Recommended Posts
True. But nobody arvued that we should subsidize the automobile industry because of some policy that made the hay industry and all that worked or supported it somehow evil or without a voice. I take it that the end of hay was a downside for your great gramps. It was his way of life and his living that was vanishing through his very eyes. Now imagine if it is the government that said, "your business is not wanted. We will put you out of business in favor of Standard Oil." Imagine that your father believed that Rockefeller used his influence to get government to destroy his livelihood.
You asked "where is the downside?" That's the problem - there are hundreds of thousands of people who rely on petrochemical for their livelihoods. Ask them, "where's the downside?" They'll tell you. And their concerns are real and legitimate. But it's like they are just flippantly put aside as unworthy of actual consideration.
I think that by not just brushing aside the concerns of people who DO face a pretty big downside, there can be progress. There is no such thing as "best for everybody." The downsides are there.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
If market forces destroy an industry (like whale oil or punch cards) then I have no problem. If the government stamps out an industry (I.e. Nuclear power) then I have a problem - especially when it is done on the basis of a rhetorical panic. Like nuclear power.
Nuclear power is a perfect example of short-sighted rhetoric. Fearmongering policy. That is now being questioned.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Stumpy 256
lawrocketI'm glad to see some recognition that deniers aren't so much "anti-science" as having legitimate questions about the evidence/conclusions. It's actually an important step in dispute resolution - a recognition of legitimacy and that reasonable minds can differ.
That depends entirely on the denier. You (and a small number of others) generally come out with some valid, reasonable points that raise excellent questions and need to be answere scientifically.
Others, a very vocal group, are excellent at completely misinterpreting anything they read to fit what is often a pretty transparent energy shill's viewpoint. Unfortunately this loses the message from those better informed and educated such as yourself. To a certain extent, this happens on both sides however the consensus of research sits heavily on the pro AGW side. That doesn't mean it's all correct, however it does mean that the deniers need to be very careful and just about faultless in their methodology, otherwise they come across in the same vein as as flat earthers, or young earth creationists, denying everything.
(Which always reminds me of the "deny everything baldrick" moment in blackadder )
Quote
Increasing energy efficiency, substituting nuclear for coal generated electricity (as StreetScooby suggests), deploying efficient solar power systems, improving mass transit: what is the downside? A few less people employed in coal mining, I suppose, but hopefully that will be balanced by increased jobs in new energy-related industries. My great grandfather's hay business went bankrupt when cars replaced horses for day to day transportation, but few would argue we should have protected the hay industry and kept cars at bay. Indeed the auto industry employs many more people than hay farming ever did. And, we could stop shipping vast amounts of money to the Middle East in exchange for oil. Getting unchained from the Saudis would be a great thing in it's own right.
+1
None of these require increased government control over our lives, or increased taxation. If anything, government should get out of the way and let the market work.
rushmc 18
Stumpy*** I'm glad to see some recognition that deniers aren't so much "anti-science" as having legitimate questions about the evidence/conclusions. It's actually an important step in dispute resolution - a recognition of legitimacy and that reasonable minds can differ.
That depends entirely on the denier. You (and a small number of others) generally come out with some valid, reasonable points that raise excellent questions and need to be answere scientifically.
Others, a very vocal group, are excellent at completely misinterpreting anything they read to fit what is often a pretty transparent energy shill's viewpoint. Unfortunately this loses the message from those better informed and educated such as yourself. To a certain extent, this happens on both sides however the consensus of research sits heavily on the pro AGW side. That doesn't mean it's all correct, however it does mean that the deniers need to be very careful and just about faultless in their methodology, otherwise they come across in the same vein as as flat earthers, or young earth creationists, denying everything.
(Which always reminds me of the "deny everything baldrick" moment in blackadder )
It is posts like yours here, posts that eviscerated and denigrate those you call deniers, that get you to offhand flippant reply’s. Regardless of facts and opinions other than those you approve of, statements/lies like some in your post are oft repeated as if the gospel.
When I do try and reply with info I have read elsewhere, either I, or the source, or both, are off handedly dismissed and insults or questions of education or understanding are spewed at posters who dare disagree. Example? Ooohhhhh, he works for an evil energy company. WAFJ. I disagree with the places my company wastes (IMO) money. Like on wind generation. It is not built because it makes sense. It is built for political gain only. And that is a sad waste of money. But it is a fact of doing business because of people who think as you do
In the end, your post here is a perfect example of that which your say you dislike
BTW
You post is also an attempt to silence dissent by doing those things I list above
Good luck with that
I am not going anywhere
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Stumpy 256
Thankyou for making my point for me
rushmc 18
StumpyThankyou for making my point for me
You had already made mine
Just returning the favor
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Just to add some levity to the thread...
billvon 2,476
>problem. If the government stamps out an industry (I.e. Nuclear power) then I
>have a problem - especially when it is done on the basis of a rhetorical panic. Like
>nuclear power.
?? The government stamped out nuclear power? When did this happen? No nuclear power plant I am aware of has been closed by the US government recently. Indeed the Price-Anderson act represents a tremendous amount of subsidy to an industry that would otherwise have trouble getting insurance.
Do you support the Price-Anderson act?
rushmc 18
billvon>If market forces destroy an industry (like whale oil or punch cards) then I have no
>problem. If the government stamps out an industry (I.e. Nuclear power) then I
>have a problem - especially when it is done on the basis of a rhetorical panic. Like
>nuclear power.
?? The government stamped out nuclear power? When did this happen? No nuclear power plant I am aware of has been closed by the US government recently. Indeed the Price-Anderson act represents a tremendous amount of subsidy to an industry that would otherwise have trouble getting insurance.
Do you support the Price-Anderson act?
Regulators have made it nearly impossible to site a plant
So passively, yes, the gov (state and fed) have stopped the nuke industry
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
And yes, I object to Price-Anderson. Let the utilities with their government-imposed monopolies fund the stuff on their own.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 2,476
Can't build a solar power plant in California state forests, either. But I think you'd object if I claimed that therefore the government had "stamped out solar power."
>There's a statute that prevents the building of a nuke plant until satisfactory
>disposal of spent fuel is made available.
That seems pretty . . . sane. Leaving nuclear fuel in reactors forever is, in general, a bad idea.
>And yes, I object to Price-Anderson. Let the utilities with their government-
>imposed monopolies fund the stuff on their own.
Ending Price-Anderson would end nuclear power in the US. Insurance companies simply won't provide the level of coverage that nuclear power plants require. Thus, while nuclear power is currently supplying a significant portion of our power, if your desires were implemented nuclear power would be stamped out.
billvon 2,476
>So passively, yes, the gov (state and fed) have stopped the nuke industry
There are currently 3 nuclear reactors under construction and 9 are in the planning stages. Of the planned reactors, 2 are sited and have financing, the rest are in the approvals process. All of them rely on the Price-Anderson act to obtain insurance coverage.
You were saying?
rushmc 18
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 2,476
A long time! It's a nuclear reactor. A lot goes into designing one of those things.
rushmc 18
billvon>And how long has it taken them to get to those points?
A long time! It's a nuclear reactor. A lot goes into designing one of those things.
That part I know
How long to get the permits?
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Stumpy 256
rushmc***>And how long has it taken them to get to those points?
A long time! It's a nuclear reactor. A lot goes into designing one of those things.
That part I know
How long to get the permits?
You are reaching.
How long do you think it should take?
Quote
How long do you think it should take?
Well, if CO2 emissions are such a big deal,
and we need solutions now,
and the technology is proven (...the French can do it ),
why take years for an approval?
BTW, Cuomo is actually trying to close Indian Point.
It supplies >20% of NYC's power, and surrounding areas.
Quote
Nuclear is an excellent baseline solution - AP1000 type designs now, and thorium reactors/PBMR's in the future.
Quote
A long time! It's a nuclear reactor. A lot goes into designing one of those things.
I'm seeing a mismatch here in your own words.
Am I missing something?
rushmc 18
Stumpy******>And how long has it taken them to get to those points?
A long time! It's a nuclear reactor. A lot goes into designing one of those things.
That part I know
How long to get the permits?
You are reaching.
How long do you think it should take?
Not reaching
I know that it can take up to 12 years
I dont know how long those Bill listed have taken and how far along they are
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 2,476
Because it's a nuclear power plant. If there ever was a project that you shouldn't "rubber stamp" it's a nuclear power plant.
billvon 2,476
What mismatch?
A lot goes in to designing a nuclear power plant. The AP1000 is one such design that takes care of the basics. You still need to design the containment building, figure out cooling towers/local cooling resources, transportation for nuclear fuel, figure out evacuation plans etc. That's a bit more complex than getting a building permit for a Wal-Mart.
>thousands of people who rely on petrochemical for their livelihoods. Ask them, "where's
>the downside?" They'll tell you. And their concerns are real and legitimate. But it's like
>they are just flippantly put aside as unworthy of actual consideration.
Yes, as were the hay farmers, the stable hands, the sanitation workers (horse poop was big business in cities) etc. And they watched as the government paid for the roads, traffic cops and bridges that would guarantee the car would drive them out of business.
Were their concerns legitimate? Of course. Should the government have refused to build roads to keep them in business?
>I think that by not just brushing aside the concerns of people who DO face a pretty big
>downside, there can be progress. There is no such thing as "best for everybody." The
>downsides are there.
Of course. However, both the auto and oil industries have a long history of claiming that any regulatory change will bankrupt them, put them out of business, require everyone to drive sub-sub-compacts, reduce safety on the roads etc. And they have pretty much always been wrong. So when I see the latest "OMG fuel efficiency standards will lead to carnage on the road and kill your kids!" announcement I take it with a grain of salt.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites