(04-14-2017 08:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 06:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 12:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-13-2017 06:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-13-2017 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I haven't really been following this discussion, but a couple of random observations...
Pure gas, unadulterated with any biofuel, is now available at my Wal-Mart.
I understand that sugar cane farming is destroying the Amazon.

Not at all. Sugar cane doesn't grow well in the Amazon. The soybeans used to make biodiesel are grown there but the sugar cane is grown elsewhere.

My understanding is that the amazon is being cleared for sugar cane plantations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8262381.stm
http://grist.org/article/2010-04-13-rais...thanol-mi/
http://www.earth-policy.org/mobile/books...d19bcd2ce7

Not the Amazon for sugar cane. The second linked article makes that pretty clear. The sugar cane belt is south of the Amazon basin, mostly on land that was already cleared for prior settlement and agricultural use. There is an argument about clearing forest land for more sugar cane, but so far it has mostly gone on land that was previously cleared a century or two ago. And a couple of the articles linked make it very clear that sugar cane ethanol is much greener than corn ethanol. They are clearing some of the Amazon to grow soybeans, which are the feed stock for their biodiesel, but so far that's a much smaller program.

It's not perfect. But that's an important distinction between Brasil's approach and ours. We keep rejecting incremental improvement because we have this (I think misplaced) expectation that some perfect solution is out there. We have very much let perfect become the enemy of good enough. If it's not solar or windmills (neither of which are perfect themselves), we don't want to do it. Brazil said it's not perfect, but it's better than what we have, so let's do it.

I think there is this great tendency in some quarters of the green movement to try to find fault with any incremental improvements that provide alternatives to the ultimate green agenda. They think it's fine to push us off oil onto--nothing. The fact that there might be something that might offer measurable improvement without destroying our economy as we know it is absolute anathema to them. They are all over closing down coal fired generation plants--which will be highly disruptive in the short run while lowering global temperatures something like one tenth of a degree by 2100--but are highly critical of other less disruptive changes that will have more impact on global warming. If the climate alarmists are right, and global warming really is going to destroy life as we know it, then we'd damned well better be doing everything we can to effect improvement with existing technology. But that's not their agenda, and that's what makes me skeptical about their entire approach.

We can significantly reduce our carbon footprint, with existing technology and without destroying our economy. But the green folks aren't pushing the things that could do that. Why not? Is it because their ultimate goal is not to save the planet but rather to destroy our economy, and green is just a tool to do it? I don't know, but judging from their conduct, that has to be in play as a possible reason.

Am I getting the gist of your argument right that the true fault of our relative lack of change in energy infrastructure lies with the progressives? Or you just highlighting that issue, how they often overlook incremental change?

Because on the other side of the coin, I see absolutely no significant movement to try and advance any portion of our energy economy.

I am not sure where you are trying to go with this, nor am I at all sure what you think I am saying. Like I said, I was late to the discussion and don't even know what the "sides' are.

yes, I do think progressives all too often don't look past the first domino. Not at all a progressive trait, but a human one, but the progressive are the ones pushing change, are they not? You don't need to look past the first domino if you are not tipping it. So when changing things, I think it is a good thing to anticipate subsequent changes, rather than letting them become unintended consequences.

I think the whole biofuel movement is a good example of this. It starts with let's save the Earth, a very good first domino. Somewhere along the line it translated into a subsidy for corn and a diversion of a portion of our corn crop from the uses of feeding people and livestock to a use of making fuel. Are those dominoes still good?

If so, should the changing of use for corn have been stated as a goal?

I think the first question should be, do we really need to "try and advance any portion of our energy economy"? Or is this a response to political pressures?

We are producing more oil, and importing less, and the reserves will last for a long time. I have no problem with developing biofuels, but whay is corn selected instead of other sources. I think that choice was political.

I think some think it is a given that we must go to ethanol, and act according. Is it really a given. I did use the word "if" above.

One of the problems I have with the corn ethanol is the vast amount of water used, at a time when I see water as the critically short natural resource and getting scarcer.

I am not sure what is the bone you want to pick with me.

(04-14-2017 09:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 08:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 06:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 12:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-13-2017 06:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not at all. Sugar cane doesn't grow well in the Amazon. The soybeans used to make biodiesel are grown there but the sugar cane is grown elsewhere.

