An Inconvenient Truth

[Pure]

i love rr in hysterics!

rr In general, the countries/groups supporting the Kyoto Protocols are meeting the goals via the collapse of at least certain parts of their economies.

note that the only poster helping rr get a grip on reality is Roxanne, who cites France as example in the energy field.

essentially rr's rant is that the socialist EU is trying to drag down the virtuous capitalist maiden, the US.

in fact, of course, far from being too stringent, the Kyoto protocols are rather weak and allow fiddles like pollution credits. Canada is going to accept them in some fashion, but there is more to be done.

 

[Huckleman2000]

OK, let's try a little logic....

Careful, RR! Logic doesn't mix well with that Kool-Aid you drink.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The fact that people are even talking about Kyoto rather than looking at seriously effective steps like the revenue neutral carbon tax and the shift to an electric economy powered by nukes that I have described in previous posts in this thread suggests that their assertions about the magnitude of the problem are not sincere. Notwithstanding Pure's shoe-pounding, this does raise questions about real motives.

 

[Pure]

i have nothing against a 'carbon tax' and am willing to consider the nuclear option, if the disposal problem proves tractable.

i know, roxanne, some out there just wish to hurl stones at the virtuous giant, the first such in human history, in the hope of wounding or hamstringing him. motives? well, only spite
or hatred of goodness are plausible, in such a case.

an angel roxanne will always be hated by demons.

 

[Huckleman2000]

The fact that people are even talking about Kyoto rather than looking at seriously effective steps like the revenue neutral carbon tax and the shift to an electric economy powered by nukes that I have described in previous posts in this thread suggests that their assertions about the magnitude of the problem are not sincere. Notwithstanding Pure's shoe-pounding, this does raise questions about real motives.

RR is the one moaning about Kyoto and how it's only through crippling economies that its goals can be met.

The carbon tax idea is interesting, but your own caveat (that governments would muddy up the revenue/payouts with other policies) seems as if it would be enough to doom it to the same heap as the Flat Tax. Frankly, I'm surprised that you, Roxanne, would consider it as a viable means of addressing the issue. The whole plan hinges on the ability and willingness of the government to shuffle huge amounts of money around without dipping into it. That sounds ripe for malfeasance, even to a bleeding-heart lefty like me.

I'm not sold on the Nuke option either. It's gotten the world into far too much trouble already, what with Iran and North Korea using it as a back-door entry into the Nuclear Bomb Club. Besides, unless the war goes on forever, all the depleted uranium will have to go somewhere other than mlitary equipment.

I would much rather see governmental action in the area of bootstrapping the market for safer renewable energy sources and more efficient and available public transportation. Govt. should roll back subsidizing wasteful transportation choices immediately. Kill the FUV tax deduction; raise mileage standards. That would at least be a start.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

RR is the one moaning about Kyoto and how it's only through crippling economies that its goals can be met.

The carbon tax idea is interesting, but your own caveat (that governments would muddy up the revenue/payouts with other policies) seems as if it would be enough to doom it to the same heap as the Flat Tax. Frankly, I'm surprised that you, Roxanne, would consider it as a viable means of addressing the issue. The whole plan hinges on the ability and willingness of the government to shuffle huge amounts of money around without dipping into it. That sounds ripe for malfeasance, even to a bleeding-heart lefty like me.

I'm not sold on the Nuke option either. It's gotten the world into far too much trouble already, what with Iran and North Korea using it as a back-door entry into the Nuclear Bomb Club. Besides, unless the war goes on forever, all the depleted uranium will have to go somewhere other than mlitary equipment.

I would much rather see governmental action in the area of bootstrapping the market for safer renewable energy sources and more efficient and available public transportation. Govt. should roll back subsidizing wasteful transportation choices immediately. Kill the FUV tax deduction; raise mileage standards. That would at least be a start.

If you are skeptical regarding the impossibility of the political and bureaucratic classes not mucking up the procedures in a simple revenue neutral carbon tax scheme, then your faith in complex command and control policies like targeted subsidies and mandates is contradictory. In the latter scheme, political players have a huge and ongoing ability to pick specific winners and losers, creating tremendous opportunities for corruption and game playing. In a carbon tax regime there are also winners and losers, but the political class has no role in determining who they will be once the system is in place, and thus no similar expansion of the power of individuals within it. This explains much of the reason such an approach gets so little attention.

As far as "the government shuffling huge amounts of money around without dipping into it" goes, of course they will dip into it - it will be one of the primary revenue sources for government operations. Don't forget, I specified a revenue neutral carbon tax, with the difference coming out of the income tax in the form or lower rates, minus graduated refundable credits for low-to-middle income citizens. Again, there is little opportunity for political players to game this system once it is underway - it is all set in statute. And once again, if you insist on performing your own version of social engineering with the relatively simple-to-determine "hold harmless" formulas involved in setting up the system, then you raise questions about your sincerity regarding your belief in the magnutude of the warming threat, since any such effort will jeapordize the possibility of putting in place this powerful disincentive to fossil fuel use.

With regard to your "objections" to nukes, those do not appear serious or sincere. Given that North Korea and Iran already have nukes (or all but have them), that horse has already left the barn. Any rational assessment of future prospects will inform you that within a few decades any nation that wants the bomb can have it. Therefore, I suggest that you look deeper inside yourself and ask what your real objection is. Before you do, consider once again that a return to the caves or the agri 'village' is not an option, people will not volunteer for a massive human die-off, and given the magnitudes of energy an industrial civilization requires , relying exclusively on so-called "alternatives" is pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams. Utopia is not an option (although personally I can envision a nuclear powered utopia) and you have to make choices. Nukes are a good one, but something is preventing you from making it.

Finally - public transportation? This is not the place to get into a contentious debate about the wastefulness of such systems, but mentioning such a thing in the context of what is being portrayed as a "threat to civilization" really does cause one to question the sincerity and real motives of those making that claim.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

deleted.

 

[TruthAndLove]

The inconvenient truth is that Al Gore has found a cause. Not a cause that he wants to live, but a cause he wants to promote. Here is the real truth. Comment?

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions,

In other words, a right-wing pro-business group; not an objective source of news.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom]
...

Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

So he has a building that's approximate 20 times average size and he uses approximately 20 times the average electricity. In other words, he uses the average amount.

By the way, secret service agents are working around the clock and they need lights and heat.

But the worst part of this idiotic "story" is that it compares the Gore house's energy use with the average instead of comparing to the expected usage given the design of the house. The latter comparison would be meaningful, the former is irrelevant.

 

[Seattle Zack]

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:

Blah blah blah blah.

You really should check your sources, dear. You'd never make a journalist.

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is a bunch of right wing/anti-environment organizations, near as I can tell, and the 'facts' they represent has caused the Tennessee tax department to consider The Tennessee Center for Policy Research "not a legitimate organization" because they misrepresented themselves on questions about their opposition to a state crackdown on drug dealers.

Man, you neocons are scared shitless of Gore. With him and Obama and Hillary, where do you focus the hatred? It's fracturing your party. I think Gore has a chance to emerge at the top of the field a year from now, but a Swift Boat campaign this early, seems a little low. Even for you.

 

[Huckleman2000]

You know, Roxanne, I read 'utopia is not an option' in your posts on every political subject that comes up, and I can never find where someone has advocated for something even vaguely resembling utopia other than you. You argue for these libertarian/capitalism delusions that hold no more weight outside a textbook than Marxism. Both Marxist and unfettered-capitalist utopian visions have left an awful lot to be desired in practice.

Finally - public transportation? This is not the place to get into a contentious debate about the wastefulness of such systems, but mentioning such a thing in the context of what is being portrayed as a "threat to civilization" really does cause one to question the sincerity and real motives of those making that claim.

