from the smoke-gets-in-your-eyes-and-lungs-and-clothes-and-environment dept.
Australia Doesn't Care to Break its Coal Habit in the Face of Climate Change:
Earlier this week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a dire warning about climate change: unless governments of the world coordinate to implement multiple long-term changes, we risk overshooting the 2°C warming scenario that countries strived to target in the Paris Agreement. This would lead to ecosystem damage, increasingly dramatic heat waves and previously-irregular weather patterns in different regions, and subsequent health impacts for humans.
Retiring coal-fired power plants is a significant action that could limit our race toward an unstable future. But Australia's officials don't quite care. According to The Guardian, the country's deputy prime minister, Michael McCormack, said that Australia would "'absolutely' continue to use and exploit its coal reserves, despite the IPCC's dire warnings the world has just 12 years to avoid climate-change catastrophe."
McCormack also reportedly said that Australia would not change its coal policies "just because somebody might suggest that some sort of report is the way we need to follow and everything that we should do."
The country's previous prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, abandoned emissions reductions targets that the nation had agreed to, and Australia's renewable energy targets are set to expire in 2020. In September, government analysis showed that Australia's greenhouse-gas emissions increased last year, and independent analysts said the country would likely not meet the greenhouse-gas emissions reductions that it committed to under the Paris Agreement. Unlike the US, Australia has not exited the Paris Agreement, but the country's current prime minister has declined to add any more money to the global climate fund.
[...] Still, Australia ranks only fourth for economic coal resources, with the US, Russia, and China ahead of it. In the US, which has the world's largest economic coal resource, the Trump administration has had a difficult time fighting to save coal. On Wednesday, US coal supplier Westmoreland filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the face of $1.4 billion in debt. That makes the company the fourth major US coal supplier to file for bankruptcy in recent years due to the significant decline in coal use.
Internalize the profits, externalize the costs?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @03:12PM (15 children)
I don't know why anyone is surprised that Australians are capable of being as colossally stupid as American have shown themselves to be.
After all, Australia gave us Rupert Murdoch, who gave us Fox, the British tabloid press, etc., which in turn gave us Trump and Brexit. In a way, you could make a strong argument for Australia (via Rupert Murdoch and its other conservates) are as much responsible for the destruction of Western Democracies as Putin is. Certainly he has provided one of the main vectors for infecting our so-called news streams with conspiracy theories that defy reason, and blatent, outright right-wing extremist propoganda that threatens western democratic institutions from the Ukraine across Europe to America, Australia and beyond.
So yeah, I'm not surprised Australia is as capable of this stupidity as the US, Britain, and other once-sensible countries seem to be.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday October 11 2018, @03:30PM (14 children)
Ukrainian doesn't have a word for "the"
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @03:50PM (3 children)
And, it's known widely as "The Ukraine", despite what some people claim.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:44PM (2 children)
Ukraine is game to you?!
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:54PM (1 child)
Ukrain Ikraine, what's the difference anyway?
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Friday October 12 2018, @01:35AM
Ykraine we all get along?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:30PM (7 children)
Did that wall wart ever show up or was that AC trolling you?
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday October 11 2018, @07:18PM (6 children)
The address I gave was the homeless day center in Oldtown Portland. I figure it should be here by then
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @08:14PM (5 children)
The FedEx tracking says it was delivered yesterday.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday October 11 2018, @08:25PM (4 children)
I would go pick it up today but I'm still not feeling right in the head.
I figure I should stay home one more day.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday October 11 2018, @08:45PM (2 children)
Having that level of insight about your head problems is remarkable.
The bipolar person I am close to has absolutely zero insight, and needs a huge amount of guidance when she starts a manic phase. If she refuses to listen bad things happen and picking up the pieces afterwards is the best anyone can do for her.
Good luck to you Michael. I hope you're feeling better soon.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday October 12 2018, @09:08AM (1 child)
Three felonies
I think I can get your charges dropped if you agree to 72 hours in a mental hospital
But I'm not crazy
I know that but stay cool for three days and you're a free man
Three days later
Times up doc you got to let me go
No
But that was the deal
If you don't stay voluntarily I'll hold you involuntarily
Why?
