NSIDC: Arctic Sea Ice Extent Declines Rapidly in May

Environment • Views: 3,889

A disturbing report at the National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that the rate of decline in sea ice extent for the month of May 2010 was the fastest in the satellite record.

Monthly May ice extent for 1979 to 2010 shows a decline of 2.4% per decade.
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

In May, Arctic air temperatures remained above average, and sea ice extent declined at a rapid pace. At the end of the month, extent fell near the level recorded in 2006, the lowest in the satellite record for the end of May. Analysis from scientists at the University of Washington suggests that ice volume has continued to decline compared to recent years. However, it is too soon to say whether Arctic ice extent will reach another record low this summer—that will depend on the weather and wind conditions over the next few months. …

Average ice extent for May 2010 was 480,000 square kilometers (185,000 square miles) greater than the record low for May, observed in 2006, and 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) below the average extent for the month. The linear rate of decline for May over the 1979 to 2010 period is now -2.41% per decade.

The rate of decline through the month of May was the fastest in the satellite record; the previous year with the fastest daily rate of decline in May was 1980. By the end of the month, extent fell near the level recorded in 2006, the lowest in the satellite record for the end of May. Despite the rapid decline through May, average ice extent for the month was only the ninth lowest in the satellite record.

(Hat tip: freetoken.)

Jump to bottom

308 comments
1 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:15:33am

just think of all the oil we can exploit now!

2 Kragar  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:17:53am

Of course, this is all a plot by the liberals.

///

3 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:19:53am

The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that global warming is impossible.

///

4 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:19:53am

We are well past an important tipping point obviously. In California we used to joke about beachfront property at Coalinga, a town on the San Andreas fault, as if all west of there was going to fall into the pacific.

New beaches?

5 Kragar  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:20:53am

Nothing about receding ice caps in the Bible.

6 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:22:06am

And some random anti-AGW guy will protest in some irrelevant way, and the MSM will report 'both sides' of the story.

The clock is ticking.

We need more research like this:

[Link: www.physorg.com...]

[Link: news.nationalgeographic.com...]

I'm becoming more and more convinced that biology as opposed to materials science is going to lead the way into a new energy future.

7 AK-47%  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:22:59am

re: #5 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Nothing about receding ice caps in the Bible.

Nope, and no flooding at all, at least in the New Testament...

8 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:23:09am

And yet, all we can get in terms of acting on the problem is bullshit talk about reductions and efficiencies, if that.

Being slightly less destructive isn't going to cut it. We need to start building nuke/wind/solar/geo plants NOW, and we need to invest alot of money to do it, even if it means borrowing.

9 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:23:24am

Putin's Arctic invasion: Russia lays claim to the North Pole - and all its gas, oil, and diamonds

Russia is out in front in the race for the treasure...the fact that the North Pole melted is proof we need to feed our air conditioners

Read more: [Link: www.dailymail.co.uk...]

10 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:24:05am

re: #8 Fozzie Bear

We have the choice of paying now, or paying an order of magnitude more later.

There is no choice where we do not pay.

11 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:26:04am

re: #10 Obdicut

We have the choice of paying now, or paying an order of magnitude more later.

There is no choice where we do not pay.

we could start by paying Hyperion $25m a pop for their reactors

12 AK-47%  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:28:33am

re: #9 albusteve

Putin's Arctic invasion: Russia lays claim to the North Pole - and all its gas, oil, and diamonds

Russia is out in front in the race for the treasure...the fact that the North Pole melted is proof we need to feed our air conditioners

Read more: [Link: www.dailymail.co.uk...]


The Russians are claiming a bit of contintntal shelf that might have been attached to Russia 10 Million Years ago? And they get upset when Jews want to return to Israel after a mere 2,000 years?

13 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:28:35am

re: #11 albusteve

we could start by paying Hyperion $25m a pop for their reactors

If they work well and are cost-effective, sure, and if we can build them fast enough.

But we need a real breakthrough in energy technology, and I think it's going to come from biology.

14 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:30:31am

re: #13 Obdicut

If they work well and are cost-effective, sure, and if we can build them fast enough.

But we need a real breakthrough in energy technology, and I think it's going to come from biology.

it already has, they grow oil south of here in the desert

15 Kragar  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:30:32am

re: #13 Obdicut

If they work well and are cost-effective, sure, and if we can build them fast enough.

But we need a real breakthrough in energy technology, and I think it's going to come from biology.

And if it doesn't show up, then there are always the old compensating methods of war, pestilence and famine.

16 AK-47%  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:31:24am

re: #13 Obdicut

If they work well and are cost-effective, sure, and if we can build them fast enough.

But we need a real breakthrough in energy technology, and I think it's going to come from biology.


And we will need a breakthrough in psychology and sociology: building houses a bit smaller, putting less money into marble countertops and gilt faucets and more into insulation and recapturing waste water/heat.

17 avanti  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:32:21am

Fox News covering the LGF photo cropping story again in a few minutes, I'll update if they mention Charles or the Lizards.

18 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:33:06am

There has to be a popular acceptance of a lowered standard of living in the sense of luxuries. The tragedy of the commons, i.e.

It sucks, but it is inescapable.

19 Oh no...Sand People!  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:33:38am

re: #17 avanti

Fox News covering the LGF photo cropping story again in a few minutes, I'll update if they mention Charles or the Lizards.

I'll take, "Major news outlet that will not mention LGF, Alex for $200".

20 AK-47%  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:34:00am

re: #15 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

And if it doesn't show up, then there are always the old compensating methods of war, pestilence and famine.

War: How ya doin?
Death: Whew! What a trip!
Pestilence: Hiya guys, Seen Famine?
War: He couldn't make it today.
Death: Oh well, it's not the end of the world...

21 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:35:58am

re: #16 ralphieboy

And we will need a breakthrough in psychology and sociology: building houses a bit smaller, putting less money into marble countertops and gilt faucets and more into insulation and recapturing waste water/heat.

True. I got depressed on the bus this morning on the way over, because of that.

There is one simple rule on the bus that, if followed, would make everything go pretty smoothly: Move to the back of the bus. There are obvious penalties for not doing so-- people pushing past you.

And yet, most people do not move to the back of the bus. They get to some random point and stop, and when you do ask to move past them, they glare at you like you just sat down on their desk and started making fart noises with your hands.

One simple rule, and people can't bring themselves to follow it. And I can't even understand why.

I think the most significant challenge facing us today is figuring out that sort of instruction delivery; how to have it actually followed. Simple self-interest won't do it, since those people are all acting contrary to their own self-interest.

22 Mad Al-Jaffee  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:36:35am

CHRISTIAN: [V.O] Famine, Pestilence, Death... and the other one

PESTILENCE: [Neigh] Is that a seagull? Tell me, is that seagull a seagull?

FAMINE: No, Pestilence, it's a dog.

PESTILENCE: A flying dog?

OTHER: Flying, er Catapult

PESTILENCE: A flying catapult?

FAMINE: I'm famished.

PESTILENCE: So what's new?

OTHER: Microchip technology

PESTILENCE: What?

OTHER: Microchip technology - that's quite a new thing, isn't it?

PESTILENCE: There's nothing so boring as waiting for the apocalypse

OTHER: Well, except for that film.

PESTILENCE: What film?

OTHER: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

PESTILENCE: Oh God, I'm bored. God, I am bored. [God makes a travel Scrabble appear in his hand] Fancy a game of Travel Scrabble?

FAMINE: No, just put it over there with the others on the pile [Pestilence throws it onto a large pile of Travel Scrabbles]

PESTILENCE: Sometimes God can be so unimaginative.

FAMINE: Well, he's worried about his son, isn't he?

PESTILENCE: What?

FAMINE: He's a born-again Christian.

OTHER: [To Death] Want a game of Travel Scrabble, Death? Death? Want a game of Travel Scrabble? [Pushes Death and he falls off his horse] He's dead!

FAMINE: I'll be dead soon if I don't get something to eat. How about a bloody sandwich? [A sandwich appears in his hand] See this? [Throws sandwich in front of him]

-The Young Ones

23 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:36:46am

re: #17 avanti

Fox News covering the LGF photo cropping story again in a few minutes, I'll update if they mention Charles or the Lizards.

It's a lost cause. I'm getting pretty bummed out about it....
Obama calls for rethinking Gaza blockade, announces aid package

The United States will contribute $400 million in development aid to the Palestinian territories and work with Israel to loosen its embargo on Gaza, President Barack Obama said Wednesday.

Obama's announcement came after White House talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. The money will be used to build housing, schools, water and health care systems in both the Palestinian Authority-controlled West Bank and Gaza, which is ruled by the Palestinian Islamic movement Hamas.

Obama called the situation in Gaza "unsustainable," and said the United States would work with its European allies, Egypt and Israel to find a "new conceptual framework" for the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

"We agree Israelis have right to prevent arms from coming into Gaza," Obama said. But he said "new mechanisms" were needed to allow more goods to reach the territory -- and he repeated that the long-term solution was a permanent deal creating "a Palestinian state side-by-side with an Israel that is secure."


Jihadis and Reuters win, Fox news can cover it all day long and nody's going to take it seriously because they're a bunch of fucking dishonest conspiracy lunatics. Fuck'em

24 The Curmudgeon  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:37:23am

Arctic sea ice is melting? Perhaps so, but Al Gore is getting divorced.
/fair and balanced mode

25 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:37:37am

re: #23 Killgore Trout

...it also doesn't help that it's still raining here and I think a bird ate all my tadpoles.

I need a nap.

26 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:37:59am

The Tragedy of the Commons.

27 AK-47%  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:38:56am

re: #25 Killgore Trout

...it also doesn't help that it's still raining here and I think a bird ate all my tadpoles.

I need a nap.


So what are you going to have for dinner, then?

28 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:38:59am

re: #23 Killgore Trout

Jihadis and Reuters win, Fox news can cover it all day long and nody's going to take it seriously because they're a bunch of fucking dishonest conspiracy lunatics. Fuck'em

yup, and BO is leading the way....the Stupid Idealist leading legions of Blind Bigots....it's all wrong will turn out to be a disaster

29 Mad Al-Jaffee  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:39:29am

re: #25 Killgore Trout

...it also doesn't help that it's still raining here and I think a bird ate all my tadpoles.

I need a nap.

Sounds like a blues (or country) song.

30 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:40:09am

re: #21 Obdicut

The coercive power of the state.

You can't expect markets to force actions that are not in the best interests of individual players, and the cost of waiting is a higher cost in the future. Unfortunately, the implication of this is that democratic institutions will be our undoing, assuming that people continue to vote in their individual self interest.

31 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:40:24am

re: #23 Killgore Trout

I have an interview in a few minutes with a reporter from The Daily Beast.

The mainstream media are pretty much ignoring the photo cropping story. It's bizarre. There's a lot more interest overseas than in the US.

One factor is that the right wing blogs did everything they could to avoid crediting LGF for the story, and watered down their coverage as a result. Good work, idiots.

32 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:40:39am

re: #23 Killgore Trout

There probably is a way that the embargo could be changed to allow for more humanitarian supplies to reach Gaza without compromising security. Hell, there probably are ways that the blockade could be better at intercepting arms.

I seriously doubt that is what will be agreed-upon, though. I think this is much more political than pragmatic.

At the very least, we need to support the NGOs and other entities that distribute supplies independently of Hamas. As long as Hamas controls the supplies, they'll have political support and the Palestinian people will suffer deprivation, no matter how much is delivered.

33 AK-47%  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:40:58am

re: #21 Obdicut

Whe we built a new house, we put every penny we could afford into solar, water recovery, insulation, geothermal, etc, just because we know that we will be able to recoup those expenses in a few decades.

It does not help that we have developed an economic system that is incapable of seeing beyond the next quarterly report.

34 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:42:24am

Robert Mackey at the New York Times Lede blog posted a comment yesterday saying he was going to do a post about the photo cropping, but it never appeared. He's busily promoting the activists as peaceful victims who actually treated the IDF soldiers' wounds after beating the shit out of them.

35 AK-47%  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:43:44am

You are paying the price for abandoning the Right: you are an unperson in their eyes.

36 abaleh  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:44:44am

re: #32 Obdicut

At the very least, we need to support the NGOs and other entities that distribute supplies independently of Hamas. As long as Hamas controls the supplies, they'll have political support and the Palestinian people will suffer deprivation, no matter how much is delivered.

That would work, if it wasn't for Hamas closing the offices of NGO's that won't cooperate.

37 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:45:13am

re: #31 Charles

I have an interview in a few minutes with a reporter from The Daily Beast.

The mainstream media are pretty much ignoring the photo cropping story. It's bizarre. There's a lot more interest overseas than in the US.

One factor is that the right wing blogs did everything they could to avoid crediting LGF for the story, and watered down their coverage as a result. Good work, idiots.

That is so sick. Talk about cutting off the nose just to spite the face.

38 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:46:02am

re: #36 abaleh

That would work, if it wasn't for Hamas closing the offices of NGO's that won't cooperate.

the situation cannot be resolved without the elimination of Hamas...pretty simple

39 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:46:14am

re: #36 abaleh

That would work, if it wasn't for Hamas closing the offices of NGO's that won't cooperate.

blah blah legitimate government blah blah starving Gazans blah blah Israel is evil, m'kay?

//

40 lawhawk  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:46:35am

re: #34 Charles

Mackey is the first person to claim that the Mavi incident was akin to the SS Exodus. He wrote that the day of the incident - May 31.

Despicable and it's little wonder that he's skipped writing a piece critical of the activists that were clearly organized to engage in a violent incident should they be intercepted by the Israelis.

41 Kragar  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:47:35am

re: #34 Charles

Robert Mackey at the New York Times Lede blog posted a comment yesterday saying he was going to do a post about the photo cropping, but it never appeared. He's busily promoting the activists as peaceful victims who actually treated the IDF soldiers' wounds after beating the shit out of them.

Well, that makes it all better then.

///

42 Ericus58  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:48:24am

re: #32 Obdicut

At the very least, we need to support the NGOs and other entities that distribute supplies independently of Hamas. As long as Hamas controls the supplies, they'll have political support and the Palestinian people will suffer deprivation, no matter how much is delivered.

Hasn't Hamas restricted the NGO's in Gaza just this week?
I bolded the part that trumps the first part - Hamas controls.
They could always pull a Lybian.

43 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:48:25am

re: #28 albusteve

yup, and BO is leading the way...the Stupid Idealist leading legions of Blind Bigots...it's all wrong will turn out to be a disaster

Yeah, that why ODS sufferers are politically useless. The Blogs are more interested in trying to blame Obama for the oil spill. Fox is covering it but it get sandwiched in between bogus stories about secret socialist conspiracies and New World Order alex Jones crap. Useless.

44 avanti  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:48:31am

re: #28 albusteve

yup, and BO is leading the way...the Stupid Idealist leading legions of Blind Bigots...it's all wrong will turn out to be a disaster

I see some honest opinions on both sides of the issue. i.e. Israel does not allow concrete in because it could be used in smuggling tunnels, but there are real needs to rebuild destroyed structures.
If we could figure out a way to not support the terrorists while helping the population of Gaza, I would not disagree, but how to do that escapes me. I'd rather the population of Gaza reject the terrorists in order to get more help, but so far, not much movement in that direction.

45 [deleted]  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:48:43am
46 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:49:39am

re: #30 Fozzie Bear

The coercive power of the state.


I wasn't mainly concerned with the markets, but with the behavior aspect; how we get people to be more responsible about resource usage. There's a very limited extend that governmental coercion can achieve in that area.

47 Nekama  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:50:13am

OT: This kicks the crap out of The Troll Hammer.

So here’s the thing: We are not going anywhere this time, Helen. We totally get it: Ya’ll pretty much hate us. It’s just the way it is, like a natural law. Nothing we can do – not giving away pieces of Palestine / Israel (witness our evacuation of Gaza in 2005, and handing over the keys to army bases and greenhouses- a new economy! Food for the children! – which were summarily torched as property of the infidels); not donating billions annually to global charity, nor discovering a cure for Polio or the Theory of Relativity, or writing revered legal and religious texts, or co-founding Google, or manufacturing the microprocessor in the majority of laptops that spew Jew hatred to the Internet, or founding Christianity itself, or championing women’s rights and gay rights in the US and helping to bring about a *human rights revolution* in America in the 60’s, …None of those things will absolve us of our real sin: Existing and overcoming.

Read the whole thing. It's brilliant.

[Link: www.jewlicious.com...]

48 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:50:14am

re: #5 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Nothing about receding ice caps in the Bible.

Some things God figured we'd have to see for ourselves.

49 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:50:43am

funny how a little band of bloodthirsty, super idealistic Jihadis may well bring the ME to a shooting war, destructive beyond anyone's wildest expectations...how it all turns on the thinnest dime....I have to put my money on Hamas as things stand at the moment

50 avanti  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:50:51am

re: #35 ralphieboy

You are paying the price for abandoning the Right: you are an unperson in their eyes.

I think the right abandoned the real, rational, conservatives.

51 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:51:32am

re: #46 Obdicut

We either find a non-coercive way to limit consumption now, or accept more coercive means in the future. Or, we accept that we had a good run, advanced civilization was a fun experiment, now back to the iron age.

52 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:51:44am

re: #18 Fozzie Bear

There has to be a popular acceptance of a lowered standard of living in the sense of luxuries. The tragedy of the commons, i.e.

It sucks, but it is inescapable.

what do you mean?

53 reine.de.tout  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:51:53am

re: #50 avanti

I think the right abandoned the real, rational, conservatives.

This is exactly how I feel about it.

54 abaleh  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:52:15am

re: #44 avanti

Maybe European governments can donate prefab wooden houses.

55 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:52:32am

re: #47 Nekama

he LIVES!
howdy

56 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:52:42am

re: #34 Charles

Robert Mackey at the New York Times Lede blog posted a comment yesterday saying he was going to do a post about the photo cropping, but it never appeared. He's busily promoting the activists as peaceful victims who actually treated the IDF soldiers' wounds after beating the shit out of them.

"They were peaceful! They weren't the aggressors! They gave the Israelis medical care!"
"Well, why did they need to give them care if weren't aggressive?"
"Stop poking holes in my story, man!"

57 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:52:54am

re: #49 albusteve

funny how a little band of bloodthirsty, super idealistic Jihadis may well bring the ME to a shooting war, destructive beyond anyone's wildest expectations...how it all turns on the thinnest dime...I have to put my money on Hamas as things stand at the moment

Put your money on Hamas to do what?

58 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:53:14am

re: #52 Aceofwhat?

Read the paper I linked to in my post #26.

59 reine.de.tout  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:53:49am

re: #52 Aceofwhat?

what do you mean?

Yeah, that confused me too.
As far as I'm concerned - doing without luxuries does not "lower" my standard of living.

It will be having to do without necessities that's lowers our standard of living.

60 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:53:55am

re: #51 Fozzie Bear

Right. Which is why the behavioral aspect of it is overwhelmingly important. So how do we change the culture? During WWII, we had a lot of interesting ways of going about it, mainly through appeals to patriotism. Sadly, a lot of people have made overconsumption into a patriotic rallying cry already.

61 Mad Al-Jaffee  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:54:21am

re: #45 Dakota Gal

Release the tadpoles!

I can haz royale with cheese?

62 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:54:33am

re: #58 Fozzie Bear

I mean this to be read in the context of the fossil fuel economy; i.e., dependence upon a limited resource, the use of which degrades the commons.

63 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:54:37am

re: #49 albusteve

funny how a little band of bloodthirsty, super idealistic Jihadis may well bring the ME to a shooting war, destructive beyond anyone's wildest expectations...how it all turns on the thinnest dime...I have to put my money on Hamas as things stand at the moment

If it ever came to a no holds barred shooting war, Hamas would last about an hour, max.

64 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:54:47am

re: #54 abaleh

Maybe European governments can donate prefab wooden houses.

for cooking fuel?

65 abaleh  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:55:41am

re: #64 albusteve

for cooking fuel?

Well, either that, or for housing.

66 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:56:03am

re: #63 Charles

If it ever came to a no holds barred shooting war, Hamas would last about an hour, max.

If it became a no-holds barred shooting war, Hamas wouldn't go 5 minutes before they began pleading to the UN to stop those mean, nasty Jews from bombing them back to the Stone Age.

67 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:56:26am

re: #44 avanti

My issue is that it's an obvious direct reward for terrorism. The Peace activists set this up, attacked Israeli soldiers, took hostages, beat them and we immediate send them $400 million.
Are the lives of Palestinians going to improve? No. Are they going to become more peaceful? No. We are just encouraging terrorism, ambushes and hostage taking. More flotillas. The MSM will help hide the evidence.

68 reine.de.tout  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:56:39am

re: #59 reine.de.tout

Yeah, that confused me too.
As far as I'm concerned - doing without luxuries does not "lower" my standard of living.

It will be having to do without necessities that's lowers our standard of living.

Luxuries being an "esteem need" on this scale, not a standard of living need.

69 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:56:52am

re: #57 SanFranciscoZionist

Put your money on Hamas to do what?

win out, get what they want, Israeli concessions

70 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:58:16am

Dare: #31 Charles

I have an interview in a few minutes with a reporter from The Daily Beast.

The mainstream media are pretty much ignoring the photo cropping story. It's bizarre. There's a lot more interest overseas than in the US.

One factor is that the right wing blogs did everything they could to avoid crediting LGF for the story, and watered down their coverage as a result. Good work, idiots.

Jealousy plays havoc with reason.

71 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:58:42am

re: #68 reine.de.tout

It has to start there, but until or unless humanity decides to tackle the difficult problem of perpetual growth in a finite environment, it won't end there.

72 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:58:45am

re: #51 Fozzie Bear

We either find a non-coercive way to limit consumption now, or accept more coercive means in the future. Or, we accept that we had a good run, advanced civilization was a fun experiment, now back to the iron age.

bah. limiting consumption is short-sighted and self-defeating. other countries aren't going to limit consumption. handing the keys over to someone else is not the solution.

we need to replace the sources of our energy generation so that we can consume in perpetuity, not huddle together in dirty hovels and eke out an existence.

would you tell France that they need to consume less electricity? if so, why?

73 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:58:53am

re: #56 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

"They were peaceful! They weren't the aggressors! They gave the Israelis medical care!"
"Well, why did they need to give them care if weren't aggressive?"
"Stop poking holes in my story, man!"

Performing delicate surgery with commando knives.

74 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:58:55am

re: #67 Killgore Trout

My issue is that it's an obvious direct reward for terrorism. The Peace activists set this up, attacked Israeli soldiers, took hostages, beat them and we immediate send them $400 million.
Are the lives of Palestinians going to improve? No. Are they going to become more peaceful? No. We are just encouraging terrorism, ambushes and hostage taking. More flotillas. The MSM will help hide the evidence.

yes, exactly....it was bad enough without the 400m....thanks alot BO, friend of the Jews...we read you loud and clear

75 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:59:29am

re: #60 Obdicut

Right. Which is why the behavioral aspect of it is overwhelmingly important. So how do we change the culture? During WWII, we had a lot of interesting ways of going about it, mainly through appeals to patriotism. Sadly, a lot of people have made overconsumption into a patriotic rallying cry already.

And so many other things have been wrapped in a flag and presented that it's become a cliche. An appeal to patriotism immediately makes me suspicious since it has been done so many times before for shady deals, and that it's an emotional appeal and not asking me to make a rational decision.

76 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 10:59:48am

Of course the right wing blogs and fox will complain about Obama's reward for terrorism too but nobody will pay attention since the wingnuts seethe with equally intensity if Obama eats a sandwich. Pointless.

77 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:00:15am

re: #72 Aceofwhat?

Energy is only a part of the issue. We could implement global nuclear power and eliminate fossil fuel dependance completely, and it still wouldn't solve the underlying problem: growth.