Sincerity and motives?! I'm not the idealogue in this discussion, Roxanne. You set up the conditions of your argument as if there is no elasticity on the consumption side, and that if one brings up the idea of lowering consumption they are advocating a return to cave-dwelling.

As for the economic upheaval that seems to be the fear of Kyoto (at least by RR), isn't that the process of 'creative destruction'? Shouldn't oil companies be left by the wayside like buggy-whip makers?

 

[cumallday]

This one's for you, Roxanne.

Scientists who keep track of Arctic ice recently issued an alarming bulletin: the ice pack is melting as never before and is 20 percent smaller than the long-term average. What's more, as it thawed and the light reflecting white ice turned to light absorbing blue water, the melting cycle was entering a self-reinforcing phase. Bigger global news than that, barring Britney of course, is hard to imagine. Even sane astronauts are looking down on the globe and noticing a lot less white and lot more blue.

It's becoming clearer every day that the roots of climate change lie not just in the infrastructure we've built to exploit fossil fuels, but in the habits of mind and heart created by that infrastructure. Let me explain: cheap gas allowed us to rip up the trolley lines and replace them with cars, which in turn allowed sprawling suburbs, which in turn allowed even bigger houses, which in turn allowed an unprecedented isolation from community. One survey of Americans showed that three quarters did not really know their next door neighbours. The author, Jane Jacobs, is an excellent source for this.

How do you change this? Up the price of gas? Rebuild the trolley? As long as we're trapped in our sense of ourselves as individuals, such changes will breed as much resentment as anything else. We need to raise a little consciousness and see ourselves, all of us, as victims. The beneficiaries of a life borrowed from the future and built on environmental destruction.

On the other hand, there is a nagging discontent that might blossom into something profound if only we could figure out the language to describe it. The dirty little secret of our individualized consumer age is that it hasn't made us quite as happy as it promised it would. It isn't clear why, but sociologists and psychologists seem to think it has something to do with loss of community. The same loss of community that the fossil fuel infrastructure made inevitable. Mark Anielski is terriffic on this.

We can't wait for a technological miracle to save us from our ills (though the engineers should by all means keep working!). A change in our sense of who we are is arguably just as if not more important. Take the most obvious example, the food we eat. The average bite has travelled 1, 500 miles before it reaches our lips and the money you fork over disappears to corporate HQ. Whereas, if you join a community supported farm and pick up a produce box once a week, the total soil-plate journey is negligible and the money stays in the neighbourhood.

Ah, but there is a real cost involved. And it is a terrible one at that. Oh yes, very terrible indeed. The food is not as convenient. It may not exactly be what you had in mind that day. There may be more of one thing than another - two cabbage meals in the same week. It may require some more time to cook - ghastly, I know. You are, in effect, an adjunct member of the farm, which means the whole world is not your oyster - Heaven Forfend!

But when your mind starts to change a little, those costs start to become benefits. So what if the food is not as convenient? You got to see your neighbours when you picked it up. You got to remind yourself that you exist in a particular place, with particular weather, particular soil, particular beauty - you didn't have to be a resident of the generic nowhere that flows through our various screens. You got to be a little less of an individual and a little more of something larger. And you needn't stop with food. The same analysis can apply to much of the way we live.

A change in who we imagine ourselves to be sounds very abstract and vague, I know. But getting over hyperindividualism is as crucial as getting over oil - and my guess is you can't manage one without the other.

 

[mckai777]

[QUOTE DELETED]

Damn, do you two have a history, or what? The animosity is palpable. Wouldn't it be better to just stick to the issues, and avoid ad hominem attacks?

 

[3113]

Damn, do you two have a history, or what? The animosity is palpable. Wouldn't it be better to just stick to the issues, and avoid ad hominem attacks?

Isn't that what this thread is all about? An ad hominem attack? Hardly a surprise if the issues go by the wayside...they were already gone when this thread was started.

 

[mckai777]

Isn't that what this thread is all about? An ad hominem attack? Hardly a surprise if the issues go by the wayside...they were already gone when this thread was started.

This is at least partly true. However, we're all grown-ups here. Surely we can discuss things with the security of mutually assured civility.

 

[S-Des]

This is at least partly true. However, we're all grown-ups here. Surely we can discuss things with the security of mutually assured civility.

You really are new here, aren't you.

 

[S-Des]

You really should check your sources, dear. You'd never make a journalist.

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is a bunch of right wing/anti-environment organizations, near as I can tell, and the 'facts' they represent has caused the Tennessee tax department to consider The Tennessee Center for Policy Research "not a legitimate organization" because they misrepresented themselves on questions about their opposition to a state crackdown on drug dealers.

Man, you neocons are scared shitless of Gore. With him and Obama and Hillary, where do you focus the hatred? It's fracturing your party. I think Gore has a chance to emerge at the top of the field a year from now, but a Swift Boat campaign this early, seems a little low. Even for you.

Why when someone makes a criticism of someone like Gore, do people immediately label and dismiss them? RR has been around here forever, and is clearly not a Neocon (nor even a republican). He's not a fan of the extreme side of the global warming crowd, but does that make him afraid of Liberals? Seriously, if you have a point to make about the facts, why not make it? What does branding him something he's not, just to make yourself feel better, have to do with the issues he's brought up? The center isn't a legitimate centrist organization, but did anyone really believe they didn't have an axe to grind? As has been pointed out by so many here, does their political agenda make what they say less true? If they've lied, why not explain what they lied about and point to some facts, instead of calling RR names?

 

[mckai777]

You really are new here, aren't you.

A n00b in the truest sense of the alphanumerical, yes.

 

[Pure]

comment to c a d

But getting over hyperindividualism is as crucial as getting over oil - and my guess is you can't manage one without the other.

i wonder how americans will 'get over' their hyperindividualism. they want to live in suburbs and eat kiwi fruit and bananas in winter.

i think the vision of LA in Bladerunner is a likely scenario. the human, esp. the American (but the Chinese are doing *very well*) can't help but befoul his or her own home and pee in his own bed.

what's the cure for suburbia and SUV. well, cost, i suppose. high density urban living has got to come and be made livable; vastly higher densities than the US has ever seen (more like HK).

i do have one caveat: "hyperindividualism" , said to be typical of americans, is in fact rather rare outside rural idaho and montana if self reliance is a part of it.
many rural areas and states, e.g., wyoming, iirc., get more federal funds per person than do the more populous, blue states.

today's "[hyper]individual" is heavily reliant on the government; the "red" bastions of Mississippi were nourished with federal funds for shipyards, etc. republican 'pork.' take two presidents who said they stood for "individual" vs. government: Reagan and GWB. Both vastly increased the size and powers of the federal government. "anti government" (get the gov off people's backs) is mantra and smokescreen for pork barrel benefits. the "small government" conservative is as rare as hen's teeth.

the american individual also, is not averse to the state having a moral role. "individualism" does not include bumfucking.

 

[R. Richard]

You really should check your sources, dear. You'd never make a journalist.

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is a bunch of right wing/anti-environment organizations, near as I can tell, and the 'facts' they represent has caused the Tennessee tax department to consider The Tennessee Center for Policy Research "not a legitimate organization" because they misrepresented themselves on questions about their opposition to a state crackdown on drug dealers.

Man, you neocons are scared shitless of Gore. With him and Obama and Hillary, where do you focus the hatred? It's fracturing your party. I think Gore has a chance to emerge at the top of the field a year from now, but a Swift Boat campaign this early, seems a little low. Even for you.

If the data furnished by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research is wrong, then give the correct information, citing sources. The idea of just dismissing the data by attacking the source is not an acceptable form of argument.

I am not a neocon, nor am I am 'member of the party.' I have laid out in great detail why I feel that Al Gore is a political opportunist who is using global warming as a political tool. If I am wrong, answer my questions/charges and provide the true data.

