radbot fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Jan 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I'm assuming by "try to get ahead" you mean active government support of developing green energy. Because, as far as I can tell, conservatives are not trying to actively shut down green energy, they just generally oppose government support for it. Given that, conservative voters are convinced to oppose this government support through the same argument that all government support (at least that which doesn't enrich conservative donors) is opposed: government should not be picking winners and losers and if green technology is superior/the future, then all we need to do is get out of the way (less taxes and regulation) and private enterprise will handle it. Really? Have you heard about the whole Solyndra debacle, particularly from the WSJ or Fox News? Please don't say that there isn't some serious green energy slander in there. I'd be happy to cite a few piece from there, if you'd like. And really, why bother investing in green energy when you can simply externalize the cost of oil? I mean, literally the only reason we're in the Middle East is because of the necessary geopolitical influence to maintain access to cheap oil, but none of that price is reflected at the pump. And if you think that the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers, what do you think about state-subsidized Airbus absolutely pummeling Boeing in non-defense contracts? And I would assume you're firmly against government-backed loans to small businesses and redevelopment agencies, correct? Because that would be picking winners, too. Radbot fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Jan 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
Because I'm reluctant to assign bad faith to folks, I've got to ask: how the hell can Solyndra be an indictment of solar energy when the BP spill isn't an indictment of the use of fossil fuels?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Solyndra is a financial failure while the BP spill was an environmental failure. Some people care a lot more about the former than the latter. Also, there's a fair bit of arguing in bad faith. They're not mutually exclusive. I guarantee you that the BP spill caused a hell of a lot more economic damage than a $900 million loan default.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Yeah, economic damage to other people. It's not about useful economic activity, it's about Solyndra being out of business so if you backed them you're a loser. People care that BP spilled a little oil to about the same extent that they care their team's Superbowl-winning quarterback is a rapist. Well, people sure as hell cared that JoePa merely looked the other way regarding what happened during his tenure, so we can only hope.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:This one winter was a random fluctuation that has happened before, it's not evidence of global warming. Hopefully it wakes a few people up though. You're right, it's not by itself evidence of global warming. The number of high temperature records though, some decades old, is pretty startling and disturbing, though. It's not the climapocalypse, but I'd argue it's a bit more than "a random fluctuation".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
Nowa posted:This one is simple physics. Earth is producing more heat (energy) and trapping more heat (energy). With more energy in the atmosphere, you're going to end up with: Right, but at the same time I think it's important not to pull the leftist equivalent of putting a copy of An Inconvenient Truth in a snowbank.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:From what I understand it is La Nina combined with a lack of the normal high pressure system over greenland that shoves the jet stream down into the US. We have had warmer winters on record with less snowfall, and considering last winter was cold and snowy, it's disingenuous to call this an effect of global warming. Winter is going strong in other parts of the northern hemisphere. When exactly was this winter that was warmer, with less snowfall? I mentioned records being broken because, by their very nature, broken records indicate something historic. Also, I don't understand why climate conspiracies seem to find such purchase with people (other than the obvious answer that it would force them to do something they don't want to do in the face of an amorphous threat) - to me, it seems like you should be able to unravel them with a single question: qui loving bono? It would be a conspiracy on a scale that would make Trutherism seem quaint. Radbot fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Feb 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
Why should I care if a bunch of TED speakers and shipping heiresses get to live on Mars while my family dies, anyways?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
It's not a question of stocks vs cash, it's a question of living a better life now (travel, cars, drugs) versus deferring money for a future that may not be worth living through. I can absolutely say that if I were to actually need to rely on my subsistence farming skills to survive, that's not a world I'd want to bother with.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, the question is "will my investments be worth anything in 40 years", not "will the future be worth living in". If a diversified portfolio isn't going to be worth anything in 40 years, your future will be pretty loving lovely from the viewpoint of a person in a developed economy. Just minor things, like literally no one, including people that saved, ever being able to retire, companies will not be able to issue debt, etc. IMO a financial apocalypse (like the one you lay out in your post) would be "bad".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
I take issue with the idea that not burning a gallon of gas "indisputably" means it won't be burnt. Wouldn't a reduction in gasoline demand lead to a lower price, inducing demand that would not otherwise have existed at the higher price, pushing the price back to an equilibrium level? Like, I may have not taken a road trip until I saw that gas was below a certain amount.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
Can I buy climate change derivatives?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Who, exactly, is politicizing climate change? And what does that even mean? If you truly believe it's happening, doesn't something that inherently requires governmental intervention inevitably end up politicized?
