Food for thought from Paul Krugman

Southern Man said:
Sure I can. Just look at the decisions that liberals have made and are making and put them to my test: open borders, socialized medicine, closing down Gitmo, Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac disasters, increased taxes, Cap'n Trade, Obama's apology tour, his speech at the UN which precipitated missile exercises in Iran, gay marriage. The list goes on and on.
Click to expand...
Good God SM. You just can't get enough of that Right Wing kool-aid. Why do you right wingers hate America? Why do you hate freedom? Whey do you hate people who practice freedom?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's just a plain out right silly comment. A company or corporation might get by on political patronage for a short period of time but ultimately it must produce vial goods and/or service which the public is willing to consumer or it will not exist for long and that's an economic fact of life.
Click to expand...

One exception, the govt could be it's only customer.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh yea, Forbes is certainly a reliable source of objective information. Just like the editorial pages of the WSJ and NY Times. Please explain to me. How does your link contradict my comment?
Click to expand...

i also gave you government link which you ignored...and just because you don't like forbes doesn't make their article wrong, weak stand.....you make an conclusory statement, offer no counter information, yet you want me to explain this to you...

do your own homework, especially if you make simple conclusions with nothing to support your conclusion...and here we are to believe you're the "best" debater
 
Southern Man said:
It doesn't create any significant wealth. If we drilled for more oil and natural gas and built more nuclear plants there would be the same or better "green" effect, yet GDP would improve and we'd have less expensive energy costs. That's why liberals don't want it.
Click to expand...


Absolutely false. Nuke energy has never been cost effective, and survived only with massive government subsidies. It also produces a waste product, Uranium239, which has a half life of 23.45 months and decays into Neptunium 239 which has a half life of about 2 days, and decays into Plutonium 239, which is the most toxic substance known to exist, and which has a half life of 24,000 years, is still toxic after 125,000 years, and (oh, yeah) is weapons grade. We already have more tons of this shit than the total combined payload of every space launch in history, and therre are people who would love to explode a bomb made of this shit in the US. Whether a nuke explosion or a dirty bomb.

Does it make any goddamn sense to generate energy with a system that can't compete on the free market, and creates a waste product that is deadly to us in at least two different ways, which we have no way to dispose of, and already have too much of? No fucking way!


And the oil and gas deposits: the problem with them is not the cost, but the damn CO2, besides, you ever hear of keeping an emergency stash? How wise is it to exhaust our supply of carbon-based fuel before we have all the bugs out of the non-carbon systems, WHICH ARE INEVITABLE, BY THE WAY, BECAUSE OIL AND NATURAL GAS ARE FINITE RESOURCES, AND WILL RUN OUT, GUARANFUCKINGTEED

Doesn't create any wealth? On what planet is that true? We are4 talking a whole new transmission grid, or grids, since we need y6o replace the national grid with regional or local ones. We're talking about huge solar arrays, and wind farms. Sionce when is that kind of infrastructure development NOT the creation of wealth?

You guys just aren't making sense any more. Your naysaying has really cut into your capacity for critical thought. Now, come on, SM. You and I have exchanged reminiscences on the sports and hobbies forum. I defended the skiing ability of those of us who learned to ski in seriously dodgy conditions. I like you. what reason would I have to lie to you? And for that matter, what statement of mine can you identify as false and/or baseless, and further, told with the intent to deceive? Is carbon based fuel a finite resource or not? We will in fact need an alternative energy source in the very near future, and since our current one is creating, or at the very least not addressing or assuaging our current and growing climate problems, does it not make sense to go full spoeed ahead on the replacement for the carbon based fuel sector? And what is the problem with GE being ahead of the game n wind generation of power? They certainly don't have Mobil/Exxon's history of gouging us at the pump, then insulting our intelligence by claiming that there is no connection between overcharging for gasoline and their obscene quarterly profits. And all this new infrastructure will require the creation of well-paying jobs for Americans, whether building the turbines in factories, installing them on site, and servicing them. Not to mention the fact that retrofitting every house and commercial building in the US with passive or active solar, will keep at least two generations of craftsmen busy. What's the downside to that? I'm serious. Let's talk specifics and facts.