My understanding is that the amazon is being cleared for sugar cane plantations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8262381.stm
http://grist.org/article/2010-04-13-rais...thanol-mi/
http://www.earth-policy.org/mobile/books...d19bcd2ce7

Not the Amazon for sugar cane. The second linked article makes that pretty clear. The sugar cane belt is south of the Amazon basin, mostly on land that was already cleared for prior settlement and agricultural use. There is an argument about clearing forest land for more sugar cane, but so far it has mostly gone on land that was previously cleared a century or two ago. And a couple of the articles linked make it very clear that sugar cane ethanol is much greener than corn ethanol. They are clearing some of the Amazon to grow soybeans, which are the feed stock for their biodiesel, but so far that's a much smaller program.

It's not perfect. But that's an important distinction between Brasil's approach and ours. We keep rejecting incremental improvement because we have this (I think misplaced) expectation that some perfect solution is out there. We have very much let perfect become the enemy of good enough. If it's not solar or windmills (neither of which are perfect themselves), we don't want to do it. Brazil said it's not perfect, but it's better than what we have, so let's do it.

I think there is this great tendency in some quarters of the green movement to try to find fault with any incremental improvements that provide alternatives to the ultimate green agenda. They think it's fine to push us off oil onto--nothing. The fact that there might be something that might offer measurable improvement without destroying our economy as we know it is absolute anathema to them. They are all over closing down coal fired generation plants--which will be highly disruptive in the short run while lowering global temperatures something like one tenth of a degree by 2100--but are highly critical of other less disruptive changes that will have more impact on global warming. If the climate alarmists are right, and global warming really is going to destroy life as we know it, then we'd damned well better be doing everything we can to effect improvement with existing technology. But that's not their agenda, and that's what makes me skeptical about their entire approach.

We can significantly reduce our carbon footprint, with existing technology and without destroying our economy. But the green folks aren't pushing the things that could do that. Why not? Is it because their ultimate goal is not to save the planet but rather to destroy our economy, and green is just a tool to do it? I don't know, but judging from their conduct, that has to be in play as a possible reason.

Am I getting the gist of your argument right that the true fault of our relative lack of change in energy infrastructure lies with the progressives? Or you just highlighting that issue, how they often overlook incremental change?

Because on the other side of the coin, I see absolutely no significant movement to try and advance any portion of our energy economy.

I am not sure where you are trying to go with this, nor am I at all sure what you think I am saying. Like I said, I was late to the discussion and don't even know what the "sides' are.

yes, I do think progressives all too often don't look past the first domino. Not at all a progressive trait, but a human one, but the progressive are the ones pushing change, are they not? You don't need to look past the first domino if you are not tipping it. So when changing things, I think it is a good thing to anticipate subsequent changes, rather than letting them become unintended consequences.

I think the whole biofuel movement is a good example of this. It starts with let's save the Earth, a very good first domino. Somewhere along the line it translated into a subsidy for corn and a diversion of a portion of our corn crop from the uses of feeding people and livestock to a use of making fuel. Are those dominoes still good?

If so, should the changing of use for corn have been stated as a goal?

I think the first question should be, do we really need to "try and advance any portion of our energy economy"? Or is this a response to political pressures?

We are producing more oil, and importing less, and the reserves will last for a long time. I have no problem with developing biofuels, but whay is corn selected instead of other sources. I think that choice was political.

I think some think it is a given that we must go to ethanol, and act according. Is it really a given. I did use the word "if" above.

One of the problems I have with the corn ethanol is the vast amount of water used, at a time when I see water as the critically short natural resource and getting scarcer.

I am not sure what is the bone you want to pick with me.

OO - I can respond to your points later, but I was not commenting on what you said, I was responding to Owl# and his railing against the left and their supposed green agenda.

(04-14-2017 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 09:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 08:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 06:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 12:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My understanding is that the amazon is being cleared for sugar cane plantations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8262381.stm
http://grist.org/article/2010-04-13-rais...thanol-mi/
http://www.earth-policy.org/mobile/books...d19bcd2ce7

Not the Amazon for sugar cane. The second linked article makes that pretty clear. The sugar cane belt is south of the Amazon basin, mostly on land that was already cleared for prior settlement and agricultural use. There is an argument about clearing forest land for more sugar cane, but so far it has mostly gone on land that was previously cleared a century or two ago. And a couple of the articles linked make it very clear that sugar cane ethanol is much greener than corn ethanol. They are clearing some of the Amazon to grow soybeans, which are the feed stock for their biodiesel, but so far that's a much smaller program.