78 abaleh  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:00:49am

re: #77 Fozzie Bear

Energy is only a part of the issue. We could implement global nuclear power and eliminate fossil fuel dependance completely, and it still wouldn't solve the underlying problem: growth.

Population growth or economic growth?

79 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:01:23am

re: #60 Obdicut

Right. Which is why the behavioral aspect of it is overwhelmingly important. So how do we change the culture? During WWII, we had a lot of interesting ways of going about it, mainly through appeals to patriotism. Sadly, a lot of people have made overconsumption into a patriotic rallying cry already.

because solving the problem by limiting consumption is like reducing sun glare by stabbing one's eyes out.

we don't need to consume less.

we need to work our asses off to generate energy from clean, renewable sources so that we can consume whatever the fuck we want.

sorry for cursing. but this is exactly where our AGW efforts fail with a large number of people.

80 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:01:39am

re: #72 Aceofwhat?

bah. limiting consumption is short-sighted and self-defeating. ?

Was it so during WWII?

other countries aren't going to limit consumption. handing the keys over to someone else is not the solution.

When you have to use unbacked assertions to make your point, you should probably rethink your point.

we need to replace the sources of our energy generation so that we can consume in perpetuity, not huddle together in dirty hovels and eke out an existence.

Yes.

would you tell France that they need to consume less electricity? if so, why

To the extent that the energy in France comes from non-damaging sources and doesn't contribute to CO2 production, no. However, I would tell France that they need to move away from oil-based cars.

I'm really uncertain what your point is.

81 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:01:55am

re: #78 abaleh

They are inextricably entwined. Population is the fundamental problem, however.

82 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:02:16am

re: #60 Obdicut

Right. Which is why the behavioral aspect of it is overwhelmingly important. So how do we change the culture? During WWII, we had a lot of interesting ways of going about it, mainly through appeals to patriotism. Sadly, a lot of people have made overconsumption into a patriotic rallying cry already.

It became a patriotic rallying cry because it was seen as an example of just how great a system capitalism was compared to communism as practiced in the USSR. Americans weren't standing in bread lines, weren't living in gov't-mandated hovels, could buy a "real American car" rather than whatever the state factories pumped out, and could enjoyed technology that was mainly limited to the elite and the wealthy in Soviet society.

But even on a grander scale, it was a symbol of just how blessed and great America was, that we could enjoy a standard of living that was considered "rich and luxurious" in much of the civilized world. That you could own a sprawling mansion in the middle of a hundred acres of land, buy a big honkin' car that got pitifully low gas mileage, and leave the lights on all night, because everything was "cheap and plentiful."

83 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:02:22am

re: #77 Fozzie Bear

Growth is not an insoluble problem, though.

84 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:02:36am

re: #62 Fozzie Bear

I mean this to be read in the context of the fossil fuel economy; i.e., dependence upon a limited resource, the use of which degrades the commons.

I see that. But reducing consumption is a dead end. Replace the resource.

85 lawhawk  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:02:45am

re: #67 Killgore Trout

Oh, it's better than that - how exactly can the US give the Palestinians $400 million - particularly the Palestinians in Gaza without the money getting into the hands of Hamas, which is prohibited under US law as Hamas and its affiliated groups are on the State Department terror list.

The response of course, is that the money will go through the Palestinian Authority - which is comprised.. wait for it.. of Hamas and Fatah...

This is all so much nonsense. The Palestinians don't need more money - they need a change in leadership and the elimination of the terror groups that have caused so much misery for the Palestinians for decades (and it was Arafat after all who refused to accept a 2-state solution and a peace deal without so much as a counterproposal in 2000 in the ultimate rebuff to the US peace process and then President Clinton). Abbas followed that up with his own refusal to accept a similar deal from Israel during the Bush Administration.

The Palestinians don't want peace with Israel.

They want Israel in pieces and would rather not have a state to call their own unless and until it includes all of what is part of Israel.

And that isn't going to happen.

86 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:02:59am

re: #49 albusteve

funny how a little band of bloodthirsty, super idealistic Jihadis may well bring the ME to a shooting war, destructive beyond anyone's wildest expectations...how it all turns on the thinnest dime...I have to put my money on Hamas as things stand at the moment

It's Iran, not Hamas, that poses the biggest threat to the ME.

87 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:03:36am

re: #77 Fozzie Bear

Energy is only a part of the issue. We could implement global nuclear power and eliminate fossil fuel dependance completely, and it still wouldn't solve the underlying problem: growth.

why is that a problem again if we're weaned off of fossil fuels?

88 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:03:38am

re: #84 Aceofwhat?

Replacing the resource is a dead end unless we can find a way to make the environment larger.

89 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:04:33am

re: #86 Spare O'Lake

It's Iran, not Hamas, that poses the biggest threat to the ME.

think of Hamas as the fuse

90 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:04:37am

re: #87 Aceofwhat?

why is that a problem again if we're weaned off of fossil fuels?

Please read the paper. It's a fascinating read, and extremely well reasoned and sourced.

91 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:04:46am

re: #88 Fozzie Bear

Replacing the resource is a dead end unless we can find a way to make the environment larger.

I'm really unsure what you mean. Could you explain it in more detail?

92 abaleh  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:05:28am

re: #81 Fozzie Bear

They are inextricably entwined. Population is the fundamental problem, however.

I recall reading somewhere that according to estimates, worldwide population growth will stop and reverse around mid century with ~9 billion people.
Since most population growth is in third world countries, you can't really control it.

93 cliffster  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:07:01am

re: #91 Obdicut

I'm really unsure what you mean. Could you explain it in more detail?

he means people need to stop having babies

94 lawhawk  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:07:17am

re: #83 Obdicut

Population growth isn't the problem. Growth in energy consumption is.

Energy consumption is tied to improved standard of living; the trick is to generate that energy from sources other than oil, coal, and gas.

Unless we go nuclear in a big way, we'll be relying on those three for a long time to come. Renewables simply will not cover the energy needs in any significant way - particularly when the space allocations needed to generate power are so much greater than the footprint necessary for nuclear means that we'd have to dedicate large chunks of space to wind or solar (and folks like Sen. Feinstein in CA wanted to make 2 million acres of prime wind/solar power land off limits by turning it into a national monument put even more land off limits) or drive the costs up by demanding that they be put out to sea (offshore wind farms are far more costly than land-based units). It avoids NIMBY, but adds significant costs.

95 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:07:21am

re: #92 abaleh

Of course you can. It's just that the available means of doing so are unspeakably horrible.

The essential issue is that we face problems for which there exists no technical solution.

96 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:07:47am

re: #92 abaleh

Sure you can. That we haven't been widely successful so far doesn't mean that it can't be controlled. For example, widespread usage of contraception can reduce birth rates.

There's also the solution of bringing the third world up to first world standard.

97 Nekama  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:08:00am

re: #55 albusteve

Howdy! Rumors of my demise - or banning - are so far, thankfully, greatly exaggerated.

98 avanti  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:08:24am

re: #17 avanti

Fox News covering the LGF photo cropping story again in a few minutes, I'll update if they mention Charles or the Lizards.

Reiter's say they accidentally cropped both pictures. Mentioned that story was covered in Israeli press, no mention of any blogs this time, but a thank you to the Fox guy for the story./

99 Slap  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:08:37am

re: #84 Aceofwhat?

Ace, is your issue with the idea of consuming less, or that reduced consumption would be mandated? (A clarification question.)

100 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:08:40am

re: #80 Obdicut

To the extent that the energy in France comes from non-damaging sources and doesn't contribute to CO2 production, no. However, I would tell France that they need to move away from oil-based cars.

I'm really uncertain what your point is.

That is exactly the point. Consumption reduction is a dead end, unless it's on a short-term basis (i.e. like WWII, or in other words, not at all like the next 100 years). I don't know why you'd use a 5-year war as an analogy in a discussion about what we need to do in perpetuity.

To the extent that energy comes from non-damaging sources, we don't worry about consumption. So why are we talking about long-term limitations on consumption?

101 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:09:14am

re: #93 cliffster

he means people need to stop having babies

Whoa - how un-PC of you! Didn't you get the memo about overpopulation not being a problem?

102 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:09:52am

re: #93 cliffster

Or we could accept a constantly declining ratio energy available for work:playre: #100 Aceofwhat?

Energy is only one of many finite resources.

103 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:10:29am

re: #97 Nekama

Howdy! Rumors of my demise - or banning - are so far, thankfully, greatly exaggerated.

post more often

104 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:10:45am

re: #102 Fozzie Bear

Argh trying to do too many things at once.

I wish I had more time right now to type longer responses :(

105 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:11:06am

re: #97 Nekama

Howdy! Rumors of my demise - or banning - are so far, thankfully, greatly exaggerated.

Ah, another old-timer comes in from the cold. Good to see ya.

106 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:12:00am

re: #94 lawhawk

Population growth isn't the problem. Growth in energy consumption is.

Well, population growth has a lot of other eviornmental effects too, not just increased energy use. So no, it's not correct to say that growth isn't a problem, but it's not an insoluble one.


Energy consumption is tied to improved standard of living; the trick is to generate that energy from sources other than oil, coal, and gas.

It's not innately tied, no. It is tied in the current way that we use energy, but developing less energy-intensive processes that create the same effect are possible. For example, the classic Moroccan courtyard design is very good at cooling off houses, without using any energy whatsoever. High energy use is one solution in design space, but it doesn't imply there are no other solutions.


Unless we go nuclear in a big way, we'll be relying on those three for a long time to come. Renewables simply will not cover the energy needs in any significant way

This is a false statement. Technology develops. Unless you claim knowledge of the future, you do not have any clue what renewable energy generation will look like in twenty years.

Dismissing renewable energy like that is very, very, very foolish of you. Nuclear is a good thing to invest in, definitely, but that doesn't mean it's the silver bullet, and it doesn't mean that renewable energy research isn't incredibly important. It is.

107 abaleh  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:12:08am

re: #96 Obdicut

Sure you can. That we haven't been widely successful so far doesn't mean that it can't be controlled. For example, widespread usage of contraception can reduce birth rates.

There's also the solution of bringing the third world up to first world standard.

people who don't have access to running water are going to start using the pill?

And bringing the third world up to first world standards means bringing consumption up, so how is that a solution to the problem?

108 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:12:19am

re: #96 Obdicut

Sure you can. That we haven't been widely successful so far doesn't mean that it can't be controlled. For example, widespread usage of contraception can reduce birth rates.

There's also the solution of bringing the third world up to first world standard.

Right. Populations, it would appear, start to self-regulate as living standards improve. I'm not sure why we don't just continue to labor to improve standards...?

109 Summer Seale  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:12:30am

Hi everyone,

Sarah Palin Here!

It's been a long time, hasn't it? You betcha! But that doesn't mean I've been gone. I've been researching a lot of things including oil drilling and stuff about the environment.

And let me tell you: it's all a scam from those liberal lefties in universities! That's right, America! You heard me say it: it's a scam!

Didja know that? You betcha! Because you're all great Americans who come out to support me and not Marxists who pal around with terrorists and want to destroy this country by not drilling where we're supposed to!

You know, lots of people think that the earth is warming up, but that's just not true, is it? I mean, back in Alass-ka, where I'm from, we have so much ice and snow, we can just export it to other places and make a lotta money that way too! So don't believe the hype. In fact, I betcha if those scientists lived where I live, instead of living in France, they'd be all happy that it is getting warmer a coupla degrees! If only it would get warmer!

Yannow, that's what it's all about, isn't it? Providing a warm place for your family to live in, for your husband and your kids, and these eggheads are telling us that's a bad thing?? Yeah, I know right? They're Marxists and they hate us for our freedoms!

Yannow, it's all about freedom - the freedom to drill anywhere we want and drive anywhere we want and we shouldn't let the government tell us how much we can or cannot use for our trucks! So don't listen to all that hype, America! It's all a scam and it's all about making money and ruining good companies like BP who only want to do good in the world! Let's make the eggheads clean up that mess! After all, it's scientists who caused it in the first place, isn't it? You betcha!