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
Greenpeace and WWF are so ridiculously ineffectual and poorly funded, it's hard for me to believe that their influence even approaches that of people who benefit from climate denialism. I wonder how much of this is "truth is in the middle"-ism.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Mmm, Greenpeace is funded to the tune of 200 million euros a year and the WWF around $800 million dollars. Yes they are not the Koch brothers but hardly meeting in a local scout hut. Besides the point though, he wasn't specifically calling out WWF and Greenpeace, but the NGOs and organisations that have started to rely on climate alarmism for their funds. Not even close: http://worldwildlife.org/about/financials And the vast majority is not spent on anything remotely political. I wish I could live in your fantasy world, where overbearing environmental NGOs fought dollar for dollar with the Kochs and their political influence was comparable. Radbot fucked around with this message at 13:40 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
Isn't the logical extension of that argument to increase CO2 emissions, even if it costs money to do so? Why don't they ever make that argument?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Jesus loving Christ. This is the second time today SedanChair has corrected my post with something utterly depressing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:No, it requires massive systemic change to how we think about economic growth and social responsibility, but we're not screwed just yet. The longer things stall, though, the more it's going to cost to address the issue, and the more potential damage that might happen before things get back under control. Geopolitics are going to get more unstable as the countries affected by climate change are hit hard. Aka, it's too late.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Climate Change thread: Make a Siberian booty go faaaaart
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
So what's your point?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Never ever think about any kind of action. I just wonder how many people forums poster Arkane thinks he's convincing with his data? I mean I think I'd rather trust a scientist over a banker when it comes to data that needs to stand up to rigorous analysis. I readily admit I don't understand most of the data being presented.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
How does OWS get criticized for not having a clear goal but these folks don't? Maybe global warming will stop because it feels so unpopular? Do these folks know what they'd need to sacrifice to turn back the clock to 350(.org)?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Their goals are "curb carbon emissions and replace energy generation with solar & wind". It's not necessarily the most realistic goal, but it's better than "I'm mad at the system". Eh, based on the data I've seen in this thread about solar and wind's ability to provide sufficient baseload capacity to the US, it's equally as realistic a mesaage (though with fewer annoying drum circles). In a way it's even stupider, since most of OWS concerns were domestic, and climate change will still gently caress up this gay earth even if America goes back to the stone age. I didn't see too many appeals to Chinese coal power plant operators but maybe I missed it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
So they have something to point to, which even if it were accomplished in time (a literal political impossibility), wouldn't ameliorate the effects of climate change. Still not seeing how this is any better than OWS. To say nothing of the fact that the vast majority of these folks would never consider the only conceivable way to quickly reduce carbon emissions, building more nuclear power (as you pointed out). People on the streets for more domestic solar, when they're not protesting for more nukes or divestment of Chinese firms that use coal power, need to be painted as the uninformed hippies they are.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Again, the data pretty clearly says that we're hosed unless we essentially stop all carbon emissions yesterday. Please help me understand how that's throwing up our hands, when you're throwing up YOUR hands discussing the ONLY solution to climate change at this point? It's too late to pick at the edges. We may be reducing coal consumption, but we're *massively* expanding natural gas production and consumption. And since these wells don't capture all the methane, it's possible that natural gas exploration actually has a worse effect on climate change than coal does. Maybe it's because it's happening in flyover states like Colorado, it's easy to pretend like we're not massively expanding our fossil fuel capacity and are indeed making meaningful progress towards greater use of renewable energy?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Wall Street doesn't make all of the decisions though, unless you mean Wall Street as a short hand for corporations. A lot of policy decisions are made a long way from Wall Street and are used to prop up local constituents (for example, defense contractors). At least OWS knows what side they're on - you didn't hear anyone from OWS cheering with joy at Citizens United, though you WOULD hear a climate change "activist" doing the same thing as a nuclear power plan is torn down and replaced with natgas/coal.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Honestly you can tell most so-called climate activists don't believe their shtick either - if they did, they'd be openly advocating for people to not have children, so that they don't have to live in the post-apocalyptic hellscape that is sure to come.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
mdemone posted:We anti-natalists don't get invited to very many parties. Well, invited back, anyway. Why is that, anyways? If you sincerely believe that the world will be a massive shithole by 2100, why the gently caress are you having kids (assuming that it's going to be a slow slide to that endgame the whole way)?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Because the problem isn't "kids", it's carbon. I understand that by not having a child you're preventing another carbon producer from being born, but that's not helping anyone. We need to change our ways, there is no turning it off. Having children and indoctrinating them(alright I'll admit you don't need to have them to indoctrinate them, but it makes it a hell of a lot easier) seems like a pretty good move if you want to steer the future. Er, it's not about preventing carbon producers. If you've read the thread, you'd know it's too late for that. It's about not wanting to bring a kid into a world plagued with resource wars, a lack of oil, etc. Something tells me that the economic situation facing the kids of the Western world now won't get better when most of the world's biodiversity is gone. quote:Also, if you don't have kids, what's the loving point of life anyways? I agree, the infertile should kill themselves. With fire, amirite? 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
I don't think it's the right course of action, but if you honestly believe your kids are going to have a lovely life and you still have them anyways, you're A Bad Parent. And again, it's not "oh you're gonna struggle but it'll be OK honey". If the most dire predictions of climate change are correct, it's going to be a bit more difficult to get by then putting a bit more into your kid's 529.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:
You are so god drat dumb. It's not about not being consumerist, it's about most unique species of life on earth dying and there not being enough arable land to feed everyone. I'm glad not everyone is so intensely solipsistic as to believe fulfilling their own desires to have kids is more important than the child's actual welfare.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:But there is enough arable land to feed everyone? Also lmao at "the most unique species of life on earth" what kind of bullshit is that I said most, not the most, you tard.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:At the same time drilling technology is advancing so more oil becomes available at a certain price. Then you run into the other problem, there being a finite amount of oil in the Earth. You can't handwave the problem away with technology.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Ooh, are we playing scientist dress up again? 'Cause nothing gets me going more than a bunch of people who aren't scientists discussing the technical errata of poo poo they hardly understand.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:Actually, I'm a scientist. Not a climate scientist though, biology. Great, there's one. Anyone else? Arkane?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:I guess we should Why would we do that? Who doesn't enjoy laypeople slapfighting over the axis of a graph they don't remotely understand?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 19:35
|
|
the thread since it evidently doesn't satisfy Radbots posting quality standards.
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
Klein literally sounds like an honest, anti-Arkane in that quote.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 21:01
|
|