It's not perfect. But that's an important distinction between Brasil's approach and ours. We keep rejecting incremental improvement because we have this (I think misplaced) expectation that some perfect solution is out there. We have very much let perfect become the enemy of good enough. If it's not solar or windmills (neither of which are perfect themselves), we don't want to do it. Brazil said it's not perfect, but it's better than what we have, so let's do it.

I think there is this great tendency in some quarters of the green movement to try to find fault with any incremental improvements that provide alternatives to the ultimate green agenda. They think it's fine to push us off oil onto--nothing. The fact that there might be something that might offer measurable improvement without destroying our economy as we know it is absolute anathema to them. They are all over closing down coal fired generation plants--which will be highly disruptive in the short run while lowering global temperatures something like one tenth of a degree by 2100--but are highly critical of other less disruptive changes that will have more impact on global warming. If the climate alarmists are right, and global warming really is going to destroy life as we know it, then we'd damned well better be doing everything we can to effect improvement with existing technology. But that's not their agenda, and that's what makes me skeptical about their entire approach.

We can significantly reduce our carbon footprint, with existing technology and without destroying our economy. But the green folks aren't pushing the things that could do that. Why not? Is it because their ultimate goal is not to save the planet but rather to destroy our economy, and green is just a tool to do it? I don't know, but judging from their conduct, that has to be in play as a possible reason.

Am I getting the gist of your argument right that the true fault of our relative lack of change in energy infrastructure lies with the progressives? Or you just highlighting that issue, how they often overlook incremental change?

Because on the other side of the coin, I see absolutely no significant movement to try and advance any portion of our energy economy.

I am not sure where you are trying to go with this, nor am I at all sure what you think I am saying. Like I said, I was late to the discussion and don't even know what the "sides' are.

yes, I do think progressives all too often don't look past the first domino. Not at all a progressive trait, but a human one, but the progressive are the ones pushing change, are they not? You don't need to look past the first domino if you are not tipping it. So when changing things, I think it is a good thing to anticipate subsequent changes, rather than letting them become unintended consequences.

I think the whole biofuel movement is a good example of this. It starts with let's save the Earth, a very good first domino. Somewhere along the line it translated into a subsidy for corn and a diversion of a portion of our corn crop from the uses of feeding people and livestock to a use of making fuel. Are those dominoes still good?

If so, should the changing of use for corn have been stated as a goal?

I think the first question should be, do we really need to "try and advance any portion of our energy economy"? Or is this a response to political pressures?

We are producing more oil, and importing less, and the reserves will last for a long time. I have no problem with developing biofuels, but whay is corn selected instead of other sources. I think that choice was political.

I think some think it is a given that we must go to ethanol, and act according. Is it really a given. I did use the word "if" above.

One of the problems I have with the corn ethanol is the vast amount of water used, at a time when I see water as the critically short natural resource and getting scarcer.

I am not sure what is the bone you want to pick with me.

OO - I can respond to your points later, but I was not commenting on what you said, I was responding to Owl# and his railing against the left and their supposed green agenda.

OO was specific about 'some portions of the green movement', as opposed to painting with a broad-brushed progressive label.

That statement would be (imo) accurate, much like saying 'some portions of the NRA want full legality for fully automatic weapons' -- an accurate assessment but inaccurate if confused with NRA as a whole or conservatives as a whole.

(04-14-2017 09:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 09:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 08:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 06:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not the Amazon for sugar cane. The second linked article makes that pretty clear. The sugar cane belt is south of the Amazon basin, mostly on land that was already cleared for prior settlement and agricultural use. There is an argument about clearing forest land for more sugar cane, but so far it has mostly gone on land that was previously cleared a century or two ago. And a couple of the articles linked make it very clear that sugar cane ethanol is much greener than corn ethanol. They are clearing some of the Amazon to grow soybeans, which are the feed stock for their biodiesel, but so far that's a much smaller program.

It's not perfect. But that's an important distinction between Brasil's approach and ours. We keep rejecting incremental improvement because we have this (I think misplaced) expectation that some perfect solution is out there. We have very much let perfect become the enemy of good enough. If it's not solar or windmills (neither of which are perfect themselves), we don't want to do it. Brazil said it's not perfect, but it's better than what we have, so let's do it.