Thank you America, and remember to vote for me in 2012!

110 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:13:38am

re: #102 Fozzie Bear

Or we could accept a constantly declining ratio energy available for work:playre: #100 Aceofwhat?

Energy is only one of many finite resources.

Bullshit. There is more energy available than we could use for millennia. All we need to do is improve our ability to harness and store it.

111 cliffster  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:14:01am

Alvin Greene, South Carolina Senate Nominee, Has Pending Felony Charge

COLUMBIA, SC (AP) -- South Carolina's surprise Democratic nominee to challenge U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint is facing a pending felony charge.

Court records show 32-year-old Alvin Greene was arrested in November and charged with showing obscene Internet photos to a University of South Carolina student. The felony charge carries up to five years in prison.

another winner for the dems

112 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:15:23am

re: #100 Aceofwhat?

That is exactly the point. Consumption reduction is a dead end, unless it's on a short-term basis (i.e. like WWII, or in other words, not at all like the next 100 years). I don't know why you'd use a 5-year war as an analogy in a discussion about what we need to do in perpetuity.

It's not an analogy, strictly speaking. And it would be something we have to do during a transitional period, not perpetuity.

Simply asserting over and over that consumption reduction is a dead end is not a good argument.

To the extent that energy comes from non-damaging sources, we don't worry about consumption. So why are we talking about long-term limitations on consumption?

Who is talking about long-term limitations on consumption? I'm saying that within our current framework, we will not be able to move extremely quickly away from our current framework. Therefore, it behooves us, during the transition, to reduce consumption. In doing so, we will probably discover a lot of ways where we can reduce consumption of resources without affecting real quality of life. I am not simply speaking of reduction of energy, either. During the AGW climate change, a lot of fertile land is going to be harmed; stemming erosion has always been important, but during a time that we're losing arable land it becomes even more important.

113 abaleh  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:15:55am

re: #106 Obdicut

This is a false statement. Technology develops. Unless you claim knowledge of the future, you do not have any clue what renewable energy generation will look like in twenty years.

Dismissing renewable energy like that is very, very, very foolish of you. Nuclear is a good thing to invest in, definitely, but that doesn't mean it's the silver bullet, and it doesn't mean that renewable energy research isn't incredibly important. It is.

Living in a classic moroccan courtyard house is great for yuppies with cash and land, but is not a solution for the urban poor.

114 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:16:42am

re: #108 Aceofwhat?

Right. Populations, it would appear, start to self-regulate as living standards improve. I'm not sure why we don't just continue to labor to improve standards...?

Because in the current framework we cannot improve standards fast enough, and many of the ways that we improve standards are themselves damaging to the environment; Catch-22.

It's one main reason we need to develop good sources of non-Nuclear renewable energy. We're not going to be comfortable with nuclear energy in a lot of the third-world.

115 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:17:28am

re: #110 Aceofwhat?

Simply having access to energy in unlimited supply doesn't make it possible to actually use it in infinite amounts without permanent consequences. Getting off of fossil fuels will not solve the long term problem. It will remove one bottleneck to growth, which will be replaced by others.

I really hope we can have this conversation again soon, when i'm not forced to leave rather short responses to complex questions which deserve better explanations.

Busy day here, but this is a topic about which I have been preoccupied for my whole life.

116 cliffster  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:17:36am

re: #110 Aceofwhat?

Bullshit. There is more energy available than we could use for millennia. All we need to do is improve our ability to harness and store it.

I've always thought we should take the people in county and state pens and put them on bikes for 8 hours a day. Peddle faster, fellas! How much energy would that generate, anyways?

117 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:18:27am

re: #99 Slap

Ace, is your issue with the idea of consuming less, or that reduced consumption would be mandated? (A clarification question.)

It's the attitude. Of course, consuming less whenever the consumption is a finite resource is the right thing to do. But my primary obstacle to believing in AGW for years was this very subject...that if this was the best answer we can think of, i don't trust the minds who say they've identified the problem.

As lawhawk stated above, energy consumption is vital to a growing economy. Why would we want to take a global step backwards when we could replace the finite, dirty resource with a cleaner, more abundant resource and keep on trucking?

Talk of long-term, large-scale consumption reduction smacks of collectivism dressed up as environmental concern. It's a dead end both economically and politically.

118 Randall Gross  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:18:51am

*sniff* smelling retreaded Rifkinesque nihilism.... remember the bet he lost?

There isn't just one earth. There's one Earth, 8 Planets, a sun, innumerable planetoids, asteroids, comets, and moons. Resources are not a problem granted sufficient clean energy.

119 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:19:08am

re: #112 Obdicut

Who is talking about long-term limitations on consumption? I'm saying that within our current framework, we will not be able to move extremely quickly away from our current framework. Therefore, it behooves us, during the transition, to reduce consumption. In doing so, we will probably discover a lot of ways where we can reduce consumption of resources without affecting real quality of life. I am not simply speaking of reduction of energy, either. During the AGW climate change, a lot of fertile land is going to be harmed; stemming erosion has always been important, but during a time that we're losing arable land it becomes even more important.

Fozzie is talking about it. That's where i started.

120 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:19:11am

re: #113 abaleh

Living in a classic moroccan courtyard house is great for yuppies with cash and land, but is not a solution for the urban poor.

Moroccan courtyard houses were traditionally houses of the poor in Morocco as well as the wealthy, so I'm not really getting your point. It was also simply an example of a system that doesn't use energy. Those same urban poor are unlikely to actually be able to afford good air conditioning, and so their 'solution' is just being hot and uncomfortable.

121 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:19:26am

re: #116 cliffster

Less than you had to put into them in the form of food. Energy conversions are always net losers. (I know you were kidding, but your proposal mirros many made by 'serious' people in terms of general structure)

122 cliffster  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:19:33am

re: #115 Fozzie Bear

well, you are right about the fact that there are just too fucking many people in the world.

123 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:19:43am

re: #115 Fozzie Bear

Simply having access to energy in unlimited supply doesn't make it possible to actually use it in infinite amounts without permanent consequences. Getting off of fossil fuels will not solve the long term problem. It will remove one bottleneck to growth, which will be replaced by others.

I really hope we can have this conversation again soon, when i'm not forced to leave rather short responses to complex questions which deserve better explanations.

Busy day here, but this is a topic about which I have been preoccupied for my whole life.

cool. schedules don't always comply. let's pick this up again soon...it's fun.

124 avanti  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:20:16am

Another cropping scandal/:

High School Yearbook.

125 cliffster  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:20:20am

re: #121 Fozzie Bear

Less than you had to put into them in the form of food. Energy conversions are always net losers. (I know you were kidding, but your proposal mirros many made by 'serious' people in terms of general structure)

ESPN disagrees

Youtube Video
126 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:21:17am

re: #117 Aceofwhat?


Talk of long-term, large-scale consumption reduction smacks of collectivism dressed up as environmental concern. It's a dead end both economically and politically.

You really seem to be looking at this subject through a very narrow viewpoint.

The goal: Minimize the reduction in our quality of life.

One part of that solution: Reduce consumption that doesn't directly affect real quality of life (as Reine pointed out) to allow us to focus more resources on real quality of life, adaption to changing circumstances, and coming up with long-term, sustainable solutions.

What about that smacks of collectivism?

Oh, and:

re: #110 Aceofwhat?

Bullshit. There is more energy available than we could use for millennia. All we need to do is improve our ability to harness and store it.

At any given moment it is finite. And every year we can make finite improvements to our ability to harness and store it.

127 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:21:25am

re: #118 Thanos

*sniff* smelling retreaded Rifkinesque nihilism... remember the bet he lost?

There isn't just one earth. There's one Earth, 8 Planets, a sun, innumerable planetoids, asteroids, comets, and moons. Resources are not a problem granted sufficient clean energy.

Bingo. How much sunlight are we not using for energy every day? That's just one example.

We have more than enough energy. We just need to figure out how to use it.

128 cliffster  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:22:06am

re: #124 avanti

Another cropping scandal/:

High School Yearbook.

tea expelled from nose

129 Randall Gross  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:22:32am

re: #115 Fozzie Bear

It has been shown time and again that when you introduce plentiful cheap energy anyplace except the most backwards despotic countries that population growth goes down, education goes up, infant mortality goes down, and life expectancy goes up. All told this will balance out over the long haul. Recommend you watch this

Google Video
130 Nekama  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:22:36am

re: #76 Killgore Trout

Of course the right wing blogs and fox will complain about Obama's reward for terrorism too but nobody will pay attention since the wingnuts seethe with equally intensity if Obama eats a sandwich. Pointless.

Come on. Really what is there to praise Obama about?

Take the BP oil spill. NOW would be a truly teachable moment. A time to rally the American people behind a Manhattan Project type full-steam-ahead-JIHAD toward energy independence. Make renewable energy the centerpiece of his administration. Embrace [Link: www.BetterPlace.com....] Demand that nuclear power be legally regarded as "inherently beneficial" and that 20 modern nukes (the kind that reprocess waste) will begin construction before the new year.

That would be the leadership the right rightly claims that he lacks.

Instead he's got the same Saudi jizz on his chin that Bush had.

131 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:22:39am

re: #127 Aceofwhat?

Bingo. How much sunlight are we not using for energy every day? That's just one example.

We have more than enough energy. We just need to figure out how to use it.

Oh, is that all?

That's like saying that we have the cure to every disease on earth, we just have to discover them.

I don't get the point.

132 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:23:15am

re: #127 Aceofwhat?

It's not just energy. That just happens to be the worst bottleneck now. Access to space is a much larger issue, in the long run, because there exists no technical solution to the problem, unless you are going to posit that we are at the cusp of colonizing space. (We aren't)

133 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:24:18am

re: #94 lawhawk

Population growth isn't the problem. Growth in energy consumption is.

Energy consumption is tied to improved standard of living; the trick is to generate that energy from sources other than oil, coal, and gas.

Unless we go nuclear in a big way, we'll be relying on those three for a long time to come. Renewables simply will not cover the energy needs in any significant way - particularly when the space allocations needed to generate power are so much greater than the footprint necessary for nuclear means that we'd have to dedicate large chunks of space to wind or solar (and folks like Sen. Feinstein in CA wanted to make 2 million acres of prime wind/solar power land off limits by turning it into a national monument put even more land off limits) or drive the costs up by demanding that they be put out to sea (offshore wind farms are far more costly than land-based units). It avoids NIMBY, but adds significant costs.

That is a political statement (with which I happen to agree). For example, if the world population was reduced to 10% of today's levels, it is inconceivable to me that there would continue to be an AGW problem, even if current technologies and energy sources were used.

134 cliffster  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:24:28am

re: #129 Thanos

It has been shown time and again that when you introduce plentiful cheap energy anyplace except the most backwards despotic countries that population growth goes down, education goes up, infant mortality goes down, and life expectancy goes up. All told this will balance out over the long haul. Recommend you watch this

yes. you know why? because kids are a pain in the ass, and if you don't absolutely need to have 8-10 kids to, say, run a farm, you're going to stop having them after 1 or 2.

135 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:24:44am

re: #126 Obdicut

You really seem to be looking at this subject through a very narrow viewpoint.

Dude.

It's a discussion i started with Fozzie. I am happy for you to join it, as always. You are always welcome. But the viewpoint is his, which i engaged.

Is the long-term goal one of consumption limitation or resource replacement?

If that's too narrow for you, we can talk about something else at the same time. But this is what i want to talk about with Fozzie...and you, if you'll stop trying to shift the discussion.

136 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:24:53am

re: #132 Fozzie Bear

It's not just energy. That just happens to be the worst bottleneck now. Access to space is a much larger issue, in the long run, because there exists no technical solution to the problem, unless you are going to posit that we are at the cusp of colonizing space. (We aren't)

Access to space is something that solves itself a lot more than access to energy does; if you look at Thanos's link, it really is a very good thing to watch.

137 Kragar  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:25:07am

Rocket Fired at Hemet Police Station

Police said Tuesday that a "suspicious device" found on the roof of a business after a fire earlier this month was a rocket. Authorities are attempting to determine whether the case is connected to a series of attacks on the Hemet Gang Task Force.

The fire was reported June 3 at Los Altos Market in Hemet. Police said the nine-pound, inert training rocket malfunctioned and landed on the roof of the building, where firefighters found it after the blaze was extinguished.

Authorities said the M29A2 rocket was pointed in the general direction of the Hemet Police Department, according to Southwest Riverside News Network.

The discovery came amid an investigation into attacks against the city's Gang Task Force and City of Hemet property.

138 wrenchwench  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:25:12am

re: #132 Fozzie Bear

It's not just energy. That just happens to be the worst bottleneck now. Access to space is a much larger issue, in the long run, because there exists no technical solution to the problem, unless you are going to posit that we are at the cusp of colonizing space. (We aren't)

How is space a problem? There are 7 people per square mile in the county I live in. Have you seen the density in Tokyo? I'm not recommending that, but space is not a problem.

139 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:25:32am

re: #116 cliffster

I've always thought we should take the people in county and state pens and put them on bikes for 8 hours a day. Peddle faster, fellas! How much energy would that generate, anyways?

i don't know, but i propose that we begin immediately and find out...it'll be an experiment!

i love science!

140 Slap  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:26:06am

re: #110 Aceofwhat?

I don't disagree with the basic point.

For ME (and I wouldn't impose this on someone else), the concepts of reducing consumption and reducing waste are kind of tied together. And my contention would be that reducing wastefulness (food, energy, effort, etc.) has the de facto result of reducing overall consumption.

And I'm speaking of the individual level here. I think there are thousands of things that each of us can choose to do that will result in reducing the amount of things we waste. I have a hard time with removing the idea of "take what you need, use what you take" from my worldview. I think the absence of that as a forefront concept with many folks contributes to both excessive consumption and excessive waste.

Waste has always disturbed me, in case you can't tell.

141 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:26:24am

re: #134 cliffster

yes. you know why? because kids are a pain in the ass, and if you don't absolutely need to have 8-10 kids to, say, run a farm, you're going to stop having them after 1 or 2.

not in Jamaica, for example, where sex is the national pastime

142 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:26:28am

re: #134 cliffster

yes. you know why? because kids are a pain in the ass, and if you don't absolutely need to have 8-10 kids to, say, run a farm, you're going to stop having them after 1 or 2.

Exactly. First-world societies aren't exploding anymore. I have 2 kids, and i am finished.

143 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:26:44am

re: #44 avanti

I see some honest opinions on both sides of the issue. i.e. Israel does not allow concrete in because it could be used in smuggling tunnels, but there are real needs to rebuild destroyed structures.
If we could figure out a way to not support the terrorists while helping the population of Gaza, I would not disagree, but how to do that escapes me. I'd rather the population of Gaza reject the terrorists in order to get more help, but so far, not much movement in that direction.

We weren't overly concerned with rebuilding Germany while they were still launching V-2 rockets at England.

144 cliffster  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:27:18am

re: #141 albusteve

not in Jamaica, for example, where sex is the national pastime

yeah, but the massive pot consumption greatly diminishes fertility...

145 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:27:21am

re: #135 Aceofwhat?

I'm sorry, Ace, but a lot of what you're saying I still have a problem with, inside or outside of the context of the conversation with Fozzie.

We have 'consumption limitation' right now. It is not something that exists in the future. We have it through legal means, through economic means, and through sheer physical means. Consumption limitation has always been, and will always be, one of the goals of organized society. It is not an either/or.

146 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:27:52am

re: #138 wrenchwench

How is space a problem? There are 7 people per square mile in the county I live in. Have you seen the density in Tokyo? I'm not recommending that, but space is not a problem.

don't give anybody any ideas....NM is filled to the brim, stay out!

147 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:28:43am

I'm just sayin'...

148 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:28:45am

re: #136 Obdicut

Can't watch videos here, and I am sort of leaving alot of my thoughts out because i'm trying to (over) condense my ideas into absurdly short posts.

I hope if I come back to this thread tonight and post a long diatribe on it that you guys will discuss it with me, because I think it is the greatest issue mankind faces, but it appears to us from our perspective to to express itself in the form of a thousand other (seemingly unrelated) problems.

I wish I had a scribe to dictate to, lol. Well, I do have secretaries, but I think if I start dictating blog posts, they'll think i've lost my fucking mind, lol.

149 abaleh  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:28:52am

re: #120 Obdicut

Moroccan courtyard houses were traditionally houses of the poor in Morocco as well as the wealthy, so I'm not really getting your point. It was also simply an example of a system that doesn't use energy. Those same urban poor are unlikely to actually be able to afford good air conditioning, and so their 'solution' is just being hot and uncomfortable.

My point is that environmentalists don't appear to be offering solutions that are affordable and manageable on a large scale. If you want to live a truly sustainable life in the western world, you have to either live in a cave eating berries and burning your own excrement, or be rich enough to afford installation of all of these sustainable technologies.

150 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:29:03am

re: #131 Obdicut

Oh, is that all?

That's like saying that we have the cure to every disease on earth, we just have to discover them.

I don't get the point.

Just saw this...i'll try to explain further, but first i want to check in and see if any of my other posts have made a point...

151 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:29:31am

re: #144 cliffster

yeah, but the massive pot consumption greatly diminishes fertility...

the consumption may be massive, but only by a small % of the people

152 cliffster  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:29:40am

re: #147 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I'm just sayin'...

where do I put in my credit card #? I'll take 100.

153 cliffster  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:30:23am

re: #151 albusteve

the consumption may be massive, but only by a small % of the people

yeah? dunno - I've never been. I was just shamelessly jumping on the stereotype.

154 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:31:04am

I would propose one method of both reducing consumption and promoting renewable energy would be to focus on moving it from large "farms" of solar cells or windmills to our own backyards. We already see it on a small scale and it's saving people hundreds or thousands of dollars every year. Not to mention the excess energy can be sold back to the electric companies, putting money in people's pockets. And items like solar shingles and windmills don't require the entire house to be rebuild or simply demolished and replaced.

155 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:31:35am

re: #153 cliffster

yeah? dunno - I've never been. I was just shamelessly jumping on the stereotype.

you churl...how dare you do that at LGF?
I'M INSULTED!

156 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:31:49am

re: #154 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

I would propose one method of both reducing consumption and promoting renewable energy would be to focus on moving it from large "farms" of solar cells or windmills to our own backyards. We already see it on a small scale and it's saving people hundreds or thousands of dollars every year. Not to mention the excess energy can be sold back to the electric companies, putting money in people's pockets. And items like solar shingles and windmills don't require the entire house to be rebuild or simply demolished and replaced.

Step 1: You would need laws keeping the HOA's from blocking this. I am not kidding.

157 avanti  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:31:50am

re: #143 Bagua

We weren't overly concerned with rebuilding Germany while they were still launching V-2 rockets at England.

Upding for excellent use of a extreme analogy even though I don't think it's a accurate one.

158 Randall Gross  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:32:17am

I want energy plentiful and clean, and I want all of our neighbors in the world relatively wealthy compared to 1960's middle class US. If we can get there, then population isn't a problem, and wars are much less likely.

159 Nekama  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:33:02am

Previous presidents have often grown in stature when trouble hits.

Hamlet yawns.

160 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:33:09am

re: #154 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

I would propose one method of both reducing consumption and promoting renewable energy would be to focus on moving it from large "farms" of solar cells or windmills to our own backyards. We already see it on a small scale and it's saving people hundreds or thousands of dollars every year. Not to mention the excess energy can be sold back to the electric companies, putting money in people's pockets. And items like solar shingles and windmills don't require the entire house to be rebuild or simply demolished and replaced.

someday, solar material will simply roll out on the roof, nail it down and plug it in...soon come

161 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:33:09am

re: #156 EmmmieG

Step 1: You would need laws keeping the HOA's from blocking this. I am not kidding.

Agreed. Then again, I've never lived in a neighborhood with an HOA and thank my lucky stars every day for that. I may not have all the space in the world and my lawn may not be story-book perfect, but if I want to put a pink flamingo up in the front yard, I can do so with impunity.

162 cliffster  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:34:10am

re: #156 EmmmieG

Step 1: You would need laws keeping the HOA's from blocking this. I am not kidding.

yeah, no kidding. And that is mind-numbingly stupid. Everyone wants wind farms but not in their town.. everyone wants solar panels but not in their neighborhood..

163 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:34:27am

re: #161 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

You kind of have to do that with impunity.

164 wrenchwench  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:34:34am

re: #161 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Agreed. Then again, I've never lived in a neighborhood with an HOA and thank my lucky stars every day for that. I may not have all the space in the world and my lawn may not be story-book perfect, but if I want to put a pink flamingo up in the front yard, I can do so with impunity.

They don't allow impunities in my neighborhood.

165 Kragar  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:34:49am

re: #161 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Agreed. Then again, I've never lived in a neighborhood with an HOA and thank my lucky stars every day for that. I may not have all the space in the world and my lawn may not be story-book perfect, but if I want to put a pink flamingo up in the front yard, I can do so with impunity.

Almost bought a condo a few years ago, but backed out because of the HOA. Last I checked, the place was hemmoraging value and half the units were empty. Glad I stayed away.

166 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:34:49am

re: #161 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Agreed. Then again, I've never lived in a neighborhood with an HOA and thank my lucky stars every day for that. I may not have all the space in the world and my lawn may not be story-book perfect, but if I want to put a pink flamingo up in the front yard, I can do so with impunity.

I have been denied a tree that actually produces fruit because I might let it drop on the ground. I thought it would be a more efficient use of space to choose a useful plant over an ornamental. Nope. So I've left the ugly furball in place. When I stop being angry, I'll think of a replacement.

167 Slap  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:34:57am

re: #156 EmmmieG

Is there a more depressing modern-era creation than the HOA?

(Other than reality TV, I mean....)

168 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:35:15am

re: #160 albusteve

someday, solar material will simply roll out on the roof, nail it down and plug it in...soon come

It's already available now. They have solar shingles that can be treated just the same as asphalt shingles, replaced in bits and pieces if damaged, and don't require a college degree to install.

169 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:35:38am

re: #161 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Agreed. Then again, I've never lived in a neighborhood with an HOA and thank my lucky stars every day for that. I may not have all the space in the world and my lawn may not be story-book perfect, but if I want to put a pink flamingo up in the front yard, I can do so with impunity.

you should see how people live in ABQ..sheep and goats right downtown and nobody gives a hoot..the most free place you could ever live

170 tnguitarist  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:35:55am

OT: There is a klan rally just down the road from my house this Saturday. Unbelievable. I think I'm going to go there with my camcorder.

171 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:35:58am

re: #162 cliffster

And that is the sort of area where coercion must come into play. People simply will not voluntarily make personal sacrifices for communal gain. A few might, but it is absurd to expect such on a large scale.

172 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:36:25am

re: #149 abaleh

True. Which is why we need to come up with larger scale solutions. Anyone saying we need to immediately change is impractical. We need to immediately start changing, though.

173 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:36:40am

re: #167 Slap

Is there a more depressing modern-era creation than the HOA?

(Other than reality TV, I mean...)

I'm thinking. Nothing yet. I've never been fond of malls, to be honest.

174 cliffster  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:36:44am

re: #169 albusteve

you should see how people live in ABQ..sheep and goats right downtown and nobody gives a hoot..the most free place you could ever live

wait, you were just trying to keep people out..

175 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:36:52am

re: #157 avanti

Upding for excellent use of a extreme analogy even though I don't think it's a accurate one.

Is it not? About 3,000 V-2s were launched, the Gaza terrorists are way ahead of the Nazis in terms of numbers. Sure the casualties have been lower, but Gaza has been at it longer and is working to remedy this problem by opening a sea-route to get in larger missiles from Iran.

