Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Pooter said:

There's an enormous false equivalence here. The "race riots" were an organic reaction of the populace to a thing that actually happened.. the brutal killing of George Floyd by police.. caught completely on video. 
 

The capitol riot was incited by the sitting president of the United States spreading blatant falsehoods about a fair election because his own ego couldn't handle the fact that he lost.  And even though the number of people who stormed the capitol is very small in the grand scheme of things, the scariest part of this is that ~40% of republicans believe the same narrative that motivated those rioters.


If you don't understand how the latter is far more dangerous to our country than the former, we don't have a lot left to talk about.  

Both came out of political operatives sowing lies in order to cement their own power. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pooter said:

There's an enormous false equivalence here. The "race riots" were an organic reaction of the populace to a thing that actually happened.. the brutal killing of George Floyd by police.. caught completely on video. 
 

The capitol riot was incited by the sitting president of the United States spreading blatant falsehoods about a fair election because his own ego couldn't handle the fact that he lost.  And even though the number of people who stormed the capitol is very small in the grand scheme of things, the scariest part of this is that ~40% of republicans believe the same narrative that motivated those rioters.


If you don't understand how the latter is far more dangerous to our country than the former, we don't have a lot left to talk about.  

Let's re-frame this discussion then.

People see the George Floyd video, and that sparks protests about police killing black Americans. Those protests then devolve into riots in some major US cities.

Key Point: Those riots and protests weren't just because of George Floyd, although his death likely elevated the issue. They were about the 'systemic killing of black people by police.' Which is a lie. Period. The Washington Post created a database to try and prove the theory... and they came up empty, along with other journalistic/academic outlets. That reality didn't dissuade prominent media personalities, our current VP, and others from creating bail funds for those doing the rioting, and going along with that lie... because it made them powerful.

------

Fast forward 6-8 months.

Some people see that their state voting laws are being changed without their legislature's consent due to legal action by the Democratic party/and or action from Democratic state officials, and that bothers them. Election night rolls around, and more people see "massive dumps of mail-in votes" that happened throughout the night, and several uncorroborated accounts of "fraud" being perpetuated. When coupled with that previous discontent, they believe the election is likely stolen. (Then) President Trump seizes on that narrative... because that gives him political power.

Tying it together: Both the cases rely on factual things that happened to base their alternate realities. George Floyd did die at the hands of a cop. States did have their voting laws changed to boost mail-in voting. Attached to those truths are an entire web of lies that create the full conspiracies, and thus build the emotional fever required to sustain a movement. Cults work in very similar ways, actually. You could even say the same thing about QAnon... with the factual basis being Jeffrey Epstein.

Moving on though, both sides took those false ideas and engaged in violence to support them. For BLM it was rioting and looting. For the right it was Jan 6th.

We can debate over which was "bigger" or which made the larger "impact," but fundamentally they are the exact same thing. Political violence committed because of a conspiracy. A lie.

Trump didn't invent the fraud conspiracy, he simply weaponized it for his gain. Just as Kamala Harris and other Democrats didn't invent the lies that BLM used. They simply weaponized it for their gain.

Both sides in a deeper way understand this, which is why the debate naturally comes down to which side is more morally righteous. Ex. "You seriously can't compare racial oppression to a crazy stolen election theory." Which is an attempt to add slavery/Jim Crow/racism to their side of the seesaw in a clever slight of hand... by calling you a racist.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pooter said:

There's an enormous false equivalence here. The "race riots" were an organic reaction of the populace to a thing that actually happened.. the brutal killing of George Floyd by police.. caught completely on video. 
 

The capitol riot was incited by the sitting president of the United States spreading blatant falsehoods about a fair election because his own ego couldn't handle the fact that he lost.  And even though the number of people who stormed the capitol is very small in the grand scheme of things, the scariest part of this is that ~40% of republicans believe the same narrative that motivated those rioters.


If you don't understand how the latter is far more dangerous to our country than the former, we don't have a lot left to talk about.  

This post exemplifies the real crisis in our country: an inability to talk to each other.  Your first paragraph is filled with assumptions you believe to be facts.  Your second paragraph is also assumptions masquerading as fact.  
 

The foundation of a functioning democratic society is disagreements are civil and resolved by good faith conversations.  That means listening to the other side and asking yourself “could they be right?  Can I understand their viewpoint?  How can I convince them of mine?”
 

You’re right about one thing: we don’t have much left to talk about if “talking” just means I’m brow beat with your opinions.  How do you think the country hold together when convincing conversations cease and power is used to force those you disagree with to obey?

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Pooter said:

There's an enormous false equivalence here. The "race riots" were an organic reaction of the populace to a thing that actually happened.. the brutal killing of George Floyd by police.. caught completely on video. 
 

The capitol riot was incited by the sitting president of the United States spreading blatant falsehoods about a fair election because his own ego couldn't handle the fact that he lost.  And even though the number of people who stormed the capitol is very small in the grand scheme of things, the scariest part of this is that ~40% of republicans believe the same narrative that motivated those rioters.


If you don't understand how the latter is far more dangerous to our country than the former, we don't have a lot left to talk about.  

If you can't see why my opinion is better than yours, we have nothing to talk about. 

Well... Bye.

 

The others have already covered the errors of your post, but one more I'll add:

 

The race riots were far from organic, and they were not born from the George Floyd murder (murder, not racist murder). They were a continuation of social unrest where protests and riots spring up everytime a black American was killed by the police (or non-black person) in circumstances that were murky enough to exploit. Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, George Floyd, just to name some big ones. Remember Hands Up Don't Shoot? Was that *blatant* fantasy an organic response as well? 

 

What's hilarious in your response is almost perfectly timed support of my allegation.

 

Me: The false depiction of a looming apocalypse is exactly the fear mongering tactic politicians are using to generate donations and votes. The side effect is it's making us hate our neighbors

You: If you don't understand how the latter [i.e. your side's social unrest] is far more dangerous to our country than the former [my side's social unrest], we don't have a lot left to talk about.  

Edited by Lord Ratner
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2021 at 5:02 AM, ClearedHot said:

Like I said the party is over and the tug of war has begun.  Will he have the stones to stay in the middle given all that unity and stuff or will he end up under the thumb of the squad...

Joe is also pushing back on his key Stone Pipeline EO - Sen. Manchin Urges Biden to Permit Keystone XL Pipeline

The benefits outweigh the negatives on the XL extension.   The main benefit being increased North American energy independence.  We are better off getting petroleum from North American land vs the Middle East.  Offshore carries unique environmental risks that are difficult to mitigate (busted well heads and crashed tankers).  

The jobs will help, although the estimates vary widely.  The DoS's estimate was 40k jobs, of which 10% would be during the construction period.  When compared to a typical 180k/month job creation rate in the US, it isn't much but every little bit counts due to COVID impacts.  

 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-benefits-from-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-and-dakota-access-pipeline-pros-cons/

There is a technology and investment piece here also.  Tar sands are significantly more corrosive than other petroleum suspension mediums, thus risking oil leaks.  It is solvable in the near term via brute force (more metal, catchment systems) assuming the private sector is willing to pony up the funds.   

I'd like to see nuclear power regain a viable position and grow.  Of course, there are limits regarding suitable conventional plant locations (large bodies of cooling water), construction materials (steady supply of rare metals due to neutron embrittlement), disposal, and uranium.   That said, the hysteria around safety is largely overblown.  If the Navy can run reactors on warships, we should be able to figure it out for commercial energy needs.  Due to particulate pollution, hydrocarbons affect far more people on a per-kW basis than nuclear plants.  Another 50 plants could supply 15-20% of our current electricity demand.

 

Edited by Swamp Yankee
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use to follow this site when I was going into UPT and trying to get into OTS.  I still surf around and follow some conversations from time to time.  There are usually some interesting perspectives here.  I separated from the AF and work in Oil and Gas now and have had a great career for the past 10 years.  I'll add my .02 on energy from my perspective.

Keystone XL.  There already is a Keystone pipeline.  The XL would allow more crude to flow from Canada.  Canadian Crude is heavy sulfur or sour crude.  Sweet crude is more often found in the Middle East and is just below the surface.  Most of the northern refineries and midwest burn Canadian crude.  You need special equipment to turn products out of it.  Enbridge Pipeline has several lines running across the border and even under Lake Michigan (Line 5).  The benefit of Canadian is that it's dirt cheap.  However, it is harder on equipment.  The coastal refineries dont allow it to be processed.  Their crude comes from the middle east.  The US is the largest oil producer in the world.  But US oil is really only profitable at around $40/barrel in most locations.  Middle East crude is something under $10/barrel.