I think there is this great tendency in some quarters of the green movement to try to find fault with any incremental improvements that provide alternatives to the ultimate green agenda. They think it's fine to push us off oil onto--nothing. The fact that there might be something that might offer measurable improvement without destroying our economy as we know it is absolute anathema to them. They are all over closing down coal fired generation plants--which will be highly disruptive in the short run while lowering global temperatures something like one tenth of a degree by 2100--but are highly critical of other less disruptive changes that will have more impact on global warming. If the climate alarmists are right, and global warming really is going to destroy life as we know it, then we'd damned well better be doing everything we can to effect improvement with existing technology. But that's not their agenda, and that's what makes me skeptical about their entire approach.

We can significantly reduce our carbon footprint, with existing technology and without destroying our economy. But the green folks aren't pushing the things that could do that. Why not? Is it because their ultimate goal is not to save the planet but rather to destroy our economy, and green is just a tool to do it? I don't know, but judging from their conduct, that has to be in play as a possible reason.

Am I getting the gist of your argument right that the true fault of our relative lack of change in energy infrastructure lies with the progressives? Or you just highlighting that issue, how they often overlook incremental change?

Because on the other side of the coin, I see absolutely no significant movement to try and advance any portion of our energy economy.

I am not sure where you are trying to go with this, nor am I at all sure what you think I am saying. Like I said, I was late to the discussion and don't even know what the "sides' are.

yes, I do think progressives all too often don't look past the first domino. Not at all a progressive trait, but a human one, but the progressive are the ones pushing change, are they not? You don't need to look past the first domino if you are not tipping it. So when changing things, I think it is a good thing to anticipate subsequent changes, rather than letting them become unintended consequences.

I think the whole biofuel movement is a good example of this. It starts with let's save the Earth, a very good first domino. Somewhere along the line it translated into a subsidy for corn and a diversion of a portion of our corn crop from the uses of feeding people and livestock to a use of making fuel. Are those dominoes still good?

If so, should the changing of use for corn have been stated as a goal?

I think the first question should be, do we really need to "try and advance any portion of our energy economy"? Or is this a response to political pressures?

We are producing more oil, and importing less, and the reserves will last for a long time. I have no problem with developing biofuels, but whay is corn selected instead of other sources. I think that choice was political.

I think some think it is a given that we must go to ethanol, and act according. Is it really a given. I did use the word "if" above.

One of the problems I have with the corn ethanol is the vast amount of water used, at a time when I see water as the critically short natural resource and getting scarcer.

I am not sure what is the bone you want to pick with me.

OO - I can respond to your points later, but I was not commenting on what you said, I was responding to Owl# and his railing against the left and their supposed green agenda.

OO was specific about 'some portions of the green movement', as opposed to painting with a broad-brushed progressive label.

That statement would be (imo) accurate, much like saying 'some portions of the NRA want full legality for fully automatic weapons' -- an accurate assessment but inaccurate if confused with NRA as a whole or conservatives as a whole.

It was Owl#s argument, and that was what I was trying to get clarification on.

Because at some point he specified certain portions of "the green movement" and at others it appeared to be the entire movement.

Quote: "We can significantly reduce our carbon footprint, with existing technology and without destroying our economy. But the green folks aren't pushing the things that could do that."

But I do think that, regardless of if this was painting an entire movement or just a portion of the movement with this label, I'm trying to figure out where he finds the fault for the lack of movement as a country. I don't think anyone can argue that we are quickly falling behind the curve in terms of alternative energy development, be that in wind, solar, biofuels, etc., and why haven't we?

And I wonder where he thinks the majority of blame lies - on those that push for what appears at the time to be an unrealistic goal, or those that don't appear to want to move the needle (if we are picking the polar ends of the spectrum).

My point is very simple. There are things that we can be doing today, here and now with today's technology, that can substantially reduce our carbon footprint. But what we get from the left, if it's not wind or solar, is all sorts of complaints. If this is really the problem it is alleged to be, then why aren't we doing those things that we can do today? And yes, there's opposition from the right to some of them too. But what I don't understand is why there is opposition from the green movement, and there is plenty of that being voiced to a number of good ideas. They constantly play up the negatives of any approach other than their favored wind and solar. Like, for example, the idea that sugar cane is deforesting the Amazon. It's not. And there are plenty of other depressed economies in Latin America and West Africa that could benefit from a sugar cane industry. Look at Cuba. Developing that could reduce the attractiveness of drugs as a cash crop in the region, and provide jobs that would ease immigration pressures.

Let's not let perfect be the number one enemy of good enough. Let's be realistic, we don't have an option that is without fault. So let's take the least objectionable, until something better comes along.