You're hallucinating
No I'm not
Do yo ever hear someone call your name and you go look and they're not there?
How did he know she was calling my _name_?
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 14 2018, @12:00AM
Ok now *I* want to know. How did he know the voice was calling your name?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @10:12PM
It will wait. Do what is right for you. Your health takes priority over everything.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:46PM (1 child)
Pointing out that the name of the country is Ukraine is totally valid. You don't have to wrap it in bullshit linguistics.
What is next, arguing that we shouldn't say Switzerland because it is the Swiss Confederation, er Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft/Confédération suisse/Confederazione Svizzera/Confederaziun svizra. No, you wouldn't say that because it is inane, and because the correct international name doesn't depend solely or explicitly on the local language or local name.
It isn't incorrect in the slightest to say "I will be on holiday in Munich Germany", even though I get there all the signs say München and Deutschland.
The Ukrainian government has made it perfectly clear that the name is anglicized as Ukraine, that is all the argument you need.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:37PM
English speakers tell non-English speakers how something is anglicized.
A lot of English speakers say "the Ukraine".
(Score: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @03:13PM (20 children)
It's certainly not settled science—there are respectable, qualified people who disagree vehemently with the "climate change" message, and who call into question the methodology and conclusions of research which supports it.
Folks, society should NOT spend trillions of dollars re-jiggering itself based on the nuttery of unhinged people chanting in the streets and hugging trees.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:33PM (16 children)
FTFY
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:41PM (15 children)
Ask the environmentalists of the Amazon, who have developed an amazing insight:
Should the Government be the owner? "No!", they say. The government is easily corrupted; it's much safer to put ownership in the hands of "private" individuals.
So, there you have it. You want to save the world? Privatize it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:49PM (2 children)
Bull.shit.
The way to save the Earth is to keep it out of the hands of people like you in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:44PM (1 child)
King Richard would like to disagree with you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:54PM
He can disagree all he wants - it's a free country - well, not his, but ours is.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by RS3 on Thursday October 11 2018, @06:03PM (11 children)
I wish that was true. In my area there have been some infamous cases of 100% privately owned, beautiful healthy very very old trees which were cut down for stupid power lines. Could have moved the lines, including underground, but nope. Owners tried to fight it but "eminent domain", "right of way", "easement", "public good", etc.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @08:00PM
How is that "100% privately owned"? It sounds NOTHING Like "100% privately owned", unless you consider the government to be the private owner.
How do you people even tie your shoes? Seriously. It's like you don't even understand what you're saying.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @08:31PM
How is that "100% privately owned"? It sounds NOTHING Like "100% privately owned", unless you consider the government to be the private owner.
How do you people even tie your shoes? Seriously. It's like you don't even understand what you're saying.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:02PM
How is that "100% privately owned"? It sounds NOTHING Like "100% privately owned", unless you consider the government to be the private owner.
How do you people even tie your shoes? Seriously. It's like you don't even understand what you're saying.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @10:44PM
How is that "100% privately owned"? It sounds NOTHING Like "100% privately owned", unless you consider the government to be the private owner.
How do you people even tie your shoes? Seriously. It's like you don't even understand what you're saying.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @01:32AM
How is that "100% privately owned"? It sounds NOTHING Like "100% privately owned", unless you consider the government to be the private owner.
How do you people even tie your shoes? Seriously. It's like you don't even understand what you're saying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @01:45AM (2 children)
Putting power lines, especially high voltage AC lines underground, greatly increases the energy losses. Didn't you ever study the capacitance between a wire and a plane in high school physics class? The geometry and placement of power lines may look simply like some wires between towers, but it is highly engineered.
Example...follow the wires and you'll see the three phase lines are rotated every so often.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday October 12 2018, @02:27AM (1 child)
Okay smart guy, what's your solution? Before you pontificate some more, 1) you wrote AC, not me. No capacitive losses with DC. 2) I strongly advocate for local (everywhere possible) solar and wind generation with local distributed energy storage (PowerWall, etc.) which will reduce distribution loads and requirements, and 3) read this, remembering it's 8 years old and we've (engineering) gotten even better at efficient DC to AC conversion: https://www.puc.nh.gov/2008IceStorm/ST&E%20Presentations/NEI%20Underground%20Presentation%2006-09-09.pdf [nh.gov]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday October 12 2018, @09:13AM
AC is used because transformers are easy and cheap
There is a D.C. Line from the Columbia to LA. That's how long and how powerful it has to be to be economical
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @03:03AM (2 children)
How is that "100% privately owned"? It sounds NOTHING Like "100% privately owned", unless you consider the government to be the private owner.