As to the Swift Boat thing. There were supposed to have attacked poor Kerry for no reason. Yet, no one ever pointed out that what they said was false. Yes, there were 'character witnesses' who stood up for Kerry. However, there was no hard evidence that what the Swift Boat people said was wrong. There was evidence that what Kerry said was wrong. Specifically Kerry said that Nixon ordered hin into Cambodia. At the time Nixon supposedly ordered Kerry into Cambodia, Johnson was President. I can understand Kerry not being able to read, but not being able to deal with numbers?

 

[Pure]

rr said,
I can understand Kerry not being able to read, but not being able to deal with numbers?

i you hated Kerry for not being able to read and not being able to deal with numbers, look what you got instead! poetic justice.

 

[oggbashan]

The wind blows

All the power in my house is provided by an off-shore wind farm that I can see from most rooms in my house.

The wind is blowing today, as it does most days.

Whether that wind farm is cost effective or carbon neutral is open to debate. The manufacture, installation and maintenance of the wind farm involve the use of fossil fuels.

However, wind will continue to blow and more wind farms will be built, this time out of sight of land. When the wind blows, the new wind farms will power about half of London's electricity needs.

It's a start.

Og

 

[cloudy]

rr said,
I can understand Kerry not being able to read, but not being able to deal with numbers?

i you hated Kerry for not being able to read and not being able to deal with numbers, look what you got instead! poetic justice.

Touche'.

 

[R. Richard]

All the power in my house is provided by an off-shore wind farm that I can see from most rooms in my house.

The wind is blowing today, as it does most days.

Whether that wind farm is cost effective or carbon neutral is open to debate. The manufacture, installation and maintenance of the wind farm involve the use of fossil fuels.

However, wind will continue to blow and more wind farms will be built, this time out of sight of land. When the wind blows, the new wind farms will power about half of London's electricity needs.

It's a start.

Og

A start, but at some cost. First, wind farms emit a low frequency noise that can be very annoying if you live close to them. Second, wind farms kill birds. The birds tend to fly into the propellors.

I am not against wind farms, I just want to point out that they are not a magic solution. Also, when you get a very large percentage of your power from wind farms and the wind stops blowing, big trouble.

 

[oggbashan]

A start, but at some cost. First, wind farms emit a low frequency noise that can be very annoying if you live close to them. Second, wind farms kill birds. The birds tend to fly into the propellors.

I am not against wind farms, I just want to point out that they are not a magic solution. Also, when you get a very large percentage of your power from wind farms and the wind stops blowing, big trouble.

1. Noise. Modern wind farms don't produce the low frequency noise.

2. Our offshore wind farms are located away from bird flying routes. Birds flying into wind farm propellors are rare. More are killed flying into overhead power cables, usually attempting to avoid a predator.

3. They will never be a large percentage - a substantial percentage perhaps. We exchange electricity with the French because their peak demand and ours occur at different times of day, so they get some of our wind generated power, and we get some of their nuclear power, although the French also have wind farms.

4. Any wind power reduces the need for fossil-fuel power but we will continue to rely on fossil fuel for some time.

5. The future in the UK may be for domestic houses to produce their own wind and solar power. A few locals are doing it already and selling the surplus to the electricity companies. I will probably do that in the next few years when domestic wind generators become more efficient because I am on a hill facing the sea. It is a very rare day when the wind doesn't blow over my house.

Og

 

[Darkniciad]

5. The future in the UK may be for domestic houses to produce their own wind and solar power. A few locals are doing it already and selling the surplus to the electricity companies. I will probably do that in the next few years when domestic wind generators become more efficient because I am on a hill facing the sea. It is a very rare day when the wind doesn't blow over my house.

Og

I knew an old man back home who did this years ago. Never paid for itself, but it brightened his golden years once a month, when the electric company had to send him a check. Even had a stationary bike converted to provide electricity for small appliances ( mostly for kicks ). Solar panels ( extremely expensive then ) and windmills. He always said he wished he lived by the river so he could put in a water wheel