(04-14-2017 08:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Am I getting the gist of your argument right that the true fault of our relative lack of change in energy infrastructure lies with the progressives? Or you just highlighting that issue, how they often overlook incremental change?
Because on the other side of the coin, I see absolutely no significant movement to try and advance any portion of our energy economy.

I'm saying two things. And no, I'm not saying that the failure lies totally with the progressives.

But one, I am saying that their failure to embrace incremental change is a large part of the problem. I think we could get both sides to come together on a number of incremental changes that would make significant long-term impacts without catastrophic short-term problems. But that doesn't seem to be the green left's agenda. They seem determined to do purely ideological things, even those that have minimal to even zero impact, rather than embrace what can be done here and now. And as long as both sides have the my way or the highway approach, nothing gets done.

That's my first point. My second is that this causes me to suspect their motives. If saving the planet from a catastrophic fate were really their objective, why wouldn't they embrace wholeheartedly what can be done here and now? Why do they push, for example, closing down all coal-fired electric plants--which will have some pretty negative short-term effects while having minimal effect on global temperatures long-term--when there are other options with less short-term disruption and greater long-term impact? Without a satisfactory answer there, then what is really going on here? I think, very seriously, that there are a lot of socialist/communist ideologues who loathe the success that our capitalist economy has achieved and want to destroy that any way they can, and the green agenda is a handy tool in that effort. I would like to believe an alternative explanation, but I'm having a hard time finding one that squares with the facts.

(04-14-2017 10:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My point is very simple. There are things that we can be doing today, here and now with today's technology, that can substantially reduce our carbon footprint. But what we get from the left, if it's not wind or solar, is all sorts of complaints. If this is really the problem it is alleged to be, then why aren't we doing those things that we can do today? And yes, there's opposition from the right to some of them too. But what I don't understand is why there is opposition from the green movement, and there is plenty of that being voiced to a number of good ideas. They constantly play up the negatives of any approach other than their favored wind and solar. Like, for example, the idea that sugar cane is deforesting the Amazon. It's not. And there are plenty of other depressed economies in Latin America and West Africa that could benefit from a sugar cane industry. Look at Cuba. Developing that could reduce the attractiveness of drugs as a cash crop in the region, and provide jobs that would ease immigration pressures.

Let's not let perfect be the number one enemy of good enough. Let's be realistic, we don't have an option that is without fault. So let's take the least objectionable, until something better comes along.

I completely agree with this - but I don't think the portion of the green movement that is anti-fossil fuels in all shapes or forms is the leading cause of stagnation. Sure it may cause some issues that are real (like not building some necessary pipelines), but I think the real problem is the polarization of the sides on climate change.

The polarization helped reduce any argument for alternative energy to an argument for/against climate change, which means one side, politically, can't support any government efforts to address them. For example, we have a current Administration that wants to pull back regulations on car efficiency, which are helping to drive the industry to produce cars that either run on alternative energies or at least use less fuel.

I don't see a significant push from the right to try and start using more nuclear energy. I don't see a significant push on the right to try and move away from less sustainable biofuels, to more sustainable ones. The only significant push I see from the right is to use our existing energy forms as is, and not really work towards developing new forms of energy.

If I'm painting with too broad of a brush there, let me know and send me some information on conservative plans that have support that I may not be aware of.

(04-14-2017 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I wonder where he thinks the majority of blame lies - on those that push for what appears at the time to be an unrealistic goal, or those that don't appear to want to move the needle (if we are picking the polar ends of the spectrum).

Not speaking for anyone else but myself here -- I believe that the opposition to alternatives lies in 2 strata, and each strata has a modicum of truth behind it (not fully justified, but not fully unjustified either.)

First, from 'at least more than some in the green movement', there is a push to reduce the footprint irrespective of the economic (sometimes practical) viability of the alternative.

The fundamental equation for energy densities and efficiencies lay heavily on the side of hydrocarbons. Think about it --- even 25 years into the effort even solar has *just barely* crept into grid parity (and only in limited circumstances).

So from a pragmatic viewpoint, the choice being 'offered' is one of less efficient energy production at anywhere from even economics (not always the case) to highly disadvantageous economics. I find it small wonder given this that there isn't more opposition. For those in this camp, if you make it *as economic* (or even somewhere near it), they are non-discerning consumers.

The second camp is of the "keep the government as far away from my private decisions as possible'. Again, many of "green movement' have a deep hue and call for not necessarily increasing the benefits to the end consumer as they many times have an immediate call for the 'government to highly regulate private buying behavior'. Instead of moving down the road to making solutions an economic choice, many in the green movement seemingly love the mandates like California's the *requires* a utility to provide x% of the power from renewables.

If there was a road of incentivization and using the power of economics to change the supply and usage, I don't think you would have that intransigence. But when the call is for 'government mandates' to force uneconomic choices down a throat, then the government is essentially fighting the economics curve with coercive tactics.

I doubt very seriously that there are people who are 'anti-alternatives' just because they "don't want to move the needle." The problem most of the "intransigent reactionaries" I would suspect lies in the tactics the other side has employed for the fight, imo.

Just offering up a viewpoint, of course.

(04-14-2017 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The polarization helped reduce any argument for alternative energy to an argument for/against climate change, which means one side, politically, can't support any government efforts to address them. For example, we have a current Administration that wants to pull back regulations on car efficiency, which are helping to drive the industry to produce cars that either run on alternative energies or at least use less fuel.

I don't see a significant push from the right to try and start using more nuclear energy. I don't see a significant push on the right to try and move away from less sustainable biofuels, to more sustainable ones. The only significant push I see from the right is to use our existing energy forms as is, and not really work towards developing new forms of energy.

If I'm painting with too broad of a brush there, let me know and send me some information on conservative plans that have support that I may not be aware of.

You are painting one side of the tableaux, in my opinion. From across the divide, it would appear that there is another side that also cannot *not* politically support Government efforts to address them.

Apologies for the double negative, but it tends to highlight the point I'm trying to make. I mean, do you really think Bernistas or the Warrenistas really care about the economic or governmental coercion issues?

That political bottleneck exists on *both* sides of the table, imo.

(04-14-2017 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I completely agree with this - but I don't think the portion of the green movement that is anti-fossil fuels in all shapes or forms is the leading cause of stagnation. Sure it may cause some issues that are real (like not building some necessary pipelines), but I think the real problem is the polarization of the sides on climate change.
The polarization helped reduce any argument for alternative energy to an argument for/against climate change, which means one side, politically, can't support any government efforts to address them.

But this is exactly where I blame the green left. They constantly try to reduce any argument about best approach to one about climate change. Don't want to shut down all coal plants? Must be a climate change denier. And so forth. Unless you want to do it exactly my way, you must be anti-science. Well, when you look at energy demand versus energy supply statistics, if you buy into the green left agenda you must be anti-math, because the numbers simply don't work.

The green left seems to want everyone to jump through every hoop from the earth is warming now, to it's man's fault, to the hockey stick, to the destruction of life as we know it, and therefore we have to do everything on the green agenda, and do it today, without any consideration of the costs or benefits of any actions. And many of the actions that they insist on doing immediately have short-term costs that very likely outweigh their long-term benefits. Is it worth the economic disruption caused by closing down all coal plants to achieve a 0.1 degree reduction in global temperatures by 2100? I think that's a very legitimate question that has not been addressed.

Any attempt to try to discuss alternatives from a cost-benefit standpoint, and come up with the approaches that give the most bang for the buck, are met with, "Why are you a climate change denier?" That's a recipe for certain polarization.

So I'm not saying that the right has no responsibility for inaction on this issue. But I am saying the left has to share that responsibility, and probably just about equally.

(04-14-2017 09:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 08:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 06:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-14-2017 12:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-13-2017 06:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not at all. Sugar cane doesn't grow well in the Amazon. The soybeans used to make biodiesel are grown there but the sugar cane is grown elsewhere.

My understanding is that the amazon is being cleared for sugar cane plantations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8262381.stm
http://grist.org/article/2010-04-13-rais...thanol-mi/
http://www.earth-policy.org/mobile/books...d19bcd2ce7

Not the Amazon for sugar cane. The second linked article makes that pretty clear. The sugar cane belt is south of the Amazon basin, mostly on land that was already cleared for prior settlement and agricultural use. There is an argument about clearing forest land for more sugar cane, but so far it has mostly gone on land that was previously cleared a century or two ago. And a couple of the articles linked make it very clear that sugar cane ethanol is much greener than corn ethanol. They are clearing some of the Amazon to grow soybeans, which are the feed stock for their biodiesel, but so far that's a much smaller program.

It's not perfect. But that's an important distinction between Brasil's approach and ours. We keep rejecting incremental improvement because we have this (I think misplaced) expectation that some perfect solution is out there. We have very much let perfect become the enemy of good enough. If it's not solar or windmills (neither of which are perfect themselves), we don't want to do it. Brazil said it's not perfect, but it's better than what we have, so let's do it.

I think there is this great tendency in some quarters of the green movement to try to find fault with any incremental improvements that provide alternatives to the ultimate green agenda. They think it's fine to push us off oil onto--nothing. The fact that there might be something that might offer measurable improvement without destroying our economy as we know it is absolute anathema to them. They are all over closing down coal fired generation plants--which will be highly disruptive in the short run while lowering global temperatures something like one tenth of a degree by 2100--but are highly critical of other less disruptive changes that will have more impact on global warming. If the climate alarmists are right, and global warming really is going to destroy life as we know it, then we'd damned well better be doing everything we can to effect improvement with existing technology. But that's not their agenda, and that's what makes me skeptical about their entire approach.

We can significantly reduce our carbon footprint, with existing technology and without destroying our economy. But the green folks aren't pushing the things that could do that. Why not? Is it because their ultimate goal is not to save the planet but rather to destroy our economy, and green is just a tool to do it? I don't know, but judging from their conduct, that has to be in play as a possible reason.

Am I getting the gist of your argument right that the true fault of our relative lack of change in energy infrastructure lies with the progressives? Or you just highlighting that issue, how they often overlook incremental change?

Because on the other side of the coin, I see absolutely no significant movement to try and advance any portion of our energy economy.

I am not sure where you are trying to go with this, nor am I at all sure what you think I am saying. Like I said, I was late to the discussion and don't even know what the "sides' are.

yes, I do think progressives all too often don't look past the first domino. Not at all a progressive trait, but a human one, but the progressive are the ones pushing change, are they not? You don't need to look past the first domino if you are not tipping it. So when changing things, I think it is a good thing to anticipate subsequent changes, rather than letting them become unintended consequences.

I think the whole biofuel movement is a good example of this. It starts with let's save the Earth, a very good first domino. Somewhere along the line it translated into a subsidy for corn and a diversion of a portion of our corn crop from the uses of feeding people and livestock to a use of making fuel. Are those dominoes still good?

If so, should the changing of use for corn have been stated as a goal?

I think the first question should be, do we really need to "try and advance any portion of our energy economy"? Or is this a response to political pressures?

We are producing more oil, and importing less, and the reserves will last for a long time. I have no problem with developing biofuels, but whay is corn selected instead of other sources. I think that choice was political.

I think some think it is a given that we must go to ethanol, and act according. Is it really a given. I did use the word "if" above.

One of the problems I have with the corn ethanol is the vast amount of water used, at a time when I see water as the critically short natural resource and getting scarcer.

I am not sure what is the bone you want to pick with me.

I understand Butyl Alcohol has an energy equivalence of gasoline. But the production through fermentation of cellulose based materials has hit a brick wall with the microbes. Supposedly the Aggies were working on biomodified microbes, but I have t heard of any success. But the econonomics aren't there at $55 oil

Bonkers interview transcript from the AP from a recent Trump interview: https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83

It's a bit more startling than some others I've read - the word salad seems to be getting worse, and the often basic misunderstanding or intentional neglecting of facts continues to be worrisome.

(04-24-2017 07:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Bonkers interview transcript from the AP from a recent Trump interview: https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83

It's a bit more startling than some others I've read - the word salad seems to be getting worse, and the often basic misunderstanding or intentional neglecting of facts continues to be worrisome.

"if I do a super-duper, higher, better, better security, everything else..." Is it too much to expect him to speak like a grown up, not an eight year old?

So bizarre that he's stilll talking about his "great victory" - though not as strange as his obsession with CNN's and Arnold Schwarzenegger's ratings....

More substantively, I'm surprised his near endorsement of Le Pen - who is pro-Putin, wants to pull out of NATO and the EU, not to mention the party's history of racism and antisemitism -hasn't gotten more coverage.

(04-24-2017 07:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Bonkers interview transcript from the AP from a recent Trump interview: https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83

It's a bit more startling than some others I've read - the word salad seems to be getting worse, and the often basic misunderstanding or intentional neglecting of facts continues to be worrisome.

Also:

"You know, back when they did NATO there was no such thing as terrorism."

Really wish the interviewer has followed up on that.