How do you people even tie your shoes? Seriously. It's like you don't even understand what you're saying.
(Score: 3, Touché) by hendrikboom on Friday October 12 2018, @03:05PM (1 child)
Velcro.
-- hendrik
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 12 2018, @03:46PM
Please show us, on the picture, how to apply the velcro.
https://www.wolverine.com/US/en/slip-resistant-10-inch-wellington-work-boot/18405M.html [wolverine.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Friday October 12 2018, @05:25AM (2 children)
That's what they said about leaded petrol (gasoline).
They also said that about CFCs.
And DDT.
Let's also not forget that those who are warning of the dangers are not protecting any vested interests (other than perhaps tenure, but then they could get that studying other fields or even better being the ones that finally 'disprove' the claims). The ones telling us that warming is a hoax do have vested interests.
Can you name me one mass-warning in the past century heralded by the majority of scientists in their field that turned out to be nothing?
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Friday October 12 2018, @03:25PM
The internet, and all of its applications, would usher in a new Golden Age of information and efficiency?
(well, I guess that could be correct, since they technically did not consider to apply the adjectives 'correct' or 'useful' or 'fair moderation' or 'no spam' due to Academia being somewhat up in the clouds about what real people do with the stuff they give us...)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Friday October 12 2018, @03:26PM
With leaded gasoline, there was a world-wide reduction in violence about 20 years after it was banned. The exact dates varied around the world depending on when it was banned where, but whenever it was banned, violence declined about 20 years after,
(Score: 2) by ngarrang on Thursday October 11 2018, @03:30PM (2 children)
...you cannot get any dryer. Screw the climate! Pave the Earth, baby!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday October 11 2018, @06:17PM
Well, that's the thing, isn't it? Q: What country has the highest percentage of desert, which is the best land for large solar energy production operations? A: Australia!
However, lots of desert works in other ways. For one, it's an all too handy place to dump trash. No one cares much if a desert gets polluted with mining tailings and industrial waste.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Thursday October 11 2018, @08:55PM
Nawww [google.com].
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @03:35PM (20 children)
https://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/ [endcoal.org]
Coal plants in 2018:
Australia - 22
China - 1003
Sapienti sat.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Snow on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:38PM (4 children)
This type of thinking doesn't help anyone. We are all in this together. If everyone points to the other guy and then carries on 'because the other guy is worse', it will end in disaster.
In Alberta here, there are a lot of people that don't think that Canada should work towards reducing CO2 emissions because Canada's emissions when compared to the entire planet are rather low. 'China is so much worse, so why try?'
It doesn't matter if we have high per capita CO2 emissions -- is all 'but whatabout China?!'
Someone has to lead the charge for a low carbon future. Why shouldn't it be richer first world countries that lead by example?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:51PM (1 child)
... they should build tons of nuclear reactors, and design a well-studied program for dealing with the nuclear waste.
But, no. You crazy fucks won't allow that either. So, FUCK YOU.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @06:57PM
So you admit there is a problem? Just need to be able to rage out on something in order to do so?
Or are you just getting your rage on using the subterfuge of caring about the problem?
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:07PM
Because maybe they want to stay first world countries?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:15PM
Don't forget that these are largely the same people who say "But what about Hillary?" to justify gross corruption and dereliction of duties of constitutional oversight.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:22PM (13 children)
Global new coal plant pipeline keeps shrinking [endcoal.org]
India and China going cold on most new coal
Most of the recent cuts to new coal plant capacity are due to dramatic policy changes in China and India.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday October 11 2018, @06:02PM (12 children)
China has cancelled more coal plants than Australia has.
GP's numbers are almost perfect to show that China is doing better: what's the population ratio ?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @06:44PM (11 children)
Mother Nature deals in ABSOLUTES. Any blabbing about "ratios" just gives away your SJW agenda.
And if even YOU do not care about actual carbon emissions, why should anyone?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @07:02PM (4 children)
Lol, so if we are absolutists then we're impractical idiots who don't care about reality. If we do care about reality and how to practically make headway on the problem then we're just SJW idiots with an agenda.
You're a self-imposed moron, there is nothing left to debate at this point. You're probably violently imposed monopoly fool spouting more right wing propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @07:15PM (3 children)
...than to speak out and remove all doubt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @10:20PM (2 children)
Then why do you keep posting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @11:15PM (1 child)
Just once in your sad SJW life
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @12:16AM
You're calling me a warrior for justice like that is a bad thing? Man, you can't even english! Get back to your bridge you troll, maybe down there you can get away with eating innocent babies and stealing from passing nuns.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday October 11 2018, @11:02PM (5 children)
Total carbon is what counts, carbon:population is a (very rough) estimate of how hard any society needs to work to reduce total carbon.
Carbon:population isn't a very useful ratio. Something like carbon:forest area is much better (one of the more cost effective ways of temporarily slowing global warming is to pay Brazil to stop cutting down the forest). Which is not to say that we shouldn't also be drastically reducing population size.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @11:30PM (4 children)
You (a population/society of one) could "work to reduce total carbon" however hard you wish, up to and including not breathing air, and still the "total carbon" would not get reduced in any noticeable way.
Doing stuff for guaranteed absence of effect is virtue signaling. A government acting like that is virtue signaling at citizens' expense.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by melikamp on Friday October 12 2018, @12:08AM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @01:48AM (2 children)
people like me inland on the Canadian rock don't care we secretly welcome it
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @07:10AM (1 child)
Speak for yourself. The warming will drive Californians up here. And Floridans. Ugh. If only we could get the Mexicans to leapfrog the USA and maybe keep the USA'ians at bay somehow...
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday October 12 2018, @04:04PM
Invite the Mexicans to Canada for sure! I was told by some developer that they will happily finance a wall on the southern border to keep aliens out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @01:56PM
The bigger problem is that AU sells cheap coal to china.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by goodie on Thursday October 11 2018, @03:52PM (45 children)
I don't mean that this applies only to the present story (or context for that matter), but I can't help but wonder how people who say these things can look at their kids and not think that they are screwing up with their future lives? Before I had kids, this was not too much of a concern of mine, although I did try to be sensible. But now that I have kids, I just want them to have the chance to have their own kids too without worrying that the state the planet will be in will make it unbearable... Soon enough, there will people who will choose not to have kids because the planet is getting too damn hostile. It sounds stupid to say, but I think it will happen, if it does not already.
Short-term gains for a heck of a lot of pain in the long run... Same thing in Canada, where somehow provincial governments think it's best to work toward creating manual, low education jobs to work in the oil sands than to protect the incredibly diverse environment they have. And every time demand falls, these people are out of jobs and demanding that they be compensated. And so governments lobby to ship oil again, and the cycle repeats itself :(.
(Score: 3, Redundant) by VLM on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:00PM (37 children)
Poverty is unbearable; "I have a great job but its microscopically warmer outside" is no big deal.
(Score: 2) by goodie on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:12PM (32 children)
What always kills me is the "It's so hot I'll crank up the AC even more!" without considering that this actually contributes to the larger problem as we get more accustomed to it... I know there are places where it is a necessity, but when it's 25C and people turn on the AC everywhere because anything warmer than 21 is too hot, it's pretty sad.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:34PM (31 children)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snow on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:44PM (28 children)
Energy is cheap because CO2 emission costs are not factored into the cost of energy production.
Companies are able to crap up the air you breathe for 0$. Pollution should be taxed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:53PM (20 children)
Tax monies go to the government coffers.
Why should the government get that money? WHY?!
(Score: 4, Touché) by Snow on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:57PM (8 children)
Maybe to provide health care services to deal with the increased health problems that pollution brings?
Maybe the gov't can use the money to build a seawall around Florida so it's not underwater in a few decades?
Maybe the government can use the money to send a helicopter in to save your ass after being stranded by a massive hurricane or other natural disaster?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:38PM (7 children)
Those are issues for The People to figure out amongst themselves; in a free society, people figure out those things through voluntary interaction, not mandate at the point of a gun.
(Score: 2) by Snow on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:46PM (6 children)
Oh, okay.
Can you provide an example of that working on a country sized scale?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @06:14PM (5 children)
Look around you.
The only reason any society can be maintained for any appreciable amount of time is because of Capitalism. This is even true of, for example, North Korea, where "black" markets are the only thing that actually keeps people alive.
You see, your problem is that you think in terms of self-conscious, self-aware "governing" bodies who define themselves in terms of borders, and the like. Capitalism doesn't give a shit about those things; capitalism pervades all human interaction (even against people's wills), and is responsible for long-term, sustainable, productive allocation of resources—it's not the case that a Big Government creates a wealthy society, but rather it's the case that a wealthy society can afford the parasite that is Big Government.
Capitalism is working even through the unconscious, un-self-aware: Solutions are being found without people even realizing; the problems being solved are often not even known to be problems! That is what "the Invisible Hand" means; it doesn't require "Intelligent Design" (though it doesn't preclude it, either)—it is a process of evolution by variation and selection, with or without deliberate, explicit thought.
Government is like that guy who hops in front of a parade and pretends to lead it. That's why politics change with the winds; at a sufficient level of complexity, there is NO SUCH THING as Intelligent Design, and to think otherwise will only ever lead you to dangerous, wrongheaded, self-destructive choices at your so-called "country sized scale".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Snow on Thursday October 11 2018, @06:44PM (2 children)
When I look around, all I see countries which tax their citizens/businesses to fund services.
In places with little/no government you don't get this free market utopian dream. You get a place like Somalia, one of the only places on the planet that lacks the structure of government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @07:05PM
Woah now check your privilege! You can't just drop truth bombs on idiots, either their minds will implode or they'll just dig deeper into denial.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @08:07PM
It's not surprising that warlords arise in the fall of an authoritarian culture.
People's lives have improved immensely (even outpacing the quality of life in nearby "stable" countries) since the fall of Communism.
Indeed, one of the reasons for this improvement is that old quasi-capitalist tribal rules started to fill the power vacuum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @01:58AM (1 child)
I saw the same thing in the Soviet Union. It's interesting that communism is perfectly legal in capitalist countries ( https://www.ic.org/ [ic.org]), but capitalism is illegal in communist countries (https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/neyyyw/we-met-the-young-hustlers-cashing-in-on-cubas-booming-black-market [vice.com]).
(Score: 3, Touché) by dry on Friday October 12 2018, @04:49AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954 [wikipedia.org] and earlier, the Congressional Act that abridged the freedom of speech, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 [wikipedia.org] was used to prosecute people with politics that the government didn't like, for example,
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:16PM (10 children)
Who do you suggest should get the money?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:41PM (8 children)
I'm not sure how to solve the problem, but an externality (like pollution) is usually a sign that property rights are not well defined enough.
Why can't you, as an individual, successfully sue the coal power plant owners for dirtying your air? Why can't you and others join a class action lawsuit on that issue in order to, you know, collectively bargain?
You can't, because private property is not well respected in this world, even in the West. Our society is still very primitive with regard to individual rights.
(Score: 2) by Snow on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:48PM (7 children)
The only people that win in a class action is the lawyers.
Your example solution doens't solve anything though. It only (maybe) gives you money after you have already been harmed. Wouldn't it be better to not be harmed in the first place?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:58PM (6 children)
You haven't countered my point; you are just helping me identify the problem: Despite it being the explicit goal of the Founders, the various governments of the United States do a pretty poor job of protecting the rights of individuals.
I agree with you; the compensation of lawyers is part of the dysfunction.
I don't know whether you've noticed, but our Universe is an evolutionary one—through variation and selection, complex systems arrive at sustainable solution for the given conditions. You want protections? The only way to find them is to run the evolutionary experiment; a free market does not purport to solve problems immediately, but rather only to find solutions over the course of time, through iteration, through evolution by variation and selection.