I dont know how many jobs are lost if XL is cancelled.  It's a stupid amount of steel though.  It's push against energy in general that has me worried.  There was a brain drain in the industry in the late 80's.  But with the Bakken and Eagle Ford basins there was a massive demand for bodies.  You can have a GED and make $100k.  I have 2 reports that are Navy Vets with only a GED making over $200k.  I dont think many people on the coast realize how many people make a great living in this industry and no they can't just go get windmill jobs.  We have Aerospace Engineers working with us that make more on pipeline engineering than they ever did at Lockheed.  This past year has been bad on the industry.  I dont think Biden has a clue not just cancelling XL but putting a target on this industry how bad it could be.

Also interesting note about Nuclear Plants.  The largest plant is west of Phoenix, Palo Verde.  They use public city waste water for cooling.  Also since CA closed their plants, Palo Verde sells power into the CA grid.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, ecugringo said:

I use to follow this site when I was going into UPT and trying to get into OTS.  I still surf around and follow some conversations from time to time.  There are usually some interesting perspectives here.  I separated from the AF and work in Oil and Gas now and have had a great career for the past 10 years.  I'll add my .02 on energy from my perspective.

Keystone XL.  There already is a Keystone pipeline.  The XL would allow more crude to flow from Canada.  Canadian Crude is heavy sulfur or sour crude.  Sweet crude is more often found in the Middle East and is just below the surface.  Most of the northern refineries and midwest burn Canadian crude.  You need special equipment to turn products out of it.  Enbridge Pipeline has several lines running across the border and even under Lake Michigan (Line 5).  The benefit of Canadian is that it's dirt cheap.  However, it is harder on equipment.  The coastal refineries dont allow it to be processed.  Their crude comes from the middle east.  The US is the largest oil producer in the world.  But US oil is really only profitable at around $40/barrel in most locations.  Middle East crude is something under $10/barrel.

I dont know how many jobs are lost if XL is cancelled.  It's a stupid amount of steel though.  It's push against energy in general that has me worried.  There was a brain drain in the industry in the late 80's.  But with the Bakken and Eagle Ford basins there was a massive demand for bodies.  You can have a GED and make $100k.  I have 2 reports that are Navy Vets with only a GED making over $200k.  I dont think many people on the coast realize how many people make a great living in this industry and no they can't just go get windmill jobs.  We have Aerospace Engineers working with us that make more on pipeline engineering than they ever did at Lockheed.  This past year has been bad on the industry.  I dont think Biden has a clue not just cancelling XL but putting a target on this industry how bad it could be.

Also interesting note about Nuclear Plants.  The largest plant is west of Phoenix, Palo Verde.  They use public city waste water for cooling.  Also since CA closed their plants, Palo Verde sells power into the CA grid.

Interesting.  The technical details tend to get in the way of "simple" solutions. 

That reminds me - a few years ago one of my teams was testing anti-vibration seating systems with trucking companies in central Canada and the northern tier of the US.  I remember pulling into tiny oil towns and seeing 20 year olds driving brand new $70k pickups, Range Rovers and G-Wagons.  They couldn't all be meth dealers.  

Waste water for cooling makes sense. 

 

Edited by Swamp Yankee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Interesting.  The technical details tend to get in the way of "simple" solutions. 

That reminds me - a few years ago one of my teams was testing anti-vibration seating systems with trucking companies in central Canada and the northern tier of the US.  I remember pulling into tiny oil towns and seeing 20 year olds driving brand new $70k pickups, Range Rovers and G-Wagons.  They couldn't all be meth dealers.  

Waste water for cooling makes sense. 

 

Yeah it's far more complicated than just put the pipeline in and gas will be .69 cents/gallon....You actually want a healthy fuel price for the downstream side of the industry.  The crack spread is the profit refineries make on the price of oil they purchase it and what they can sell the finished products at.  Upstream needs the price of oil traded at a healthy price as well.  Exxon, Shell, Chevron etc....have no interest at oil traded at under $50/bbl.  Once the price dips, they will throttle back.  If the US stops buying Canadian crude, they will sell it to China and build a pipeline to the west.

Interesting note on XL.  Warren Buffet campaigned against the XL pipeline.  Warren Buffet owns BNSF Rail.  As of now the pipeline infrastructure is not inlace to move large amounts of Bakken Crude which is sweet crude other than rail.  BNSF owns the rights to move all Bakken crude by rail.  When Obama canned XL BNSF bought something like 10k rail cars for crude.  Rail is by far more dangerous to move oil.  Bakken Crude is mostly moved by train to the west and barged down to CA refineries to process or it moves east to the Coastal refineries.

Yes, 70k F150's are very common.  Everyone I know has a lot of toys.  Cash maybe not so much but $10k hunting trips aren't out of the question.

Edited by ecugringo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ecugringo said:

 

Also interesting note about Nuclear Plants.  The largest plant is west of Phoenix, Palo Verde.  They use public city waste water for cooling.  Also since CA closed their plants, Palo Verde sells power into the CA grid.

Learn something new every day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2021 at 9:59 AM, Lord Ratner said:

If you can't see why my opinion is better than yours, we have nothing to talk about. 

Well... Bye.

 

The others have already covered the errors of your post, but one more I'll add:

 

The race riots were far from organic, and they were not born from the George Floyd murder (murder, not racist murder). They were a continuation of social unrest where protests and riots spring up everytime a black American was killed by the police (or non-black person) in circumstances that were murky enough to exploit. Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, George Floyd, just to name some big ones. Remember Hands Up Don't Shoot? Was that *blatant* fantasy an organic response as well? 

 

What's hilarious in your response is almost perfectly timed support of my allegation.

 

Me: The false depiction of a looming apocalypse is exactly the fear mongering tactic politicians are using to generate donations and votes. The side effect is it's making us hate our neighbors

You: If you don't understand how the latter [i.e. your side's social unrest] is far more dangerous to our country than the former [my side's social unrest], we don't have a lot left to talk about.  

Part of the issue is the "uniqueness" of the Jan 6th riot/insurrection/whatever you want to call it.  The country has experienced and survived riots due to racial unrest: Tulsa 1921, Detroit 1943, Watts 1965, Boston 1974, LA 1992, BLM this summer and many, many more.  Now, let me be clear, these events were horrible and cannot be excused. For example, in the 1921 Tulsa massacre up to 200 (mostly black people) were killed by (mostly) white mobs.  The underlying factors and the people involved in all of these riots do not speak well of America values.  However, sadly, we are familiar with such events. 

There isn't a precedent for an invasion of a federal building and attempt to stop an important federal government process.  Until Jan 6th, an enemy flag has never been forcibly displayed in the Capitol.  There were armed invaders who, by their own admission, were seeking to harm those charged with conducting said processes.   Luckily it manifested as flash fire that burned out. That said, I would argue that the hot embers still exist and could flare up again.   So, yes, I do think we were close to an unprecedented precipice.  How close?  Who knows, we've never been through this before.  We've never had a national leader who has been able to whip up fervor to this extent based on lies.

 

Edited by Swamp Yankee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Part of the issue is the "uniqueness" of the Jan 6th riot/insurrection/whatever you want to call it.  The country has experienced and survived riots due to racial unrest: Tulsa 1921, Detroit 1943, Watts 1965, Boston 1974, LA 1992, BLM this summer and many, many more.  Now, let me be clear, these events were horrible and cannot be excused. For example, in the 1921 Tulsa massacre up to 200 (mostly black people) were killed by (mostly) white mobs.  The underlying factors and the people involved in all of these riots do not speak well of America values.  However, sadly, we are familiar with such events. 

There isn't a precedent for an invasion of a federal building and attempt to stop an important federal government process.  Until Jan 6th, an enemy flag has never been forcibly displayed in the Capitol.  There were armed invaders who, by their own admission, were seeking to harm those charged with conducting said processes.   Luckily it manifested as flash fire that burned out. That said, I would argue that the hot embers still exist and could flare up again.   So, yes, I do think we were close to an unprecedented precipice.  How close?  Who knows, we've never been through this before.  We've never had a national leader who has been able to whip up fervor to this extent based on lies.

 

After watching some of the videos presented to the Senate this week I’m convinced that Pence was in much more danger than I previously thought. Pelosi too. 
 

In the end the government was able to resume work fairly quickly which is a testament to the strength of our institutions. 
 

I thought the first impeachment was a partisan waste of time. The second is perfectly justified but the GOP is so full of cowards that nothing will come of it. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Homestar said:

After watching some of the videos presented to the Senate this week I’m convinced that Pence was in much more danger than I previously thought. Pelosi too. 
 

In the end the government was able to resume work fairly quickly which is a testament to the strength of our institutions. 
 

I thought the first impeachment was a partisan waste of time. The second is perfectly justified but the GOP is so full of cowards that nothing will come of it. 

Yeah this 2nd Impeachment will backfire on the dems.  Trump will be acquitted and will be able to say "another hoax, just like Russiagate!" to keep his base fired up and maintain influence on the GOP.  It wouldn't matter if Trump murdered someone.  2/3 of the current Senate still would not convict; many would twist their minds into a no vote.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Part of the issue is the "uniqueness" of the Jan 6th riot/insurrection/whatever you want to call it.  The country has experienced and survived riots due to racial unrest: Tulsa 1921, Detroit 1943, Watts 1965, Boston 1974, LA 1992, BLM this summer and many, many more.  Now, let me be clear, these events were horrible and cannot be excused. For example, in the 1921 Tulsa massacre up to 200 (mostly black people) were killed by (mostly) white mobs.
 


The Tulsa race massacre/black wall street massacre was pretty bad if you don't know much about it. It was the single worst racial violence incident in US history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre
https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/roaring-twenties/tulsa-race-massacre

Estimates of death toll range from 75-300, but also 35 blocks of city were destroyed by white mobs, including 1,200+ homes and 200 businesses. Left about 10,000 black Americans homeless. Also crazy, private aircraft were used to bomb black Americans as well...

It's a interesting piece of history that I never heard about until I was stationed in Oklahoma.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jazzdude said:


 

 


The Tulsa race massacre/black wall street massacre was pretty bad if you don't know much about it. It was the single worst racial violence incident in US history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre
https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/roaring-twenties/tulsa-race-massacre

Estimates of death toll range from 75-300, but also 35 blocks of city were destroyed by white mobs, including 1,200+ homes and 200 businesses. Left about 10,000 black Americans homeless. Also crazy, private aircraft were used to bomb black Americans as well...

It's a interesting piece of history that I never heard about until I was stationed in Oklahoma.

 

I didn't know all that detail.  In fact, I only learned about it a couple of years ago due to an offhand remark on a podcast.  I guess certain folks want to let sleeping dogs lie.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:


 

 


The Tulsa race massacre/black wall street massacre was pretty bad if you don't know much about it. It was the single worst racial violence incident in US history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre
https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/roaring-twenties/tulsa-race-massacre

Estimates of death toll range from 75-300, but also 35 blocks of city were destroyed by white mobs, including 1,200+ homes and 200 businesses. Left about 10,000 black Americans homeless. Also crazy, private aircraft were used to bomb black Americans as well...

It's a interesting piece of history that I never heard about until I was stationed in Oklahoma.

 

Josh and Chuck did a great Stuff you Should Know podcast episode on it as well. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony of Biden's killing the Keystone Pipeline in the name of "Climate Change"....Killing the pipeline will actually INCREASE carbon emissions. 

To offset the amount of oil lost by cancelling the pipeline the U.S. will have to add 646 Train tankers of oil per day and it will consume 1.4 Million gallons of fuel (usually diesel), everyday to move that fuel.  That is the equivalent of adding the emissions of 490,000 cars to our output. 

Well done Never Trumper Climate Savers.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2021 at 3:42 PM, ecugringo said:

If the US stops buying Canadian crude, they will sell it to China and build a pipeline to the west.

British Columbia makes California look like a right wing junta, Alberta has been wanting to this for years but the leftists in BC kibosh it every time. Alberta has a movement in its borders to leave Canada and become part of the U.S.. It is actually legal to secede from Ottawa, they have been paying the Quebecois for years to stay with Alberta's money.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

The irony of Biden's killing the Keystone Pipeline in the name of "Climate Change"....Killing the pipeline will actually INCREASE carbon emissions. 

To offset the amount of oil lost by cancelling the pipeline the U.S. will have to add 646 Train tankers of oil per day and it will consume 1.4 Million gallons of fuel (usually diesel), everyday to move that fuel.  That is the equivalent of adding the emissions of 490,000 cars to our output. 

Well done Never Trumper Climate Savers.

Long term, the pipeline would definitely be worse for the environment just due to economic incentives to keep using oil once a pipeline like that existed.

Ill say it bluntly. If we want to do something about climate change, we have to stop developing oil and coal infrastructure in 2020. Put another way, the F-16 was great, but putting an AESA in its nose isn’t going to help us win against China nearly as much as 5th/6th Gen solutions. But, sure, the F-16 solution would be a helluva lot quicker and easier.

I get the feeling that doing something about climate change really isn’t near the top of your list of policies.

The keystone pipeline would further entrench us in the usage of low quality oil for decades, which is extremely counterproductive to any long term modernization.

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/tar-sands-climate-impacts-IB.pdf

Also, your statement assumes the only way the American economy continues is by using the exact same amount of oil in the future. The Biden administration also strongly is pushing for the electrification of the majority of cars by 2030, reducing dependence on oil and negating most of your point. It’s a short term loss for a long term gain.

I’m curious, you say you recognize that climate change is real and you aren’t a denier. What, then, is your strategy for climate change?

Or are you more aligned with Tucker Carlson here, who totally “believes” in the science?

 

Edited by Negatory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Long term, the pipeline would definitely be worse for the environment just due to economic incentives to keep using oil once a pipeline like that existed.

Ill say it bluntly. If we want to do something about climate change, we have to stop developing oil and coal infrastructure in 2020. Put another way, the F-16 was great, but putting an AESA in its nose isn’t going to help us win against China nearly as much as 5th/6th Gen solutions. But, sure, the F-16 solution would be a helluva lot quicker and easier.

I get the feeling that doing something about climate change really isn’t near the top of your list of policies.

The keystone pipeline would further entrench us in the usage of low quality oil for decades, which is extremely counterproductive to any long term modernization.

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/tar-sands-climate-impacts-IB.pdf

Also, your statement assumes the only way the American economy continues is by using the exact same amount of oil in the future. The Biden administration also strongly is pushing for the electrification of the majority of cars by 2030, reducing dependence on oil and negating most of your point. It’s a short term loss for a long term gain.

I’m curious, you say you recognize that climate change is real and you aren’t a denier. What, then, is your strategy for climate change?

Or are you more aligned with Tucker Carlson here, who totally “believes” in the science?

 

I've clearly stated I think climate change is real and we need to do something, but this is not the thing, this is a political stunt that does far more harm than good. 

I am in favor of actual investments in science not a move that placates the wacky far left and costs thousands of jobs while doing more hard to the environment. 

How about we use some of that unity we were promised  built a real bipartisan national strategy to reduce emissions and convert to renewables before we wreck the American economy.  Neither side will be happy int he short-term, but that probably means we have a real solution.  Instead we have an out of touch administration playing to the extremes.  What a great narrative when John "Climate Change Czar" took his private jet to the climate change summit and said displaced Keystone Pipeline workers "will have better choices” and can “go to work to make the solar panels.”  Huh...over 60% of solar panel production is in China...come on man.  We are years away from increasing efficiency and increasing large scale solar panel production here in the U.S. at a competitive price point.  These people need jobs NOW.  Oh and he made those clueless comments while defending his use of the private jet... "The only choice for somebody like me"  Come on man!

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s short sighted. You can push the timeline back indefinitely and say that the science isn’t good enough or we need more research. When is science good enough? I don’t believe that’s a policy.

We have already likely caused irreversible grievous harm to the long term climate. We likely had by 1990. How much more do we accept before we start doing something? What is your stance when you realize that virtually all scientists agree that renewables will never be more economically feasible than fossil fuels? No amount of science can come up with a perfect solution for the problem that we’re faced with, so I don’t believe waiting for science to magically come up with a perfect solution is a strategy. We have solutions that are ready to be developed and implemented now.

Put another way, we can marginally improve our short term 5 year capabilities against China by upgrading our F-16s. That will keep us flying F-16s until 2050 at the cost of diverting funds from other research. The bad news is we’ll be f*cked in 10 years as we neglected the long term outlook. The truth is maybe we need to cancel those F-16 AESAs today, accept a short term capability loss, while diverting time and energy to future capes like NGAD.

Also, the random side bar about how world leaders have to take jets to meetings is a distraction from the point of the conversation and not in line with the argument. No shit, leaders fly in airplanes to get places safely and quickly. I never saw you complaining about Trump taking Air Force One when he could have flown commercial.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

Ill say it bluntly. If we want to do something about climate change, we have to stop developing oil and coal infrastructure in 2020.

I can't agree with this point entirely... because we simply don't have the renewable technology to handle a majority, much less 100%, of our energy needs. Not to mention, our continued technological breakthroughs in oil/gas technology are the exact reason the US beat all other nations in reducing CO2 in 2019 and 2020.

Coal is the greatest CO2 emitter, bar none. Thanks to hydraulic fracturing, we're shutting down our coal-fired plants at a record pace, and are able to deliver a much cleaner energy product to the end customer. So in a really ironic way, we need to continue to develop oil/coal infrastructure to make them less impactful on the environment.

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

The keystone pipeline would further entrench us in the usage of low quality oil for decades, which is extremely counterproductive to any long term modernization.

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/tar-sands-climate-impacts-IB.pdf

Fair point on the economics of the pipeline, but don't cite the NRDC. They're left of the Sierra Club in their environmental activism (near Greenpeace), and are hardly impartial on the topic. Fun fact, I had to deal with them protesting outside of a power plant that was switching from coal to natural gas. What were they protesting for, you ask? They wanted the entire thing shut down. The only power plant next to a metro area. Genius.

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

Also, your statement assumes the only way the American economy continues is by using the exact same amount of oil in the future. The Biden administration also strongly is pushing for the electrification of the majority of cars by 2030, reducing dependence on oil and negating most of your point. It’s a short term loss for a long term gain.

Electric cars just shift the energy need to something else... and in this case its the US power grid. You seriously think our power grid is prepared for an all-electric car surge in usage? For an electric car to go 100 miles, it needs around the same amount of electricity as a "average American home." So we're adding ~200 million homes to the grid by 2030... but without fracking to provide cheap (clean-ish) natural gas power? Hello poverty, or rolling blackouts.

At the end of the day, someone has to pay the piper. All this plan does is shift the polluting burden from the end consumer (me and you) to energy companies, who are going to be running their power plants ragged just trying to keep up with more demand.

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

I’m curious, you say you recognize that climate change is real and you aren’t a denier. What, then, is your strategy for climate change?

I think we're on a good path, actually. Electric cars are naturally finding their spot in the market, primarily for folks who are doing short-distance commuting in cities. Gas cars are becoming more efficient (but way more turbo-laggy, another topic for another thread). Power plants are switching to cheaper and cleaner forms of energy, and the US is looking at installing offshore wind. On the future front, US companies are actually close to mass-producing biofuels that could power planes, and Lockheed continues to claim they're getting closer to a fusion reactor. Couple that with the steady increase in energy efficiency among US homes and our electronic devices... and we're not looking too shabby. Despite what one might read elsewhere.

End point: I'm sorry, but all of these "green new deal" plans, and electric car mandates read like an economic suicide pact in the pursuit of some sort of moral panacea. Rather than pushing for "zero emissions" (an impossibility), we should look to foster a market that can reach "lower emissions" (reality). Which is what we're doing.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kiloalpha said:

I can't agree with this point entirely... because we simply don't have the renewable technology to handle a majority, much less 100%, of our energy needs. Not to mention, our continued technological breakthroughs in oil/gas technology are the exact reason the US beat all other nations in reducing CO2 in 2019 and 2020.

This is a real concern. Germany thought they could go all wind/solar and now they are in the middle of one of the coldest winters in history while Putin snapchats his handle on the gas valve during declining EU/Russia relations. 

 

8 minutes ago, Kiloalpha said:

I think we're on a good path, actually. Electric cars are naturally finding their spot in the market, primarily for folks who are doing short-distance commuting in cities.

Its not just commuters. There is a reason Tesla and GM started looking at Pickup trucks next. #1, they are by far the worst gas guzzlers. #2, they have a huge niche as a business utility vehicle. There's a huge market for electric vehicles, it just hasn't been fully realized. Once you've been hooked on the convenience of NOT having to go to a gas station, its really hard to go back. The only hiccup with electric vehicles at the moment is infrastructure for cross country. And therefore, the luxury Sedan market will probably be the last one to convert. GM plans to be all electric vehicles by 2040. 

 

I think you overall point though is we cannot just skip from mineral fuel to clean energy. There is a step in between that isn't fully realized yet, and this is the crux of the issue. There isn't an energy source yet that is as cheap or abundant as mineral wealth that can sustain the worlds growing population. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...