Oh, yeah, and speaking of specifics and facts, i need to make a comment with some of each here in response to someone's nasty and unwarranted comment about the heat-related deaths in Europe two summers ago. European cities don't have A/C because they have never needed it before, since their climate is cool like our own New England, Pacific Northwest, northern Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota. Ask apple if he has central a/c. I've been to his home outside montreal in the early summer, and don't recall ever seeing or hearing any a/c unit.

And for those asking why the Europeans didn't just install a/c units on an emergency basis, based on my experience as a commercial construction project manager and estimator that there is no such thing as commercial a/c installed on an emergency basis. Not in the US, and certainly not in northern and western Europe. There is no such thing as an off-the-shelf rooftop whole building a/c unit. They are custom designed and built for the requirements of the building (type, size, exposure, location, ambient temperature, etc.). The whole process, from engineering, to manufacturing the components, to installing the piping and ductwork in an existing building, requiring ceiling and wall demolition and repair, not to mention that HVAC mechanic is a nonexistent trade in Europe, and you're looking at close to a year for a retrofit of a good-sized office or apartment buiiding.

Emergency a/c? Dream on, folks. In private homes and older buildings with windows that would accept weindow-rattler a/c units, and had the excess amperage available in their breaker boxes to handle the additional load of a window a/c unit, there was another unforeseen problem. Here is a little something you all may not be aware of: France is heavily nuclear in its energy generation, but had to throttle back their output, and were unable to meet the power demands of all those window a/c units imported from the US by homeowners. Gee, why would that be? They had the magic, clean power of nuclear generation. Turns out that the heat output of a reactor at full bore creates a problem with overheating the river water used to cool the reactor at high demand periods, especially when the high demand is caused by excessive heat, which is also heating the river water, so it has less cooling effect on the core, and is being reintroduced into the river at temps high enough to kill fish.

So add "unsuitable for use in high ambient temps" to "deadly and intractable waste problem," and "not cost-effective" and "meltdown of core, a la Chernoble and Harrisburg, PA" and "don't build one on a fucking California fault line" on the list of drawbacks to nuke generation, and i think we can all agree, that not only is it not the solution to global warming it's not the solution to anything. It's a piece of glowing, radioactive shit, and the solution for which there is no problem, the cure for which there is no disease
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It'snot just "Corporations". It's corporations with a vested interest. Probably most corporations have nothing to say because their not in the energy production industry. The Auto companies don't really give a shit about the oil companies. Whomever can provide them a consistant source of fuel and the infrastructure to deliver that fuel is what they'll design their engines to consume and so on. Green industries will have to do more than prove themselves on environmental issues. They will also need to prove themselves as being viable, cost affective alternatives to overcome the carbon based coalition that opposes them. Till that happens humanity is not going to give up it's carbon based fuel addiction until it absolutely has no other choice.
Click to expand...

I know I have posted the following before, but I am going to do it again anyway as it is something we should all send to our respective idiots in DC and get them to act on. Whether you believe in Global Warming or not... this project benefits everyone on the planet and reduces pollution and emissions.



http://www.envirofit.org/?q=our-prod...troke-retrofit

The Challenge

Because of the chronic nature of air pollution and the fact that its impacts fall disproportionately on the poor, it is not always recognized for its pervasive role in poor health, poverty and economic stagnation. A major source of outdoor air pollution is carbureted two-stroke engines, which power 100 million “two-wheelers” (e.g. motorcycles, scooters) and “three-wheelers” (e.g. tricycles, “tuk-tuks”) across Southeast Asia. Each of these carbureted two-stroke engines produces the pollution output of 50 modern automobiles, thus contributing the pollution-equivalent of approximately 5 billion automobiles. These engines represent one of the largest sources of vehicular emissions in the world.

The Solution

Envirofit International has developed a Direct In-cylinder (DI) fuel injection retrofit kit for two-stroke engines that is cleaner and more fuel efficient than the replacement four-stroke engines.


Project Benefits
Mature Product Development Process

In comparison to the carbureted 2-stroke engine, Envirofit’s two-stroke DI retrofit kit reduces carbon monoxide emissions by 76%, carbon dioxide emissions by 35%, and hydrocarbon emissions by 89%. At the same time, fuel use is reduced by 35% and oil by 50%. In comparison, carbureted 4-strokes increase carbon monoxide by 2% and only have a 20% reduction in fuel consumption.

Local municipalities stand to gain tremendous benefits from Envirofit’s retrofit projects. The summary below shows the relative improvements in key factors of air quality and energy consumption that a city with 3,000 retrofitted tricycles would expect to see.
Annual Impact

* Cumulative number of retrofits: 3000 taxis
* Tons of carbon dioxide eliminated: 3000 tons
* Liters of fuel saved: 1,440,000 liters
* Automobile equivalents of pollution eliminated: 150,000
* Dollars infused into local economy: $1,410,000
* Local jobs created: 15 - 20 jobs

Economic

Local economies stand to gain tremendous benefit from the implementation Envirofit projects.

* Depending on capacity, as many as fifty local jobs will be created via the commercial installation/service center
* A reduction in tricycle taxi operating costs will increase income to local tricycle taxi drivers and owners, and thus investment in local community
* Local supply chain sourcing should provide a boost to local companies
* As local air quality and environment improve, the tourist experience will improve, and this should eventually be reflected in the general economic health of the city
* As local air quality and environment improve, the health of the citizens should improve, thereby reducing health-related economic costs
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Superfreak
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Superfreak
Find all posts by Superfreak
Add Superfreak to Your Contacts
View Blog
#2 Report Post
Old 08-07-2009, 02:37 PM
Superfreak's Avatar
Superfreak Superfreak is invisible
The Almighty

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 17,729
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 48
Reputation: 2850
Superfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond repute
Default
Envirofit is a NON-profit company that is willing to provide this technology to the world for free. Anyone can use it. They are a spin-off group from Colorado State University.

There are an estimated 100 million of these two stroke vehicles in the world. Predominantly in China, India and the rest of Asia, but also to an extent in Africa. These 100 million two-strokes pollution equivalent is roughly the same as 5 BILLION autos.

Each retrofit is roughly $300.

To covert the entire 100 million it would cost approximately $30 billion.

The benefit....

1) reduces carbon monoxide emissions by 76%: equivalent of removing the carbon monoxide emissions of 3.8 billion cars

2) carbon dioxide emissions by 35%: equivalent of removing the CO2 emissions of 1.75 BILLION cars

3) hydrocarbon emissions by 89%: equivalent of removing 4.45 billion cars

4) fuel use is reduced by 35%

5) reduce oil by 50%

Add in the benefits to the environment, the peoples health...

For $30 billion... I would say that is well worth it. We would likely save that in lower fuel costs alone within five years. Add in the reduction in sick days and healthcare costs and you have a very significant net positive. Not to mention the bulk of these two-strokes are owned by the operators, which means they make more money which will also help boost their local economies.
 
Krugman likes to go after the easiest targets he can find and ignores everything else. It's not just the question of whether global warming exists or what its impacts will be. There is also the fact that this scheme will not work to reduce emissions unless every nation in the world adopts it. Krugman's own work (the work he won the Nobel prize for) shows this to be true.

Also, Krugman claims the consensus on environmental change (IPCC) but then ignores that body on the costs of caps and instead uses a source that estimates the cost as being much lower.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh yea, Forbes is certainly a reliable source of objective information. Just like the editorial pages of the WSJ and NY Times. Please explain to me. How does your link contradict my comment?
Click to expand...
This is just plain ridiculous, the editorial pages of any publication are by definition opinion, not reporting.
 
Superfreak said:
I know I have posted the following before, but I am going to do it again anyway as it is something we should all send to our respective idiots in DC and get them to act on. Whether you believe in Global Warming or not... this project benefits everyone on the planet and reduces pollution and emissions.



http://www.envirofit.org/?q=our-prod...troke-retrofit

The Challenge

Because of the chronic nature of air pollution and the fact that its impacts fall disproportionately on the poor, it is not always recognized for its pervasive role in poor health, poverty and economic stagnation. A major source of outdoor air pollution is carbureted two-stroke engines, which power 100 million “two-wheelers” (e.g. motorcycles, scooters) and “three-wheelers” (e.g. tricycles, “tuk-tuks”) across Southeast Asia. Each of these carbureted two-stroke engines produces the pollution output of 50 modern automobiles, thus contributing the pollution-equivalent of approximately 5 billion automobiles. These engines represent one of the largest sources of vehicular emissions in the world.

The Solution

Envirofit International has developed a Direct In-cylinder (DI) fuel injection retrofit kit for two-stroke engines that is cleaner and more fuel efficient than the replacement four-stroke engines.


Project Benefits
Mature Product Development Process

In comparison to the carbureted 2-stroke engine, Envirofit’s two-stroke DI retrofit kit reduces carbon monoxide emissions by 76%, carbon dioxide emissions by 35%, and hydrocarbon emissions by 89%. At the same time, fuel use is reduced by 35% and oil by 50%. In comparison, carbureted 4-strokes increase carbon monoxide by 2% and only have a 20% reduction in fuel consumption.

Local municipalities stand to gain tremendous benefits from Envirofit’s retrofit projects. The summary below shows the relative improvements in key factors of air quality and energy consumption that a city with 3,000 retrofitted tricycles would expect to see.
Annual Impact

* Cumulative number of retrofits: 3000 taxis
* Tons of carbon dioxide eliminated: 3000 tons
* Liters of fuel saved: 1,440,000 liters
* Automobile equivalents of pollution eliminated: 150,000
* Dollars infused into local economy: $1,410,000
* Local jobs created: 15 - 20 jobs

Economic

Local economies stand to gain tremendous benefit from the implementation Envirofit projects.

* Depending on capacity, as many as fifty local jobs will be created via the commercial installation/service center
* A reduction in tricycle taxi operating costs will increase income to local tricycle taxi drivers and owners, and thus investment in local community
* Local supply chain sourcing should provide a boost to local companies
* As local air quality and environment improve, the tourist experience will improve, and this should eventually be reflected in the general economic health of the city
* As local air quality and environment improve, the health of the citizens should improve, thereby reducing health-related economic costs
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
Superfreak
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Superfreak
Find all posts by Superfreak
Add Superfreak to Your Contacts
View Blog
#2 Report Post
Old 08-07-2009, 02:37 PM
Superfreak's Avatar
Superfreak Superfreak is invisible
The Almighty

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 17,729
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 48
Reputation: 2850
Superfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond reputeSuperfreak has a reputation beyond repute
Default
Envirofit is a NON-profit company that is willing to provide this technology to the world for free. Anyone can use it. They are a spin-off group from Colorado State University.

There are an estimated 100 million of these two stroke vehicles in the world. Predominantly in China, India and the rest of Asia, but also to an extent in Africa. These 100 million two-strokes pollution equivalent is roughly the same as 5 BILLION autos.

Each retrofit is roughly $300.

To covert the entire 100 million it would cost approximately $30 billion.

The benefit....

1) reduces carbon monoxide emissions by 76%: equivalent of removing the carbon monoxide emissions of 3.8 billion cars

2) carbon dioxide emissions by 35%: equivalent of removing the CO2 emissions of 1.75 BILLION cars

3) hydrocarbon emissions by 89%: equivalent of removing 4.45 billion cars

4) fuel use is reduced by 35%

5) reduce oil by 50%

Add in the benefits to the environment, the peoples health...

For $30 billion... I would say that is well worth it. We would likely save that in lower fuel costs alone within five years. Add in the reduction in sick days and healthcare costs and you have a very significant net positive. Not to mention the bulk of these two-strokes are owned by the operators, which means they make more money which will also help boost their local economies.
Click to expand...

Please note that many TukTuks in SE Asia run on LPG, in fact all of them in Bangkok do so and have done for many years.
 
tom prendergast said:
Please note that many TukTuks in SE Asia run on LPG, in fact all of them in Bangkok do so and have done for many years.
Click to expand...

Please note, the vast majority (an estimated 100 million) still run on gasoline and are major contributors to pollution in many Asian and African nations.

To be clear... it is a plus that some areas have gone to LPG, but there are still many countries that have not done so.
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
Sure I can. Just look at the decisions that liberals have made and are making and put them to my test: open borders, socialized medicine, closing down Gitmo, Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac disasters, increased taxes, Cap'n Trade, Obama's apology tour, his speech at the UN which precipitated missile exercises in Iran, gay marriage. The list goes on and on.
Click to expand...


Come on, SM. Take a long look at your own list: 1) open borders? Name some free nations that have closed borders, which have always been the hallmark of the paranoid, authoritarian regimes. 2) Socialized medicine? Every industrialized capitalist nation in the world has universal health care except one. Us. And even with conservatives winning European elections over Social Democrats, there is no move afoot to return to for-profit health care anywhere in the world where universal health care has been enacted. 3) closing down Gitmo? The whole reason for its existence was an attempt to sidestep US laws against torture, and deny due process. The SCOTUS, which is 5-4 conservative, consistently ruled against the Bush administration on that score. Gitmo is a symbol of the US flaunting international treaties and its own Constitution, and should be closed. Send those mistakenly held home, ansd send the bad guys to the supermax in Florence, CO (if you can find evidence against them that hasn't been tainted by coercive interrogation). 4) Fanny and Freddie? Surely you're not trying to blame the whole subprime mortgage fiasco on those two institutions, as some wingers have tried? 5) increased taxes? Sorry, those are inevitable, caused by the ill-considered cuts of the Bush years, which created more national debt and caused the postponement or cancellation of needed rerpairs to our infrastructure, which have caught up to us big time. And simultaneously launching two wars and cutting taxes without creating a huge debt is arithmetically impossible, and eventually the revenue stream must be brought back into balance with the expenditures, and that requires rescinding those tax cuts for the wealthy, at the very least. Yes, universal health care requires raised taxes, but we spend twice in premiums and copays what anybody pays in health care taxes, so at the end of the day, when you remove your premiums from your pay stub, and quit taking copays out of your pocket, you have more net pay, and money in your pocket. 6) Cap and Trade? The costs to the consumer screamed by the right are bogus, according to the author of the study they were misquoting. 7) We launched an illegal war based on lies. That doesn't require an apology? 8) lastly, this point was a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
 
Controlled borders is a sign of government serving it's citizenry properly.

Socialized medicine lead to rationing and more death. But that's not suprising considering the post war ruling meme has been "kill the people".

Government guarantee of loans for people who can't pay them was the source of all the problems.

Obama himself said cap and trade would cause prices to rise for everyone. And worse than that, it will literally DRIVE business out of the country.


Zoombwas is wrong on everything.
 
zoombwaz said:
Absolutely false. Nuke energy has never been cost effective, and survived only with massive government subsidies. It also produces a waste product, Uranium239, which has a half life of 23.45 months and decays into Neptunium 239 which has a half life of about 2 days, and decays into Plutonium 239, which is the most toxic substance known to exist, and which has a half life of 24,000 years, is still toxic after 125,000 years, and (oh, yeah) is weapons grade. We already have more tons of this shit than the total combined payload of every space launch in history, and therre are people who would love to explode a bomb made of this shit in the US. Whether a nuke explosion or a dirty bomb.

Does it make any goddamn sense to generate energy with a system that can't compete on the free market, and creates a waste product that is deadly to us in at least two different ways, which we have no way to dispose of, and already have too much of? No fucking way!


And the oil and gas deposits: the problem with them is not the cost, but the damn CO2, besides, you ever hear of keeping an emergency stash? How wise is it to exhaust our supply of carbon-based fuel before we have all the bugs out of the non-carbon systems, WHICH ARE INEVITABLE, BY THE WAY, BECAUSE OIL AND NATURAL GAS ARE FINITE RESOURCES, AND WILL RUN OUT, GUARANFUCKINGTEED

Doesn't create any wealth? On what planet is that true? We are4 talking a whole new transmission grid, or grids, since we need y6o replace the national grid with regional or local ones. We're talking about huge solar arrays, and wind farms. Sionce when is that kind of infrastructure development NOT the creation of wealth?

You guys just aren't making sense any more. Your naysaying has really cut into your capacity for critical thought. Now, come on, SM. You and I have exchanged reminiscences on the sports and hobbies forum. I defended the skiing ability of those of us who learned to ski in seriously dodgy conditions. I like you. what reason would I have to lie to you? And for that matter, what statement of mine can you identify as false and/or baseless, and further, told with the intent to deceive? Is carbon based fuel a finite resource or not? We will in fact need an alternative energy source in the very near future, and since our current one is creating, or at the very least not addressing or assuaging our current and growing climate problems, does it not make sense to go full spoeed ahead on the replacement for the carbon based fuel sector? And what is the problem with GE being ahead of the game n wind generation of power? They certainly don't have Mobil/Exxon's history of gouging us at the pump, then insulting our intelligence by claiming that there is no connection between overcharging for gasoline and their obscene quarterly profits. And all this new infrastructure will require the creation of well-paying jobs for Americans, whether building the turbines in factories, installing them on site, and servicing them. Not to mention the fact that retrofitting every house and commercial building in the US with passive or active solar, will keep at least two generations of craftsmen busy. What's the downside to that? I'm serious. Let's talk specifics and facts.



Oh, yeah, and speaking of specifics and facts, i need to make a comment with some of each here in response to someone's nasty and unwarranted comment about the heat-related deaths in Europe two summers ago. European cities don't have A/C because they have never needed it before, since their climate is cool like our own New England, Pacific Northwest, northern Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota. Ask apple if he has central a/c. I've been to his home outside montreal in the early summer, and don't recall ever seeing or hearing any a/c unit.

And for those asking why the Europeans didn't just install a/c units on an emergency basis, based on my experience as a commercial construction project manager and estimator that there is no such thing as commercial a/c installed on an emergency basis. Not in the US, and certainly not in northern and western Europe. There is no such thing as an off-the-shelf rooftop whole building a/c unit. They are custom designed and built for the requirements of the building (type, size, exposure, location, ambient temperature, etc.). The whole process, from engineering, to manufacturing the components, to installing the piping and ductwork in an existing building, requiring ceiling and wall demolition and repair, not to mention that HVAC mechanic is a nonexistent trade in Europe, and you're looking at close to a year for a retrofit of a good-sized office or apartment buiiding.

Emergency a/c? Dream on, folks. In private homes and older buildings with windows that would accept weindow-rattler a/c units, and had the excess amperage available in their breaker boxes to handle the additional load of a window a/c unit, there was another unforeseen problem. Here is a little something you all may not be aware of: France is heavily nuclear in its energy generation, but had to throttle back their output, and were unable to meet the power demands of all those window a/c units imported from the US by homeowners. Gee, why would that be? They had the magic, clean power of nuclear generation. Turns out that the heat output of a reactor at full bore creates a problem with overheating the river water used to cool the reactor at high demand periods, especially when the high demand is caused by excessive heat, which is also heating the river water, so it has less cooling effect on the core, and is being reintroduced into the river at temps high enough to kill fish.

So add "unsuitable for use in high ambient temps" to "deadly and intractable waste problem," and "not cost-effective" and "meltdown of core, a la Chernoble and Harrisburg, PA" and "don't build one on a fucking California fault line" on the list of drawbacks to nuke generation, and i think we can all agree, that not only is it not the solution to global warming it's not the solution to anything. It's a piece of glowing, radioactive shit, and the solution for which there is no problem, the cure for which there is no disease
Click to expand...

1. Nuclear power is cheap and clean. The politics that are involved and the lawsuits by the environmental whackos are what costs the industry real money.
2. Nuclear waste? You forget that Carter prohibited reprocessing of spent fuel, that dummy. His executive order was later rescinded by Reagan, but not after commercial reprocessers had been bankrupted. New technologies being developed “which will burn all long-lived actinides”. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html
3. Solar and wind energy is great, but will never produce the large amounts of energy that are required to run the American economy. And this industry is heavily subsidized while the environmental whackos ignore the environmental impacts.
4. Natural gas can provide energy for transportation for about 300 years- plenty of time for technology to develop battery technology and a nuclear-based electrical system. If we don’t burn it a lot will leak out of the ground anyway, and the greenhouse impact of unburned gas is huge compared to CO2.
 
zoombwaz said:
Come on, SM. Take a long look at your own list: 1) open borders? Name some free nations that have closed borders, which have always been the hallmark of the paranoid, authoritarian regimes. 2) Socialized medicine? Every industrialized capitalist nation in the world has universal health care except one. Us. And even with conservatives winning European elections over Social Democrats, there is no move afoot to return to for-profit health care anywhere in the world where universal health care has been enacted. 3) closing down Gitmo? The whole reason for its existence was an attempt to sidestep US laws against torture, and deny due process. The SCOTUS, which is 5-4 conservative, consistently ruled against the Bush administration on that score. Gitmo is a symbol of the US flaunting international treaties and its own Constitution, and should be closed. Send those mistakenly held home, ansd send the bad guys to the supermax in Florence, CO (if you can find evidence against them that hasn't been tainted by coercive interrogation). 4) Fanny and Freddie? Surely you're not trying to blame the whole subprime mortgage fiasco on those two institutions, as some wingers have tried? 5) increased taxes? Sorry, those are inevitable, caused by the ill-considered cuts of the Bush years, which created more national debt and caused the postponement or cancellation of needed rerpairs to our infrastructure, which have caught up to us big time. And simultaneously launching two wars and cutting taxes without creating a huge debt is arithmetically impossible, and eventually the revenue stream must be brought back into balance with the expenditures, and that requires rescinding those tax cuts for the wealthy, at the very least. Yes, universal health care requires raised taxes, but we spend twice in premiums and copays what anybody pays in health care taxes, so at the end of the day, when you remove your premiums from your pay stub, and quit taking copays out of your pocket, you have more net pay, and money in your pocket. 6) Cap and Trade? The costs to the consumer screamed by the right are bogus, according to the author of the study they were misquoting. 7) We launched an illegal war based on lies. That doesn't require an apology? 8) lastly, this point was a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Click to expand...
1. You have developed a caricature of my argument. Many liberals want no borders.
2. Most Americans don’t want socialized medicine, and the Constitution prohibits the Feds from this intrusion into our lives. If you want it for your State then lobby for it there. When your system fails the residents can vote with their feet, like they are doing in California.
3. That’s not the reason for Gitmo. Military prisoners have historically been held in separate facilities, many of them in foreign countries. They should not be mixed with the domestic prison population.
4. Fannie and Freddie and the Banking Queen are the main cause of the current recession. Some folks just can’t afford and take the responsibility to own their own home, in spite of Liberals hopes and dreams.
5. Bush’s tax cuts helped the economy. Liberal Democrats and their RINO cohorts simply spent too much. Tax increases aren’t “inevitable”; in fact massive tax reductions are inevitable if the Federal government is restricted to its Constitutional mandate.
6-8. Bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top