Anybody who tells you that he knows the proper shape of a complex system is either delusional or lying. The best any would-be "Intelligent Designer" can do is to set up conditions that allow a complex system to tap into this most fundamental process in our Universe: Evolution by variation and selection.
So, no wonder the Founders' governments failed; a special, blessed, monopoly on violence is not conducive to (and even explicitly fights against) both variation and selection.
(Score: 2) by Snow on Thursday October 11 2018, @06:31PM (4 children)
I agree with what you say above. The free market is perhaps the best problem solver we have.
The government should play the role of the "Intelligent Designer". The government should set conditions to reward good things and punish bad things. Taxes are a tool to that end. Don't like carbon emissions? Tax them. The Free Market will work towards finding lower carbon alternatives because it is cheaper. Want the free marker to solve problems faster? Tax them harder.
There is of course a trade-off. Pretty much everything we do, we do using energy from carbon. Carbon taxes make pretty much everything cost more.
Unchecked, the free market will exploit something as long as it makes money. That is at odds with having an environment that is sustainable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @07:08PM
Government control *REEEEEE* violently imposed monopoly REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE taxes...theft....freedumbs.....REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @08:09PM (2 children)
... and welfare rewards failure.
That's what you're saying.
(Score: 2) by Snow on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:49PM (1 child)
Nope. Not what I said at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @10:47PM
A tax on "vice" is indistinguishable from a tax on productive work.
And, you know what? WHY SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT GET THAT MONEY, ANYWAY?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 11 2018, @10:50PM
Easy solution: kill the lawyers of the losing party. In time, evolution will select only winning lawyers, the ones that will refuse (for their self-preservation) to settle the disputes in court
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Friday October 12 2018, @07:34AM
Me.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:55PM (5 children)
My AC runs from the solar panels in my back yard. It's a small 500W window AC, but does a good job. Heating is far more energy intensive.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday October 11 2018, @06:07PM (4 children)
You're almost there, just try an inverting heat pump. As long as your winter doesn't drop much below freezing, those work great and you get 3x more heat for your panel buck.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday October 12 2018, @03:38PM (3 children)
My winters can get as cold as minus 40. Don't ask about Fahrenheit versus Celsius.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday October 12 2018, @03:40PM (1 child)
My heating is electrical. Power generation here is mostly hydro and nuclear. But heating still costs CO2 because using power here limits Quebec's ability to export it to places that still use fossil fuel.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday October 12 2018, @04:01PM
At -40, there isn't much heat to pump, even if you'd still be better off than people at 1C with humidity (freezing the coils).
Geothermal heat pump is still more efficient than pure electrical, if you can get it installed ...
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday October 12 2018, @03:42PM
My heating is electrical, provided from hydro or nuclear. But my use of energy still has CO2 implications because any energy I use can't be exported by Quebec to places that do use fossil fuels.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 12 2018, @01:29AM
Ok, so how much are those costs? Looks like global emissions were 10 gT (giga-metric tons) almost on the nose for 2017. And IPCC was proposing mitigation fixes that are $2.4 trillion per year. So we're looking at the fix costing $240 per metric ton of CO2 emitted, implying that the cost of global warming is more. Mind you, we don't even know if the net cost (that is, cost minus benefits) is even positive, so this rather high amount seems pretty dubious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:52PM (1 child)
The problem will be how much clean water will cost, and farmable land. Just because energy is cheap now doesn't mean it doesn't affect the big picture.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 12 2018, @01:33AM
Um, those will remain cheap even after global warming. And with cheap energy it becomes cheap to move goods around, like clean water and food from farmable land.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:58PM
Hillary was right, "deplorables".
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 11 2018, @10:53PM (2 children)
Implicit assumption: we can't get out of poverty without hearing the climate.
Care to demonstrate this assumption? Otherwise, you are proposing a false dillema.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday October 12 2018, @11:23AM (1 child)
Shutting down coal mines increases employment of coal miners (or holds neutral)? I'm just saying, thats a kinda low bar.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday October 12 2018, @12:37PM
Riiight. Because the society need to keep the buggy-whip makers in the job. Like forever.
And there were [bbc.com] no coal mine closures [wikipedia.org] until now, so coal miners never got out of business; because everybody knows a coal mine holds infinite amounts of coal thus can never close. Must be a weird place the Universe you live in.
Meanwhile in our Universe... Employment? What employment?
Mines operate with minimal personnel [wikipedia.org], so the human miners aren't spared [abc.net.au] of the poverty if they choose not to take other jobs. You think the miners can compete cost-wise with fat kid in his mother basement remotely operating the mining equipment [machines4u.com.au] with one hand and wanking with the other? Not even freight train drivers need apply [afr.com].
Those American coal miners that elected Trump? Joke's on them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Redundant) by khallow on Thursday October 11 2018, @04:23PM (3 children)
Well, where's the evidence that they're screwing up with the future lives of their kids? IPCC is remarkably lacking on this matter.
An environment which is not made noticeably less diverse by oil sands development. And those jobs pay well.
This is the trope of the ignored expert [tvtropes.org]. It makes for a great story. But where's the evidence that this story is what is actually happening?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:56PM
Keep being ignorant and braonwashed, i think you are bexoming the new court jester round here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @07:21AM (1 child)
> An environment which is not made noticeably less diverse by oil sands development.
Google the word "anthropocene"; [b]you're factually incorrect.[/b]
Or go check for crickets this summer. Remember how fun it was to catch them as a kid? Now try to FIND one. Or go listen to birdsong, and then compare to recordings from the same area from the 60s, and just try, try to say it sounds the same. As any birder of that vintage can tell you, times have changed, lots of songs just aren't heard now, certainly almost all are heard less.
This is the very definition of noticeably less diverse.
> And those jobs pay well.
And the money, made easily, is squandered freely. Few people leave the sands rich. Lots buy big trucks and drink heavily while there, though, and fly out at 2wk intervals to gamble and fuck the excellent pay away.
You're ... [b]I guess you're just stupid.[/b] I don't mean that as an insult, though it's tempting to try to insult you. But besides that, I can't think of another good reason for saying things like this. [b]You lack or fail to exercise a ability to discern sensible from incoherent, plausible from gumbo, logic from rhetoric; you seem to be broken.[/b] I hope you find something good and productive to do with life, and never enter politics or other positions needing good decision making, and impacting others.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 12 2018, @08:54PM
Pretty choice given the crap you just wrote. Let's review: because "anthropocene" is a word and crickets and song birds (cool story, bro!) allegedly dying off in my non-Canadian neighborhood means that Canadian oil sands are bad; good paying jobs are bad because the people getting the money from those jobs will just spend the money on things a certain AC poster doesn't like; and you are "trying" to not insult me by calling me stupid without even the slightest reason for doing so. Did you even bother to read what I wrote?
Well, here's my obvious rebuttal: "anthropocene" doesn't mean "Canadian oil sands are bad"; there are a host of reasons for bird song diminution such as habitat destruction, lots and lots of cats, poisoning with pesticides, and noise pollution that have nothing to with Canadian oil sands; and I think it's outrageous to be against good paying jobs because the people might make bad or decadent choices - what is the point of democracy, if we aren't allowed to choose, and what's going to happen to social safety nets if we deliberately destroy the alternatives that help people avoid being a social burden?
And I'm supposed to be the stupid one?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:51PM (2 children)
Maybe since most other problems have been solved it's about giving their kids something to do besides sitting around playing video games and posting on fb.
“We’re the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War’s a spiritual war… our Great Depression is our lives."
Chuck Palahniuk , Fight Club
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday October 11 2018, @07:06PM (1 child)
Thinking along these lines, I wonder if success isn't its own worst enemy. Perhaps life proceeds in a virtue to vice to virtue cycle? Success -> complacency -> decline -> failure. Trouble is, to get from failure back to success is a whole lot harder than the other direction, in which all you have to do is not show up.
Or, to put it slightly differently, when life gets easy, the next generation doesn't have to work as hard and becomes less fit and less intelligent. That makes life more difficult, which pressures the 3rd generation to improve. Or blame all their troubles on evil outsiders.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 11 2018, @10:56PM
Victims of success? No. Victims of complacency? Yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford