Here, I’ll even make it easy for you if you don’t want to believe me, but I did straight up copy and paste:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
The average American puts out 3-4 times as pollution as the average Chinese person. So those 38 million in California are more like up to 152 million (using 4x) Chinese. Almost 300 million Indians (1/3 of the Indian pop.)
You have to keep in mind the global footprint, not just sheer amount of people so it did have an impact. Most of the world’s population is more like China in their global footprint than American. So regulating the most industrialized nations despite their lower populations makes perfect sense. Even in total amount of pollution, the less populated industrialized nations put out far more pollution than other more populated nations like India. The average American puts out about 8x more pollution than the average Indian.
And I don’t know particulars, but some of those incentives I’m sure led to local and regional positive environmental impacts like some of the massive smog problems in Southern California.
I’m not familiar with Californian politics or economics, but to say that regulating 38 million Americans and the industries in that state is a moot point just doesn’t make sense. [/quote]
You are equating energy use and pollution which are definitely not the same and therefore your argument would be invalid if it flowed from your (false) premises which it does not.
Yay![/quote]
FAIL
Read the link carefully next time.
The total ecological footprint (global hectares affected by humans) is measured as a total of six factors: cropland footprint, grazing footprint, forest footprint, fishing ground footprint, carbon footprint and built-up land.
[/quote]
Oh well, then I make it even easier for you, compared to Europe, or China or India the US is seriously underpopulated.
Yay!
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Here, I’ll even make it easy for you if you don’t want to believe me, but I did straight up copy and paste:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint_(2007).svg[/quote]
It has colors!
I like colors!
Yay!
Fitting that it is all in red too, given that the nature of the argument.
I also deeply amazed that some people know how much ha are needed to replace resources per person and that they know in advance how that is going to change in the future BUT I know the conclusions people will draw from this:
We must eat less meat, stop driving cars and be happy to live a simpler, happier life while caring for those poor, poor nations that have an itsy bitsy tiny ecological footprint and therefore have ec-envy.
Because I know what it looks like when someone gets his inner Savonarola on.
I say we go for an ecological footprint of over 9000 and live like kings, but force such authors to live in straw huts, on anything they can grow with their bare hands and tools they gnawed out of wood they grew themselves.
I give up on you. I’ll just let your ignorance, presumptuousness, and snarkiness in your posts stand for itself for all to see.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I give up on you. I’ll just let your ignorance, presumptuousness, and snarkiness in your posts stand for itself for all to see.[/quote]
Yeah do that.
Its way better that unfounded conjecture, and is this site not about striving to be better tomorrow than you were today?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I give up on you. I’ll just let your ignorance, presumptuousness, and snarkiness in your posts stand for itself for all to see.[/quote]
Yeah do that.
Its way better that unfounded conjecture, and is this site not about striving to be better tomorrow than you were today?
[/quote]
Hypocrite.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I give up on you. I’ll just let your ignorance, presumptuousness, and snarkiness in your posts stand for itself for all to see.[/quote]
Yeah do that.
Its way better that unfounded conjecture, and is this site not about striving to be better tomorrow than you were today?
[/quote]
Hypocrite.[/quote]
No.
I am a lot of things but that I am not.
In fact I DO know when someone gets his Savonarola on and this whole GW, limited resources shtick has all the markings of a millennial movement.
If you doubt that this is a very real phenomenon I suggest some research.
Its like clockwork, the world is going to end, the details vary.
As to my critique, you dont know what you dont know.
That sounds simple, but its not.
You do not know what energy sources we will have, you do not know how much we will be able to produce per acre, you cannot possibly know.
What these people in these studies are engaging in is the pretension of knowledge, the precise subspecies is projecting the present into the future and predicting disaster which would have been right since Malthus AND NEVER EVER HAPPENED.
So, they can cry wolf all day long, and someday I might even spot a wolf, but, on balance, they are probably full of it.
Thanks for being respectful this time. I really mean that. But as far as research is concerned, I’ve done a lot. I have two degrees worth of research on environmental concerns.
I also think you’re making good points in the ‘culturally fat’ thread.
I recognize I have a lot more to learn and I know that will will always be the case. I understand that a lot of estimates and predictions have their flaws, but I also believe in the precautionary principle. And I also believe that the Malthusas predictions have never come into fruition because of people who foresaw what would happen if people continued their current courses and then these people with their negative perceptions took measures to prevent them and encouraged others to do so. It’s these warnings and predictions of possible negative futures that helps prevent them in my opinion.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Thanks for being respectful this time. I really mean that. But as far as research is concerned, I’ve done a lot. I have two degrees worth of research on environmental concerns.
I also think you’re making good points in the ‘culturally fat’ thread.
I recognize I have a lot more to learn and I know that will will always be the case. I understand that a lot of estimates and predictions have their flaws, but I also believe in the precautionary principle. And I also believe that the Malthusas predictions have never come into fruition because of people who foresaw what would happen if people continued their current courses and then these people with their negative perceptions took measures to prevent them and encouraged others to do so. It’s these warnings and predictions of possible negative futures that helps prevent them in my opinion. [/quote]
If you look at Hajeks 1974 economics Nobel prize acceptance speech you will know what is meant with the “pretension of knowledge”.
What he meant in short was that everyone that wants to plan societies pretends to have knowledge that he literally can not have.
Not might not, or should not, can not have.
Your assertion that people listened to Malthus and prevented the disaster that he predicted lacks evidence.
Most people who understood his point were more inclined to write philosophical treatises on the end times than to implement practical solutions.
As it happened, food got more expensive, Justus von Liebig invented the fertilizer and agriculture became mechanized.
That was not the result of a concerted and enlightened push, it was more like, “oh, food becomes expensive? There is bound to be some profit somewhere in there…”.
Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, hundreds of people who follow approach number two will almost always outperform approach number one.
I’ll definitely look at Hajek’s Nobel prize acceptance speech. Sounds interesting and perhaps even enlightening.
I probably stepped outside my bounds of knowledge with the Malthus part. I’m more familiar with the technical and scientific aspects of the natural environment and how people interact with it than the philosophical and historical aspect, however, I’ve been working on that on by the studying the philosophy and history of science.
But even with your Liebig example, there was an issue related to the relation between man and the natural environment that was expressed economically and only after it was recognized as an economical problem was there something done to fix it.
Are you sure that we will always have the luxury to wait for environmental issues to become an economic problem before irreparable damage is incurred? Especially considering how some processes involve internal feedback loops?
This thread is looking really smart, I will move elsewhere.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I’ll definitely look at Hajek’s Nobel prize acceptance speech. Sounds interesting and perhaps even enlightening.
I probably stepped outside my bounds of knowledge with the Malthus part. I’m more familiar with the technical and scientific aspects of the natural environment and how people interact with it than the philosophical and historical aspect, however, I’ve been working on that on by the studying the philosophy and history of science.
But even with your Liebig example, there was an issue related to the relation between man and the natural environment that was expressed economically and only after it was recognized as an economical problem was there something done to fix it.
Are you sure that we will always have the luxury to wait for environmental issues to become an economic problem before irreparable damage is incurred? Especially considering how some processes involve internal feedback loops?
[/quote]
I think that the question you pose is wrong.
What I think that we necessarily stumble from a more energy dense energy source to another and there is civilization for you.
At this point we have no choice.
This whole repent, turn back and whatnot stuff will not work.
We are like a sprinter, we either run as fast as we can or we fall, and falling might well mean a few hundred million , if not a few billion, people dead.
You better hope that all our energy expense buys us a new and better energy source because otherwise we will play “Trip to Jerusalem” in real life, with guns.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
This thread is looking really smart, I will move elsewhere.[/quote]
Hayek.
It it is one of the few known antidotes to socialism.
Dont fight it, here is the link:
And yes, the gold is in the last paragraph and if that is all you have read you have let yourself down.
If you have read nothing at all, look, a butterfly!
I don’t just feel it’s a need for energy (although it is important). It’s a need for cleaner energy. I think we already have the technology, but the problem is public perception. NIMBY. With all the bad press nuclear energy has had, it’s difficult to develop it in the US. Keep in mind that the incident in Japan was with a reactor using 70’s technology and I felt there weren’t enough systems of redudancy even for the level of technology present.
The biggest disadvantage to nuclear energy I see is the possibility of uranium, depleted or enriched, being stolen and used for nefarious purposes.
I’d like to say cold fusion reactors would be the future, but I can only hope that some nuclear physicists and engineers will pop up on this thread for that one since I actually know very little about it.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
This thread is looking really smart, I will move elsewhere.[/quote]
Hayek.
It it is one of the few known antidotes to socialism.
Dont fight it, here is the link:
And yes, the gold is in the last paragraph and if that is all you have read you have let yourself down.
If you have read nothing at all, look, a butterfly!
[/quote]
Another wise man put it this way…
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: [RE: What they found on Miranda] This record here’s about twelve years old. Parliament buried it and it stayed buried until River here dug it up. This is what they were afraid she knew. And they were right to fear. There’s a universe of folk who’re gonna know it, too. Someone has to speak for these people.
[pause]
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Y’all got on this boat for different reasons, but y’all come to the same place. So now I’m asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin’. I aim to misbehave.
Hey thirdRUFFIAN, please help me understand my ignorance on this particular point.
In Mammoth Lakes, ca in Oct of 2008 just as the financial crisis was beginning the cost of a gallon of REGULAR
unleaded was $4.85 per gallon while a barrel of crude was nearing $150.00
NOW today we have a gallon of Regular at $4.65 a gallon and crude is only $85.00 a barrel.
How or why do we have such a discrepancy in the costs. Would it not be logical that gas then should be
about $3.00 a gallon with crude at $85.00 a barrel ? ? ?
This by the way is the most intelligent thread going recently, thanks to all for the lack of name calling : )
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Hey thirdRUFFIAN, please help me understand my ignorance on this particular point.
In Mammoth Lakes, ca in Oct of 2008 just as the financial crisis was beginning the cost of a gallon of REGULAR
unleaded was $4.85 per gallon while a barrel of crude was nearing $150.00
NOW today we have a gallon of Regular at $4.65 a gallon and crude is only $85.00 a barrel.
How or why do we have such a discrepancy in the costs. Would it not be logical that gas then should be
about $3.00 a gallon with crude at $85.00 a barrel ? ? ?
This by the way is the most intelligent thread going recently, thanks to all for the lack of name calling : )[/quote]
I am not he, but I would guess that the problem lies with your state and their taxes on fuel. Where I live (Tennessee) the cost per gallon of gas is $3.12 as of today. Of course it should be noted that the price always rockets up, but floats down with changes in crude prices.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yeah, I heard about this. The Green River formation in Colorado alone has the largest shale oil deposits in the world. However the goal of the EPA and the Obama administration is to shutdown domestic production and raise the price of oil. They have actually stated this publically - Obama, Steven Chu etc.[/quote]
Seriously, fuck the EPA. They’re the reason why more people don’t have jobs.
CS[/quote]
lol, you’d rather we just have awesome air quality like China?
We need to control on this type of stuff, sure the EPA isn’t the best but its better then not having it at all. Even China is having programs to limit the amount of pollution, air quality in major city’s is atrocious there.[/quote]
Listen to me very carefully…
If you don’t have China or India on board with some kind of Global Warming law, there is no point.
We here in California passed our own statewide Global Warming act, passed by Schwarzen-failure, a guy who drove Hummers and flew private jets, only to have our state lose jobs by the droves.
This place has become a wasteland, due to taxation, regulation, massive overspend, and mismanagement of funds.
7 Billion people on the planet, California has 38 million, and these tree-hugging hippies think that we will make a dent in that.
[/quote]
Cali’s laws have long arms . Look at the trucking industry
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yeah, I heard about this. The Green River formation in Colorado alone has the largest shale oil deposits in the world. However the goal of the EPA and the Obama administration is to shutdown domestic production and raise the price of oil. They have actually stated this publically - Obama, Steven Chu etc.[/quote]
Seriously, fuck the EPA. They’re the reason why more people don’t have jobs.
CS[/quote]
The problem is the Retail outlets have figured out we will pay what ever they ask and as long the the Gov. says nothing they will do it
lol, you’d rather we just have awesome air quality like China?
We need to control on this type of stuff, sure the EPA isn’t the best but its better then not having it at all. Even China is having programs to limit the amount of pollution, air quality in major city’s is atrocious there.[/quote]
Listen to me very carefully…
If you don’t have China or India on board with some kind of Global Warming law, there is no point.
We here in California passed our own statewide Global Warming act, passed by Schwarzen-failure, a guy who drove Hummers and flew private jets, only to have our state lose jobs by the droves.
This place has become a wasteland, due to taxation, regulation, massive overspend, and mismanagement of funds.
7 Billion people on the planet, California has 38 million, and these tree-hugging hippies think that we will make a dent in that.
[/quote]
Cali’s laws have long arms . Look at the trucking industry
[/quote]
The biggest disadvantage to nuclear energy I see is the possibility of uranium, depleted or enriched, being stolen and used for nefarious purposes.
The real problem has been unions. U.S. reactors have a proud history of going way over budget to build and run. prior to the earthquakes in Japan the only nuclear power related deaths in the western world (not including the U.S.S.R because their numbers were mostly covered up and the government had little regard for its people) were 3 workers at a Japanese waste reprocessing facility (the U.S. does not currently reprocess nuclear waste), even with the full meltdown of the 3 mile island reactor (Japan has always had a poor nuclear safety record). The huge investment in the 3 mile island reactor with very little return has had a much greater impact than any safety concerns.
Stealing fissile materiel is all but a non-issue. The materials used in reactors are not weapons grade. They are also well secured and very difficult to handle, making their use in a radiological “dirty” bomb unlikely. Reactors and enrichment facilities can easily disguise nuclear weapon making, but it would be irrelevant in a country that already has nuclear or thermonuclear weapons, such as the U.S.