(04-24-2017 03:26 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 07:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Bonkers interview transcript from the AP from a recent Trump interview: https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83

It's a bit more startling than some others I've read - the word salad seems to be getting worse, and the often basic misunderstanding or intentional neglecting of facts continues to be worrisome.

Also:

"You know, back when they did NATO there was no such thing as terrorism."

Really wish the interviewer has followed up on that.

I wish the interviewer followed up on almost every question, because most of the answers are fricken gibberish or nonsense.

Quote:AP: On Iran, which is another thing you talked a lot on the campaign —

TRUMP: And the other thing that we should go after is the leakers. ...

AP: On Iran, you also talked about it quite a bit on the campaign trail. And you said in the press conference yesterday that you think that Iran is violating the spirit of the agreement. When you say that, do you mean in terms of the actual nuclear accord, or do you mean what they are doing in the region?

TRUMP: In terms of what they are doing all over the Middle East and beyond.

AP: So you believe that they are complying with the agreement?

TRUMP: No, I don't say that. I say that I believe they have broken the spirit of the agreement. There is a spirit to agreements, and they have broken it.

AP: In terms of what they are doing elsewhere in the Middle East?

TRUMP: In terms of what they are doing of all over.

Quote:AP: Should Americans who are serving in the military expect that you are going to increase troop numbers in the Middle East to fight ISIS?

TRUMP: No, not much.

AP: In terms of the strategy, though, that you have accepted, it sounds like, from the generals —

TRUMP: Well, they've also accepted my strategy.

AP: Does that involve more troops on the ground, it sounds like?

TRUMP: Not many.

AP: So a small increase?

TRUMP: It could be an increase, then an increase. But not many more. I want to do the job, but not many more. ... This is an important story. I've done a lot. I've done more than any other president in the first 100 days and I think the first 100 days is an artificial barrier. And I'm scheduled ... the foundations have been set to do some great things. With foreign countries. Look at, look at President Xi. I mean ...

I think we need to make a formal application, which every citizen can read, a requirement for running for President. And when a candidate fills it out, they have to do it by themselves with no assistance...

Quote:President Donald Trump on Thursday reflected on his first 100 days in office with a wistful look at his life before the White House.

"I loved my previous life. I had so many things going," Trump told Reuters in an interview. "This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier."

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN17U0CA

(04-28-2017 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think we need to make a formal application, which every citizen can read, a requirement for running for President. And when a candidate fills it out, they have to do it by themselves with no assistance...

Quote:President Donald Trump on Thursday reflected on his first 100 days in office with a wistful look at his life before the White House.

"I loved my previous life. I had so many things going," Trump told Reuters in an interview. "This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier."

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN17U0CA

Curious about what you think some of the questions should be, and which ones would have tripped Trump up.

Possibilities:
1. Do you think this is an easy job? (yes answer disqualifies)
2. Do you know any Russians, or anybody from another country? (yes answer disqualifies)
3. Do you speak with the gravitas of an erudite person? ( if you have to ask what this means, you are disqualified)

We have a verbal application now, called the primary system. Should we do away with that?

I sincerely hope you were just popping off and not serious.

Some posters have stated voters should have to pass the test that new citizens are required to.
Maybe we should require that of candidates.

(04-28-2017 08:18 AM)JSA Wrote:  Some posters have stated voters should have to pass the test that new citizens are required to.
Maybe we should require that of candidates.

Or both. Although if a basic knowledge of how our government works was required to vote, and candidates were required to be voters, that should cover both.

(04-28-2017 08:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 08:18 AM)JSA Wrote:  Some posters have stated voters should have to pass the test that new citizens are required to.
Maybe we should require that of candidates.

Or both. Although if a basic knowledge of how our government works was required to vote, and candidates were required to be voters, that should cover both.

Lolz. Funny how the concept of poll tax quizzes is shunned, then, if it comes to candidates, it isnt.

I kind of agree that we already have a hugely informal vetting process --- essentially a year long 'doctoral orals examination' through the primaries and debates that are inherent.

Am I surprised that Trump is largely ignorant of political processes that are typical subjects in civics classes --- god no. The orals told me that in a drastically short time. One had to be largely ignorant to overlook that, or not to realize that.

But the same 'orals' process revealed another candidate who largely seemed to be unable to tell a truth about anything, and had the same combination of 'power' issues, paranoia issues, and 'breaking the law' issues that Nixon seemed be the sole resident of in presidential politics.

I think the primary process did a wonderful job of baring open each candidate's very serious and very major flaws.