|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 2, 2017 7:38:23 GMT
What ^^^he^^^ said....
Unfortunately, to vote the kind of people in power into power in the UK, involves voting in the green party, who want to "tax" my patio, have my Drive grassed over, have me take the Bus, even though we dont have a bus past my door or even within 20 mins walking of here that goes anywhere useful, and want to tax my backside to poverty just because I want to be slightly above the temp inside my fridge in the winter....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 2, 2017 8:29:25 GMT
What ^^^he^^^ said.... Unfortunately, to vote the kind of people in power into power in the UK, involves voting in the green party, who want to "tax" my patio, have my Drive grassed over, have me take the Bus, even though we dont have a bus past my door or even within 20 mins walking of here that goes anywhere useful, and want to tax my backside to poverty just because I want to be slightly above the temp inside my fridge in the winter.... yeah, people seem to have difficulty with the concept of reasonable. I recall somebody somewhere suggested nobody should drive anything bigger than a two seater economy car. I pointed out that making three times as many trips with half again the gas mileage is a losing game. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 2, 2017 8:34:32 GMT
What ^^^he^^^ said.... Unfortunately, to vote the kind of people in power into power in the UK, involves voting in the green party, who want to "tax" my patio, have my Drive grassed over, have me take the Bus, even though we dont have a bus past my door or even within 20 mins walking of here that goes anywhere useful, and want to tax my backside to poverty just because I want to be slightly above the temp inside my fridge in the winter.... yeah, people seem to have difficulty with the concept of reasonable. I recall somebody somewhere suggested nobody should drive anything bigger than a two seater economy car. I pointed out that making three times as many trips with half again the gas mileage is a losing game. Two seater, three kids, wife, dog.... erm?... tell me again how that works?. Owning two or more different sized vehicles and using only the one I need, erm, yeah, you buying them extra ones then?. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 2, 2017 8:57:42 GMT
yeah, people seem to have difficulty with the concept of reasonable. I recall somebody somewhere suggested nobody should drive anything bigger than a two seater economy car. I pointed out that making three times as many trips with half again the gas mileage is a losing game. Two seater, three kids, wife, dog.... erm?... tell me again how that works?. Owning two or more different sized vehicles and using only the one I need, erm, yeah, you buying them extra ones then?. we have three on the road. I try to avoid taking the work truck on errands. try. pickup's currently stored to free a parking space for the BIL. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 2, 2017 11:32:51 GMT
What ^^^he^^^ said.... Unfortunately, to vote the kind of people in power into power in the UK, involves voting in the green party, who want to "tax" my patio, have my Drive grassed over, have me take the Bus, even though we dont have a bus past my door or even within 20 mins walking of here that goes anywhere useful, and want to tax my backside to poverty just because I want to be slightly above the temp inside my fridge in the winter.... True. There are extremes on both sides and none of those are helping to solve the problem. Neither "let's burn it all and more if we can find it" or "let's turn all our cities into wooded wastelands" will work. Fortunately there are a lot of very smart people around the globe working on some very ingenious things that will allow us to remain functioning as a society while getting off fossil fuels. What we need from our law and policy makers is to give those people reasonable working conditions, because they're trying to change the world for the better for all of us and it makes sense to give them a hand in doing that. What worries me right now is the US. This change from fossil fuels to sustainable/renewable energy will happen, but the US as an industrial powerhouse in the world will lag behind if politicians keep going the way they're going. If this is kept up, I believe the most powerful industrial nation in the world will be China within 20 years, since they're already trying to embrace the change and take major strides to become market leaders in sustainable/renewable energy. Sure, the US will eventually make the change as well, but unless something changes, it will be more as consumers than as innovators and producers. Will it be good for the world at large if China is the most powerful nation around? I don't think so. America has its problems, but I'd still much rather have Washington D.C. than Beijing calling most of the shots on the global stage. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 2, 2017 13:13:18 GMT
What ^^^he^^^ said.... Unfortunately, to vote the kind of people in power into power in the UK, involves voting in the green party, who want to "tax" my patio, have my Drive grassed over, have me take the Bus, even though we dont have a bus past my door or even within 20 mins walking of here that goes anywhere useful, and want to tax my backside to poverty just because I want to be slightly above the temp inside my fridge in the winter.... True. There are extremes on both sides and none of those are helping to solve the problem. Neither "let's burn it all and more if we can find it" or "let's turn all our cities into wooded wastelands" will work. Fortunately there are a lot of very smart people around the globe working on some very ingenious things that will allow us to remain functioning as a society while getting off fossil fuels. What we need from our law and policy makers is to give those people reasonable working conditions, because they're trying to change the world for the better for all of us and it makes sense to give them a hand in doing that. What worries me right now is the US. This change from fossil fuels to sustainable/renewable energy will happen, but the US as an industrial powerhouse in the world will lag behind if politicians keep going the way they're going. If this is kept up, I believe the most powerful industrial nation in the world will be China within 20 years, since they're already trying to embrace the change and take major strides to become market leaders in sustainable/renewable energy. Sure, the US will eventually make the change as well, but unless something changes, it will be more as consumers than as innovators and producers. Will it be good for the world at large if China is the most powerful nation around? I don't think so. America has its problems, but I'd still much rather have Washington D.C. than Beijing calling most of the shots on the global stage. I believe I projected, some years back, that if we continued to refuse to look into developing alternative energy technology, we would essentially trade energy dependency on OPEC for tech dependency on China. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 2, 2017 14:49:15 GMT
We are already overly dependent on China. The products my company makes are "made in America." Right, made in America with parts made in China. Why? Because that's all I can get. The majority of these parts come from American companies with long time, well-known American names. But right underneath that name is "made in China." If China was to stop exporting components to the United States, I suspect that the majority of US companies would go out of business. I know my business would be forced to.
Even my grandson was "made in America" with Canadian parts. As my Canadian son-in-law so often reminds me.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 2, 2017 23:18:16 GMT
We are already overly dependent on China. The products my company makes are "made in America." Right, made in America with parts made in China. Why? Because that's all I can get. The majority of these parts come from American companies with long time, well-known American names. But right underneath that name is "made in China." If China was to stop exporting components to the United States, I suspect that the majority of US companies would go out of business. I know my business would be forced to. Even my grandson was "made in America" with Canadian parts. As my Canadian son-in-law so often reminds me. which goes right along with my comments about the inherent problems with our primary export being US currency. and the fact of the matter is that the consumers have brought it upon themselves, by being happy to buy lower value merchandise if they could get it for lower cost - even in cases where the cost per value was less favorable to them - and didn't calculate the effect on the "circle of economic life" to coin a term. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 3, 2017 0:24:36 GMT
We are already overly dependent on China. The products my company makes are "made in America." Right, made in America with parts made in China. Why? Because that's all I can get. The majority of these parts come from American companies with long time, well-known American names. But right underneath that name is "made in China." If China was to stop exporting components to the United States, I suspect that the majority of US companies would go out of business. I know my business would be forced to. Even my grandson was "made in America" with Canadian parts. As my Canadian son-in-law so often reminds me. which goes right along with my comments about the inherent problems with our primary export being US currency. and the fact of the matter is that the consumers have brought it upon themselves, by being happy to buy lower value merchandise if they could get it for lower cost - even in cases where the cost per value was less favorable to them - and didn't calculate the effect on the "circle of economic life" to coin a term. For me, it's not buying lower value merchandise, for a lower cost, it's buying any merchandise, period. You can't buy electronic components made in the USA for any price. There aren't any. Where was the TV you own made? I can guarantee it wasn't made in the United States. Did you buy it because you wanted a lower value merchandise at a lower cost or did you buy an off shore TV because you just wanted a TV? And in all honesty, it's not always cost. When I was a kid, 99 out of every 100 cars on the road was a GM, Ford. Chrysler, or American Motors (Remember them?). Look out your windshield and all you see now are Toyotas, Nissans, Subarus, and Hondas. And people are not buying them because of cost. They are buying them because they are just good vehicles. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 3, 2017 1:53:10 GMT
which goes right along with my comments about the inherent problems with our primary export being US currency. and the fact of the matter is that the consumers have brought it upon themselves, by being happy to buy lower value merchandise if they could get it for lower cost - even in cases where the cost per value was less favorable to them - and didn't calculate the effect on the "circle of economic life" to coin a term. For me, it's not buying lower value merchandise, for a lower cost, it's buying any merchandise, period. You can't buy electronic components made in the USA for any price. There aren't any. Where was the TV you own made? I can guarantee it wasn't made in the United States. Did you buy it because you wanted a lower value merchandise at a lower cost or did you buy an off shore TV because you just wanted a TV? And in all honesty, it's not always cost. When I was a kid, 99 out of every 100 cars on the road was a GM, Ford. Chrysler, or American Motors (Remember them?). Look out your windshield and all you see now are Toyotas, Nissans, Subarus, and Hondas. And people are not buying them because of cost. They are buying them because they are just good vehicles. Remember AMC? I own one. but yes, nobody in the US bothers making electronics, any more. manufacturers pretty much stopped making anything in the US that they could make cheaper, overseas; because that was what people were buying. carmakers are a slightly different story, because US carmakers dropped the ball in the 70s. while the Japanese and Germans were busy innovating better car technologies, US carmakers were saying better tech was just a passing fad, and business as usual was the way to go. addendum: at the same time, though, list me all the carmakers that make a pickup cab & chassis with a 6 ton GVWR. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 3, 2017 8:06:59 GMT
We all need heat, cooling, clothes, food, transport.
Until you can make a shortcut to that, we need transport.
And the gobmint knows that.
Which is why its such a revenue target.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 3, 2017 13:54:54 GMT
We all need heat, cooling, clothes, food, transport. Until you can make a shortcut to that, we need transport. And the gobmint knows that. Which is why its such a revenue target. In other words, all we need is energy. Something the climate change religious leaders are adamantly opposed to. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 3, 2017 14:13:10 GMT
We all need heat, cooling, clothes, food, transport. Until you can make a shortcut to that, we need transport. And the gobmint knows that. Which is why its such a revenue target. In other words, all we need is energy. Something the climate change religious leaders are adamantly opposed to. and something the climate change denial religious leaders are adamant will never be in short supply and the wastage of will never have inconvenient side effects. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 3, 2017 14:51:33 GMT
Energy is the solution to many of our problems. Wasting it is not the answer but neither is purposely limiting our supply.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 3, 2017 16:28:24 GMT
Energy is the solution to many of our problems. Wasting it is not the answer but neither is purposely limiting our supply. Which no sane person is trying to do. Most people who understand the climate problem also understand that we can't keep our civilization going without energy, which is why they're not working to abolish things that use energy, but instead to find better sources of that energy and make our electronics and transportation equipment more efficient. Again, even if you don't believe in climate change, what makes more sense? Spending trillions and risking lives to find and dig energy out of the ground, or investing a similar amount with less risk to lives in making it more efficient to grab it right out of the air? |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 3, 2017 17:45:00 GMT
Energy is the solution to many of our problems. Wasting it is not the answer but neither is purposely limiting our supply. Which no sane person is trying to do. Most people who understand the climate problem also understand that we can't keep our civilization going without energy, which is why they're not working to abolish things that use energy, but instead to find better sources of that energy and make our electronics and transportation equipment more efficient. Again, even if you don't believe in climate change, what makes more sense? Spending trillions and risking lives to find and dig energy out of the ground, or investing a similar amount with less risk to lives in making it more efficient to grab it right out of the air? Problem is we aren't dealing with too many sane people on either side of the climate change debate. The reason I don't even try to discuss it with most climate change enthusiasts is because the discussion always starts out with; "The debate is settled, I'm right, your wrong, now what did you want to discuss?" I am not a climate change denier. I admit the climate is changing and man is part of the reason why. But the climate has always been changing even without man's contribution. And these changes are not hurting the planet any or even the environment. The planet adapts to these changes just fine. It has been adapting since it's creation and to changes far greater than mankind can ever cause. The problem is man doesn't want to adapt to the changes. We seem to believe that if we stop drilling for oil or stop using energy, everything is going to be fine. It's not. Energy is the key to life as we know it. Unless we have some MAJOR breakthroughs in technology, we will never get enough reliable energy "out of the air", as you say. Other than fossil fuels, the only alternative we have at this time is nuclear. I'm 100% in favor of nuclear, but I am a minority. Most people are too afraid of nuclear to even consider it. That's unfortunate. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to investing in these new "renewable" sources. I think we need to invest in technology. But to pretend that this is the answer to climate change is foolish. If mankind eliminated 100% of our contribution to climate change, it would do nothing to prevent the next Mt. Saint Helen or Yellowstone. If Yellowstone, or one of the other super volcanos blows, and one eventually will, Mother Nature will handle it just fine. "Oh, one of my volcanos burped. Don't worry, I'll have that cleaned up in no time. In 500 years, you'll never know it happened. Those 50 million dead? Just bury the bodies in the ground and I'll take care of that too." If we are going to survive, it's not going to be by preventing climate change and it's not going to be depending on Mother Nature. Like the Borg, we need to learn to adapt. If the planet is going to be a degree or two hotter, it's not going to melt. We need to learn to deal with it. For every negative change, I'm sure there is a positive one. That may be the "inconvenient truth." We just need to look and figure out how to use those changes. If sea levels rise, we may have to move our resorts and casinos a little inland. Again, it's not the end of the world. Maybe if we took some of the billions of dollars we are spending on ways to control the climate and put some into adapting to the climate, we'd be better off. That's my take on it. I'll just go over to my corner and be quiet now. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 3, 2017 18:54:28 GMT
I know it's hard for some people to wrap their heads around the idea that we puny little humans can change the surface and atmosphere of an entire planet, but keep in mind that life has changed this planet for billions of years. Organisms much smaller than us have done it before.
No, the Earth as a planet doesn't take note of the fact that there's life crawling around on its surface any more than you and I take note of the fact we have bacteria doing the backstroke in our guts, but bacteria can do a lot.
Ever heard of cyanobacteria?
They're no larger than any of the billions of little critters hanging out in your lower intestine, but they changed the atmosphere of the entire planet about 2.5 billion years ago, causing one of the most significant extinction events the Earth has ever seen. These little dudes figured out how to power themselves through photosynthesis, using sunlight and carbon dioxide as an energy source and spewing out oxygen as a waste product. All other life on Earth at the time was anaerobic, so most other lifeforms couldn't breathe that stuff and was killed off.
That was bacteria. Living organisms so small that billions of them can live inside a single human being without that human ever noticing them were able to change the atmospheric composition of the entire planet through perfectly natural processes, yet people refuse to believe that we much larger living things can do the same through processes that are far from anything you would call natural that we employ on a global, industrial scale?
I struggle to find the logic in that argument.
Yes, the Earth will be just fine. No matter what we do to it, it'll just hang out here, happily orbiting the Sun for the next 5 billion years or so. But it's not the Earth I'm worried about. It's the life that lives on it. Specifically human life. Some of my best friends are humans and I'd like us to be here for a long time to come.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 3, 2017 19:33:25 GMT
So where's the catastrophic crisis? Man lives longer, healthier, and happier today than anytime since we figured out how to go from four feet to two. Yes, climate change will inconvenience some people, but others will adapt and flourish. I intend to flourish. So please don't get too upset if I don't join in the panic.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 3, 2017 21:30:54 GMT
So where's the catastrophic crisis? Man lives longer, healthier, and happier today than anytime since we figured out how to go from four feet to two. Yes, climate change will inconvenience some people, but others will adapt and flourish. I intend to flourish. So please don't get too upset if I don't join in the panic. When the coasts are suddenly 20 miles further inland, all the people who used to live there will have to go somewhere. First of all, I'd call that a little more than an "inconvenience to some people" and secondly, you'll eventually feel part of that "inconvenience" yourself when your own town is overcrowded with refugees. Or maybe you won't. Maybe you'll be gone by that time. But your kids and grandkids will feel it. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 3, 2017 22:01:45 GMT
So where's the catastrophic crisis? Man lives longer, healthier, and happier today than anytime since we figured out how to go from four feet to two. Yes, climate change will inconvenience some people, but others will adapt and flourish. I intend to flourish. So please don't get too upset if I don't join in the panic. When the coasts are suddenly 20 miles further inland, all the people who used to live there will have to go somewhere. First of all, I'd call that a little more than an "inconvenience to some people" and secondly, you'll eventually feel part of that "inconvenience" yourself when your own town is overcrowded with refugees. Or maybe you won't. Maybe you'll be gone by that time. But your kids and grandkids will feel it. At the rate things are going, my kids, my grandkids and their grandkids are not going to see the shore 20 miles inland. And even if they do, so what? Should I make them sit in the dark and cold now so their great grand kids have 20 more miles of shore? It's not going to happen overnight if it happens at all. There will be time to adapt. To be honest, I'm more concerned about an asteroid wiping out the shore line than I am about anything man is doing that may (or may not) be happening. And that also, I'm not going to panic over. As for those refugees. We already have a refugee crisis, but it has nothing to do with climate change. Unless you're talking about the political climate and we're not allowed to discuss that here. |
|