176 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:37:01am

re: #140 Slap

And I'm speaking of the individual level here. I think there are thousands of things that each of us can choose to do that will result in reducing the amount of things we waste. I have a hard time with removing the idea of "take what you need, use what you take" from my worldview. I think the absence of that as a forefront concept with many folks contributes to both excessive consumption and excessive waste.

Waste has always disturbed me, in case you can't tell.

re: #145 Obdicut

I'm sorry, Ace, but a lot of what you're saying I still have a problem with, inside or outside of the context of the conversation with Fozzie.

We have 'consumption limitation' right now. It is not something that exists in the future. We have it through legal means, through economic means, and through sheer physical means. Consumption limitation has always been, and will always be, one of the goals of organized society. It is not an either/or.

I think i can answer both of these in the same paragraph...here goes nothing!

Let us say that right now, my electricity is derived from a coal plant. As such, i ought to labor mightily to limit my electricity consumption, because coal won't last forever and it's a damn dirty dog.

Then we build a nuke plant in my backyard. The nuke plant has more energy on tap than my city needs right now.

I no longer need to conserve electricity. I can run my A/C with my doors open all day long, as long as i can afford the bill, because that's how i roll. I leave all of the lights on because i like to party. i leave the refrigerator open because i like my beer on display.

more importantly, if my company wants to expand, we do so for economic reasons, because we've already eliminated the hand-wringing over whether our increased electricity consumption is a bad thing.

i only wish to conserve those resources which are finite, and especially those resources which are finite and harmful when consumed. therefore my long-term evangelism is for the conversion of our energy sources to plentiful, clean sources so that i don't have to listen to Fozzie tell me that my house is too big or that i can't party with my refrigerator open or that my company can't expand.

now i should pause and ask if any of that was coherent...

177 cliffster  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:37:13am

re: #167 Slap

Is there a more depressing modern-era creation than the HOA?

(Other than reality TV, I mean...)

disco

178 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:37:31am

re: #172 Obdicut

True. Which is why we need to come up with larger scale solutions. Anyone saying we need to immediately change is impractical. We need to immediately start changing, though.

hahaha!....everybody said that in 1976....
not gonna happen

179 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:37:32am

re: #166 EmmmieG

I have been denied a tree that actually produces fruit because I might let it drop on the ground. I thought it would be a more efficient use of space to choose a useful plant over an ornamental. Nope. So I've left the ugly furball in place. When I stop being angry, I'll think of a replacement.

We used to have a decorative cherry tree in the front yard, but between some kinda rot and the frost, it died sometime last year. The only thing stopping me from ripping it out and putting in, say, an apple tree right now is the fact that it sits directly on top of the sewage line to our house. No, don't ask me what genius put it there, but it's there. *grumble, mutter*

180 avanti  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:38:11am

re: #168 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

It's already available now. They have solar shingles that can be treated just the same as asphalt shingles, replaced in bits and pieces if damaged, and don't require a college degree to install.

Yep, I have a contractor friend in Ca. that installs a lot of them. The tree huggers often use them to charge their electric cars and the like.

181 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:38:19am

re: #178 albusteve

Then say hello to the second iron age. That's the choice we face.

182 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:38:29am

re: #138 wrenchwench

How is space a problem? There are 7 people per square mile in the county I live in. Have you seen the density in Tokyo? I'm not recommending that, but space is not a problem.

Yeah. There's a ton of room on this rock. OTOH, we're still not very good as a species at expanding with minimal environmental impact.

Still, first-world societies seem to be self-limiting.

183 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:38:32am

re: #174 cliffster

wait, you were just trying to keep people out..

ah yeah....do you want your neighbors to have pigs?...this place is insane, don't come here

184 abaleh  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:38:35am

re: #154 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

I would propose one method of both reducing consumption and promoting renewable energy would be to focus on moving it from large "farms" of solar cells or windmills to our own backyards. We already see it on a small scale and it's saving people hundreds or thousands of dollars every year. Not to mention the excess energy can be sold back to the electric companies, putting money in people's pockets. And items like solar shingles and windmills don't require the entire house to be rebuild or simply demolished and replaced.

I agree, energy used to be a household affair (the family fireplace). The introduction of fossil fuels created a shift to large scale gov't controlled utilities. New solar technology has the potential to return energy to the household, but it requires gov't investment to make it affordable. In Israel, a law in the 1970's (I think) forced builders to install solar heating panels on new homes' rooftops, and most households now use solar water heating (I don't remember the exact percentage). While household solar panels are available, I think they are too expensive for many private people, not to mention renters who have absolutely no incentive to invest in a long term solution. I think this would require legislature forcing new homebuilders to install these systems, and giving an incentive to existing homeowners and (especially) landlords to invest in these systems.
And of course there is the problem of the energy companies' lobby being against it.

185 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:39:20am

re: #176 Aceofwhat?


i only wish to conserve those resources which are finite, and especially those resources which are finite and harmful when consumed. therefore my long-term evangelism is for the conversion of our energy sources to plentiful, clean sources so that i don't have to listen to Fozzie tell me that my house is too big or that i can't party with my refrigerator open or that my company can't expand.

That's fine. However, that is not going to happen overnight, or anywhere close to overnight. And energy is not the only issue.

We are very, very, very, very far from such a sustainable scenario now, and it will take huge amounts of resources to get there.

We need to purpose resources towards getting there. And we have finite resources. If we do not purpose enough resources to getting there, we will fail, and be overtaken by environmentally enforced resource-consumption-reduction.

186 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:39:46am

re: #182 Aceofwhat?

Yeah. There's a ton of room on this rock. OTOH, we're still not very good as a species at expanding with minimal environmental impact.

Still, first-world societies seem to be self-limiting.

Unless we want to use the bulk of our energy in the future processing CO2 into O2 in closed environments, space is indeed limited.

187 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:39:52am

re: #149 abaleh

My point is that environmentalists don't appear to be offering solutions that are affordable and manageable on a large scale. If you want to live a truly sustainable life in the western world, you have to either live in a cave eating berries and burning your own excrement, or be rich enough to afford installation of all of these sustainable technologies.

That's what we have taxes and subsidies for.
MAKE THE RICH PAY!

188 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:39:57am

re: #170 tnguitarist

I'd like to see them completely ignored. A couple of black folks walk through their formation, simply saying, "Pardon me. Excuse me.", entirely ignoring the hoods and shit.

That would be fun to watch. Klan staring at each other...

Norm McDonald had a funny bit about a doberman. Talked about how now that pit bulls and rotweilers were so popular, dobermans ain't scary anymore. Sitting around, frisbee in it's mouth, thinking... "I used to be somebody!"

That's just where I'd love to see the Klan.

189 wrenchwench  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:40:11am

re: #170 tnguitarist

OT: There is a klan rally just down the road from my house this Saturday. Unbelievable. I think I'm going to go there with my camcorder.

Take a hard hat and a witness who is willing to testify in court, too. And be careful.

190 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:40:33am

Does anyone remember that Al Jazeera video from the Mavi Marmara? Someone sent me a translation of the recorded voices, but now I can't seem to find the video to check it out with the translation.

191 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:40:38am

re: #162 cliffster

yeah, no kidding. And that is mind-numbingly stupid. Everyone wants wind farms but not in their town.. everyone wants solar panels but not in their neighborhood..

That's largely because they don't make sense economically and don't save any money or even oil. Should the technology mature and change that reality, everyone will want them.

192 Kragar  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:40:41am

re: #167 Slap

Is there a more depressing modern-era creation than the HOA?

(Other than reality TV, I mean...)

Social Networking

193 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:40:43am

re: #181 Fozzie Bear

Then say hello to the second iron age. That's the choice we face.

like I tell Ludwig...so what?....might as well get used to it because our leaders prefer to concentrate on re-election, rather than storming the walls

194 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:41:02am

re: #186 Fozzie Bear

Unless we want to use the bulk of our energy in the future processing CO2 into O2 in closed environments, space is indeed limited.

Space is not anywhere close to the most immediate or most vital limitation facing us, though.

It seems odd to focus on space at this moment in time.

195 Kragar  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:41:42am

re: #181 Fozzie Bear

Then say hello to the second iron age. That's the choice we face.

You're just pissed that the Crom worshippers will have a leg up.

196 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:42:01am

re: #158 Thanos

I want energy plentiful and clean, and I want all of our neighbors in the world relatively wealthy compared to 1960's middle class US. If we can get there, then population isn't a problem, and wars are much less likely.

requoted for emphasis. exactly.

197 tnguitarist  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:42:32am

re: #189 wrenchwench

On Bonnaroo weekend, of all times.

198 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:42:50am

re: #195 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

You're just pissed that the Crom worshippers will have a leg up.

Kragar, what is best in life?

199 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:43:00am

re: #188 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

There's a great story from Percy Julian's dad about a Klan march in Indiana. James, Percy's father, went down to watch the march to show them that he was an unafraid black man who could not be cowed.

As they passed by, one of them walked over towards him, and took off his hood. James recognized a co-worker and friend of his.

"James, come march with us," the guy said, "You ain't no Catholic!"

200 Fozzie Bear  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:43:14am

BBL (3 hours or so)

I'll come back to this later.

201 Slap  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:43:22am

re: #192 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Yes, but if the computer you want to buy has a social networking program installed, you can simply choose not to use it.

So, not quite right for the "more depressing" aspect.

Discouraging and dehumanizong, well, THOSE might work.//////

202 wrenchwench  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:43:35am

re: #197 tnguitarist

On Bonnaroo weekend, of all times.

That's the fabulous musical event I saw you post about?

203 cliffster  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:43:56am

How many Airplane subthreads have there been so far today?

204 Kragar  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:44:01am

re: #198 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Kragar, what is best in life?

Beer, porn and automatic weapons.

You know I couldn't just go for the obvious

205 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:44:39am

I'm really getting into it with another TrueSlant anti-Israel leftist. Another contributor.

206 Kragar  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:45:07am

re: #201 Slap

Yes, but if the computer you want to buy has a social networking program installed, you can simply choose not to use it.

So, not quite right for the "more depressing" aspect.

Discouraging and dehumanizong, well, THOSE might work.///

You should see some of the empty blank stares I get when people ask how to find me on Facebook and I tell them I don't use it.

207 wrenchwench  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:45:44am

re: #190 Charles

Does anyone remember that Al Jazeera video from the Mavi Marmara? Someone sent me a translation of the recorded voices, but now I can't seem to find the video to check it out with the translation.

Why, it's in LGF Pages, of course.

208 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:46:03am

re: #184 abaleh

I agree, energy used to be a household affair (the family fireplace). The introduction of fossil fuels created a shift to large scale gov't controlled utilities. New solar technology has the potential to return energy to the household, but it requires gov't investment to make it affordable. In Israel, a law in the 1970's (I think) forced builders to install solar heating panels on new homes' rooftops, and most households now use solar water heating (I don't remember the exact percentage). While household solar panels are available, I think they are too expensive for many private people, not to mention renters who have absolutely no incentive to invest in a long term solution. I think this would require legislature forcing new homebuilders to install these systems, and giving an incentive to existing homeowners and (especially) landlords to invest in these systems.
And of course there is the problem of the energy companies' lobby being against it.

And that's what I'm getting at. Decentralizing the consumption, making folks responsible again for their own consumption, will do more to reduce it than anything else. If there was one thing that came out of the Stimulus bill that I agreed with, it was the incentives and tax write-offs for energy-efficient appliances and house improvements. My folks replaced their water heater and are in the process of replacing the windows in the house, both items they talked about for years, primarily because now they got that tax write-off come next April. You start expanding the scope, going from simply efficiency to production, putting money back in people's pockets, and you'll see consumption drop.

As for the energy companies, after the little stunt in the Gulf, I saw fuck'em.

209 tnguitarist  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:46:06am

re: #202 wrenchwench

Never heard of it? It's a huge festival where about 90,000 people show up in a county with a population of about 35,000.

Bonnaroo

210 Slap  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:46:12am

re: #206 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I think they're the same stares I get when I say I have never watched Survivor or American Idol.

211 ArchangelMichael  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:46:21am

re: #195 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

You're just pissed that the Crom worshippers will have a leg up.

They worship a program that calculates compound interest at a savings and loan?

/

212 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:46:33am

re: #205 Charles

I'm really getting into it with another TrueSlant anti-Israel leftist. Another contributor.

On which story, Charles?

213 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:46:42am

re: #204 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Beer, porn and automatic weapons.

You know I couldn't just go for the obvious

Good! That is good.

214 cliffster  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:46:52am

re: #205 Charles

I'm really getting into it with another TrueSlant anti-Israel leftist. Another contributor.

which article?

215 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:47:32am

re: #185 Obdicut

That's fine. However, that is not going to happen overnight, or anywhere close to overnight. And energy is not the only issue.

We are very, very, very, very far from such a sustainable scenario now, and it will take huge amounts of resources to get there.

We need to purpose resources towards getting there. And we have finite resources. If we do not purpose enough resources to getting there, we will fail, and be overtaken by environmentally enforced resource-consumption-reduction.

I agree. But the short-term means ≠ the goal.

The goal is what Thanos said, as opposed to what Fozzie said. Preaching the goal of that 'sustainable scenario' will make us much better evangelists.

216 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:47:46am

re: #185 Obdicut

That's fine. However, that is not going to happen overnight, or anywhere close to overnight. And energy is not the only issue.

We are very, very, very, very far from such a sustainable scenario now, and it will take huge amounts of resources to get there.

We need to purpose resources towards getting there. And we have finite resources. If we do not purpose enough resources to getting there, we will fail, and be overtaken by environmentally enforced resource-consumption-reduction.

I'm not sure we are very, very, very, very far from such a scenario, perhaps just very, very far?

But all kidding aside, you are exactly right. I believe the money subsidising the implementation of economically senseless solar and wind should be going to research as well. Once they hit upon some thing sensible, the implementation will happen through normal market forces.

217 Kragar  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:47:54am

re: #210 Slap

I think they're the same stares I get when I say I have never watched Survivor or American Idol.

Oh, I know those stares too.

218 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:47:55am

re: #205 Charles

I'm really getting into it with another TrueSlant anti-Israel leftist. Another contributor.

can't find you...

219 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:48:02am

One other benefit that you could sell people on with home windmills or small solar panels: If you are cut off from the grid temporarily, you can at least heat a little or run the fridge. Part of an extended (4 day or so) power outage is losing hundreds of dollars of food, and living at 45 degrees indoors.

Of course, my time without power since we moved into this house is less than a week total over nine years, but buying dry ice and huddling next to the gas fireplace (without the fan, it was worth a lot less) was no fun.

220 AK-47%  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:49:01am

re: #167 Slap

Is there a more depressing modern-era creation than the HOA?

(Other than reality TV, I mean...)


Don't forget the HOAs in California that refused to ease their clothesline bans even at the height of the energy crisis...

221 wrenchwench  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:49:45am

re: #209 tnguitarist

Never heard of it? It's a huge festival where about 90,000 people show up in a county with a population of about 35,000.

Bonnaroo

Of course I've heard of it.

Right here in the comments at LGF, a week or so ago.

I don't get out much.

222 lawhawk  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:50:29am

re: #106 Obdicut

I have good reason to dismiss "renewable" energy sources, primarily because there is no way that the "renewable" energy sources will ever match the compact energy footprint of nuclear. It just isn't going to happen. You aren't going to wring out more energy per square acre from wind power than you could with a comparable acreage amount of nuclear power. And that assumes that technological advances wont make nuclear power even more efficient going forward.

And hydro- which is a renewable resource - is thwarted at every opportunity because of land use concerns (drowning valleys and river ecosystems). In the Northwest (the move is to get rid of dams, even those that provide power), because they damage the environment.

Then, there's the issue that the wind power turbines and solar power systems frequently require rare earth elements (which by its very name should hint that they are not found in vast quantities and will push costs ever higher).

223 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:51:03am

re: #186 Fozzie Bear

Unless we want to use the bulk of our energy in the future processing CO2 into O2 in closed environments, space is indeed limited.

Let me say it differently. Technically, space is limited. However, elevated standards of living appear to have a regulatory effect on population.

Therefore, if we pursue the already-noble goal of elevating global standards of living, space will not be a problem.

224 Slap  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:51:08am

re: #217 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What's worse is when they follow the stare with comments like "Oh, too good for us common folk? Something wrong with you?" or words to that effect.

So far, I've been able to take the polite high road with such folks. One day, it'll happen at a moment when my resolve to behave decently is weak. Then you may read about me somewhere.

225 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:51:31am

re: #23 Killgore Trout

Jihadis and Reuters win, Fox news can cover it all day long and nody's going to take it seriously because they're a bunch of fucking dishonest conspiracy lunatics. Fuck'em

This is a disgrace on this administration. They are supporting Hamas. Whatever the U.S. "helps them build," it will be knocked down and ravaged the minute we leave. When will we learn? Is making these people a terrorist organization not enough?

226 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:52:07am

re: #224 Slap

Try not having a television. They think we're really weird.

(We've never owned one, but have always owned a computer.)

227 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:52:28am

re: #205 Charles

I'm really getting into it with another TrueSlant anti-Israel leftist. Another contributor.

He made an equally poor attempt at Barrett a few months ago, as i'm sure you already saw.

228 Kragar  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:53:20am

re: #224 Slap

What's worse is when they follow the stare with comments like "Oh, too good for us common folk? Something wrong with you?" or words to that effect.

So far, I've been able to take the polite high road with such folks. One day, it'll happen at a moment when my resolve to behave decently is weak. Then you may read about me somewhere.

I usually hit them with "The people I want to stay in touch with already know how to get in touch with me."

Being an asshole is its own reward.

229 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:53:26am

re: #219 EmmmieG

One other benefit that you could sell people on with home windmills or small solar panels: If you are cut off from the grid temporarily, you can at least heat a little or run the fridge. Part of an extended (4 day or so) power outage is losing hundreds of dollars of food, and living at 45 degrees indoors.

Of course, my time without power since we moved into this house is less than a week total over nine years, but buying dry ice and huddling next to the gas fireplace (without the fan, it was worth a lot less) was no fun.

That is my idea. Such a backup makes great sense as a way to deal with power outages such as Hurricanes in hell holes like Houston. But lets not kid ourselves into thinking they save any CO2, until it takes less energy to build them. They only look green when you pretend they weren't built with power from coal and oil. Conservation and such things as insulation on the other hand, have a very real impact, as does fuel economy.

230 Slap  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:54:21am

re: #226 EmmmieG

NO TELEVISION????????

WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?

IT'S A CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENT, DAMMIT!!!!!!!!

You must think you're very special.

(And now: the Southern version)

Bless your heart!

231 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:54:44am

re: #229 Bagua

That is my idea. Such a backup makes great sense as a way to deal with power outages such as Hurricanes in hell holes like Houston. But lets not kid ourselves into thinking they save any CO2, until it takes less energy to build them. They only look green when you pretend they weren't built with power from coal and oil. Conservation and such things as insulation on the other hand, have a very real impact, as does fuel economy.

There is some value to re-setting thinking. Electricity is no longer the magic stuff from the wall that is just "there," but has to be produced somewhere. Getting people to think about how power gets to them has a value in and of itself.

232 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:54:52am

re: #219 EmmmieG

One other benefit that you could sell people on with home windmills or small solar panels: If you are cut off from the grid temporarily, you can at least heat a little or run the fridge. Part of an extended (4 day or so) power outage is losing hundreds of dollars of food, and living at 45 degrees indoors.

Of course, my time without power since we moved into this house is less than a week total over nine years, but buying dry ice and huddling next to the gas fireplace (without the fan, it was worth a lot less) was no fun.

And that, of course, is one major reason that the energy companies are going to do everything in their power to limit and derail decentralization. Because if you can rely on yourself for power when they fall down on the job, then people are going to begin to wonder why it is they pay such high prices for electricity that can be knocked out at the drop of a hat and take days or weeks to bring back online.

233 lawhawk  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:55:07am

re: #229 Bagua

Backup in an emergency isn't the same as replacing what now comprises the bulk of the nation's electrical power generation.

234 tnguitarist  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:55:47am

re: #221 wrenchwench

Of course I've heard of it.

Right here in the comments at LGF, a week or so ago.

I don't get out much.

It makes for good times, if you can stand the heat and smell of patchouli oil for four days.

235 AK-47%  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:56:18am

re: #232 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

And that, of course, is one major reason that the energy companies are going to do everything in their power to limit and derail decentralization. Because if you can rely on yourself for power when they fall down on the job, then people are going to begin to wonder why it is they pay such high prices for electricity that can be knocked out at the drop of a hat and take days or weeks to bring back online.

And when is the greatest demand for electricity to run the air conditioning?

WHEN THE SUN IS SHINING!!!

236 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:57:10am

re: #211 ArchangelMichael

They worship a program that calculates compound interest at a savings and loan?

/

A penny saved is a penny earned and all that. Cato could probably convert it into Latin and set it to a nice Gregorian chant groove... ;)

237 Slap  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:58:08am

re: #232 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

And that, of course, is one major reason that the energy companies are going to do everything in their power to limit and derail decentralization. Because if you can rely on yourself for power when they fall down on the job, then people are going to begin to wonder why it is they pay such high prices for electricity that can be knocked out at the drop of a hat and take days or weeks to bring back online.

That fact alone would have made Enron's market manipulations far less profitable and dangerous. Can you imagine if the CA gov't said, oh, you mean we have to pay TRIPLE because you're shifting sources around? Gee, no thanks -- we're just fine until your price comes back down. Give us a call, mmmkay?

238 wrenchwench  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:59:02am

re: #234 tnguitarist

It makes for good times, if you can stand the heat and smell of patchouli oil for four days.

Thanks for the warning. There are few things I find more repulsive than patchouli.

239 avanti  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 11:59:46am

re: #175 Bagua

Is it not? About 3,000 V-2s were launched, the Gaza terrorists are way ahead of the Nazis in terms of numbers. Sure the casualties have been lower, but Gaza has been at it longer and is working to remedy this problem by opening a sea-route to get in larger missiles from Iran.

OK, let me put on my Gaza residents hat for a moment, not that I agree with their thought process. They feel they are at war with a occupier, that blockages their borders and are they are fighting back with primitive weapons. They see the Jews expanding settlements on lands they feel are theirs, but lost in previous wars. If they had V2s or anything approaching their enemies weapons they would surely use them.
They bought the Hamas line that the Jews are responsible for all their woes and are taught that from birth. We know that their problems would be over if they just gave up the "resistance" and made peace, the issue could well be solved.
In the mean time, the attempt to hurt Hamas is also hurting the general population, and even Israel is trying to help them without helping Hamas. No one has figured out yet how to strike that balance, and both Israel and the US have been trying.
If it was more like your WW II analogy with V2's killing 1000's, Gaza would be a parking lot. It's a much more complicated issue than WW II IMHO.

240 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:00:37pm

re: #235 ralphieboy

And when is the greatest demand for electricity to run the air conditioning?

WHEN THE SUN IS SHINING!!!

Unfortunately around these parts (SE VA), A/C is pretty much a necessity during the summer. If it weren't for the humidity, I'd have the windows open for most of the summer with a few fans running. But when the humidity spikes and it gets muggy as hell, a fan just don't cut it.

241 Slap  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:01:55pm

re: #238 wrenchwench

Thanks for the warning. There are few things I find more repulsive than patchouli.

lol....I'd guess that, after four days of campin', partyin' and what all, you might just learn to LOVE the smell of patchouli.

Compared to the smell that the patchouli is covering up, I mean.

242 Summer Seale  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:02:06pm

re: #205 Charles

I'm really getting into it with another TrueSlant anti-Israel leftist. Another contributor.

I decided to reply to him.

243 AK-47%  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:02:39pm

re: #240 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Unfortunately around these parts (SE VA), A/C is pretty much a necessity during the summer. If it weren't for the humidity, I'd have the windows open for most of the summer with a few fans running. But when the humidity spikes and it gets muggy as hell, a fan just don't cut it.

Yes, and in the Arizona, you can do fine most of the summer with just an evaporative cooler (a fan with with dripping water in front of it) but that does not work in at all the build-up to the monsoon season in July/August

244 Summer Seale  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:02:42pm

RE: True/Slant:

[Link: trueslant.com...]

245 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:03:22pm

re: #237 Slap

That fact alone would have made Enron's market manipulations far less profitable and dangerous. Can you imagine if the CA gov't said, oh, you mean we have to pay TRIPLE because you're shifting sources around? Gee, no thanks -- we're just fine until your price comes back down. Give us a call, mmmkay?

I know if I could afford to put a windmill in the back and solar shingles on the house and generate enough energy to fulfill my daily needs, I'd be awful tempted to tell Dominion Power where to stick it. Lived here for almost 20 years and haven't gone a year yet without a power outage that lasted half the day/night. And if a hurricane or Nor'Easter comes through? Best stock up on some ice/blankets, because you might be without power for days, weeks, or even months.

246 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:03:28pm

re: #218 albusteve

can't find you...

[Link: trueslant.com...]

you're welcome

247 Targetpractice  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:03:54pm

re: #241 Slap

lol...I'd guess that, after four days of campin', partyin' and what all, you might just learn to LOVE the smell of patchouli.

Compared to the smell that the patchouli is covering up, I mean.

B.O. and failure?

248 Only The Lurker Knows  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:04:59pm

re: #190 Charles

Is this the one you are looking for?

249 albusteve  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:05:08pm

re: #234 tnguitarist

It makes for good times, if you can stand the heat and smell of patchouli oil for four days.

rent a trailer....$3200

250 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:05:09pm

re: #233 lawhawk

Backup in an emergency isn't the same as replacing what now comprises the bulk of the nation's electrical power generation.

Of course, I'm talking about a sales point for small area sales of otherwise senseless solar panels. The overall impact would be barely measurable in terms of energy saving to all except the contractors installing the panels.

251 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:09:23pm

re: #216 Bagua

I'm not sure we are very, very, very, very far from such a scenario, perhaps just very, very far?

But all kidding aside, you are exactly right. I believe the money subsidising the implementation of economically senseless solar and wind should be going to research as well. Once they hit upon some thing sensible, the implementation will happen through normal market forces.

No, the implementation will not happen through normal market forces. What you would require by that scenario is a sustainable technology that outperforms a 'cheating' technology economically; very hard.

Now, if we actually had the 'true' price of oil-- as in, if the price of oil reflected the damage it does to the environment-- there would be an economically level playing field and sustainable technology would be able to benefit from market forces.

But we do not.

252 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:12:49pm

re: #239 avanti

OK, let me put on my Gaza residents hat for a moment, not that I agree with their thought process. They feel they are at war with a occupier, that blockages their borders and are they are fighting back with primitive weapons. They see the Jews expanding settlements on lands they feel are theirs, but lost in previous wars. If they had V2s or anything approaching their enemies weapons they would surely use them.
They bought the Hamas line that the Jews are responsible for all their woes and are taught that from birth. We know that their problems would be over if they just gave up the "resistance" and made peace, the issue could well be solved.
In the mean time, the attempt to hurt Hamas is also hurting the general population, and even Israel is trying to help them without helping Hamas. No one has figured out yet how to strike that balance, and both Israel and the US have been trying.
If it was more like your WW II analogy with V2's killing 1000's, Gaza would be a parking lot. It's a much more complicated issue than WW II IMHO.

It is outstanding to me how no one understands this conflict.

No one is going to give up the "resistance". Certainly not while we coddle and make nicey to Hamas. Not while the world pities the poor enraged Palestinians who have time after time rejected statehood. Fatah and Hamas, both.

Do you not understand? If they accept a country they have to accept Israel. If they accept a country, then there no more millions from UNRWA to steal. There is no more enemy to fight, no scapegoat to point at, no reason to cry over their own pitiful existence. However, if they remain a territory they can cry OH WOE IS ME for another 100 decades. "Look what Israel does to us!" BULLSHIT.

There are two ways to end it. The U.S. and Israel can go in, kill them all and flatten the place. You think that's going to happen? Not in anyone's lifetime.

The second way is to make the Arabs rise up against their own government by blockades, embargoes and sanctions. By shunning them. By telling them the world will not tolerate their terrorism. Starve them out. Reagan did it to the Soviets and they fell to pieces without one gun shot being fired. Make Hamas government collapse on itself. Then and only then will the Arabs be free of oppression.

And let it happen in my lifetime because then we will have peace.

253 Randall Gross  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:15:20pm

Granted plentiful energy Space is not a problem at all. Period. It's a strawman. Look at the population density of Manhattan, Denmark, the Netherlands, and then look at the wide open spaces in Alaska. Look at the Gobi, look at the Sahara, most of Africa, South America, Antarctica, etc. etc.

Look at the people growing food in skyscrapers.

Space is not one of our worries.

254 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:16:00pm

re: #239 avanti

OK, let me put on my Gaza residents hat for a moment, not that I agree with their thought process. They feel they are at war with a occupier, that blockages their borders and are they are fighting back with primitive weapons. They see the Jews expanding settlements on lands they feel are theirs, but lost in previous wars. If they had V2s or anything approaching their enemies weapons they would surely use them.
They bought the Hamas line that the Jews are responsible for all their woes and are taught that from birth. We know that their problems would be over if they just gave up the "resistance" and made peace, the issue could well be solved.
In the mean time, the attempt to hurt Hamas is also hurting the general population, and even Israel is trying to help them without helping Hamas. No one has figured out yet how to strike that balance, and both Israel and the US have been trying.
If it was more like your WW II analogy with V2's killing 1000's, Gaza would be a parking lot. It's a much more complicated issue than WW II IMHO.

Right, that is apposite to my point. Supplying an enemy actively launching missiles is insanity. As is letting it get to the point where we talk about thousands of Israeli casualties or Gaza as a "parking lot." The goal should be unconditional surrender, a complete cessation of the terrorist attacks of all types. Freedom for Galid Shalit. It is only "much more complicated" because of all the political nonsense involved and the bizarre restrictions imposed on Israeli self defence.

Also this idea that we should help the population while hurting Hamas is more of the same foolishness that is guaranteeing a permanent state of war. While the population is Hamas, Fatah and Islamic Jihad, they are the problem. The terrorists do not occupy Gaza, they are Gaza. Before Hamas took over they were still launching thousands of rockets, mortars and terrorists attacks.

255 Mad Al-Jaffee  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:16:13pm

re: #230 Slap

[Link: www.theonion.com...]

:)

256 tnguitarist  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:18:44pm

re: #249 albusteve

No need. I live nearby.

257 AK-47%  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:19:40pm

re: #251 Obdicut

No, the implementation will not happen through normal market forces. What you would require by that scenario is a sustainable technology that outperforms a 'cheating' technology economically; very hard.

Now, if we actually had the 'true' price of oil-- as in, if the price of oil reflected the damage it does to the environment-- there would be an economically level playing field and sustainable technology would be able to benefit from market forces.

But we do not.

And if the price of oil also reflected the costs of maintaining access to our sources of supply: i.e., a large share of our defense budget, it would be different as well.

Nuclear is subsidized indirectly through liability caps on potential damage. Without them, no insurance company would cover them, or the price would be prohibitively expensive: it would be cheaper to hire nuclear engineers to run in treadmills.

258 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:20:30pm

re: #252 marjoriemoon

It is outstanding to me how no one understands this conflict.

No one is going to give up the "resistance". Certainly not while we coddle and make nicey to Hamas. Not while the world pities the poor enraged Palestinians who have time after time rejected statehood. Fatah and Hamas, both.

Do you not understand? If they accept a country they have to accept Israel. If they accept a country, then there no more millions from UNRWA to steal. There is no more enemy to fight, no scapegoat to point at, no reason to cry over their own pitiful existence. However, if they remain a territory they can cry OH WOE IS ME for another 100 decades. "Look what Israel does to us!" BULLSHIT.

There are two ways to end it. The U.S. and Israel can go in, kill them all and flatten the place. You think that's going to happen? Not in anyone's lifetime.

The second way is to make the Arabs rise up against their own government by blockades, embargoes and sanctions. By shunning them. By telling them the world will not tolerate their terrorism. Starve them out. Reagan did it to the Soviets and they fell to pieces without one gun shot being fired. Make Hamas government collapse on itself. Then and only then will the Arabs be free of oppression.

And let it happen in my lifetime because then we will have peace.

Agree all except there is no need to "kill them all." They could be soundly defeated without anything approaching killing them all.

259 tnguitarist  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:20:35pm

re: #247 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

B.O. and failure?

Good music. Look at the lineup. Stevie Wonder in rural Tennessee.

260 Mad Al-Jaffee  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:26:44pm

What Helen Thomas missed

Well, I don't know about "everywhere else," but after World War II, many Jews did attempt to "go home" to Poland. This resulted in the murder of about 1,500 of them -- killed not by Nazis but by Poles, either out of sheer ethnic hatred or fear they would lose their (stolen) homes.
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

261 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:28:41pm

re: #258 Bagua

Agree all except there is no need to "kill them all." They could be soundly defeated without anything approaching killing them all.

Plenty of people think that's a solution and if you'll notice, I said it was not.

They will not be soundly defeated while the world feels sorry for their own poor choices. George Bush should be deeply ashamed of himself. He supported these elections and he should have known better. We've had years to study Arafat and his double talk. No one paid any attention and it keeps getting worse every day.

262 Slap  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:29:52pm

re: #259 tnguitarist

There's the key. The line-up has some amazing stuff.

But I hate camping and being stuck around big crowds for extended periods, so there are only three festivals I'd consider attending:

Zappanale (for obvious reasons)
Cropredy
and the Heritage Festival

All a matter of taste, I guess. But these three cover my personal bases rather well.

263 tnguitarist  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:30:47pm

re: #262 Slap

I get free tickets and I go home every night. So,.....

264 Slap  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:35:11pm

re: #263 tnguitarist

Well, that would certainly change MY mind!

265 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:38:07pm

re: #261 marjoriemoon

Plenty of people think that's a solution and if you'll notice, I said it was not.

Oh I know, I was reinforcing your point but I worded it wrong. I meant I was against the idea you were also against. Wont happen. But also adding that it really isn't a choice between killing them all and endless rocket attacks. Gaza could be defeated soundly with restrained military tactics without killing much of the population that wasn't actively fighting.


They will not be soundly defeated while the world feels sorry for their own poor choices. George Bush should be deeply ashamed of himself. He supported these elections and he should have known better. We've had years to study Arafat and his double talk. No one paid any attention and it keeps getting worse every day.

Eh, not so much. The elections, Hamas, all of this is nonsense. Different terrorists is all, the PLO were just as bad or worse in terms of terrorism. The mistake is imposing a military solution that ends only with unconditional surrender. It matters not if it is Hamas or Fatah in power, my choice is neither.

266 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:38:43pm

Wow, I was all set to write something about AGW trends, but I saw that Nekama is back.

I wanted to personally thank you Nekama. You were one of the reasons I started lurking here and hoping for an open registration.

267 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:40:31pm

re: #191 Bagua

That's largely because they don't make sense economically and don't save any money or even oil. Should the technology mature and change that reality, everyone will want them.

But that is simply not true. Denmark, Germany, and Israel have demonstrated this through actual successful deployment.

268 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:44:56pm

re: #251 Obdicut

No, the implementation will not happen through normal market forces. What you would require by that scenario is a sustainable technology that outperforms a 'cheating' technology economically; very hard.

Now, if we actually had the 'true' price of oil-- as in, if the price of oil reflected the damage it does to the environment-- there would be an economically level playing field and sustainable technology would be able to benefit from market forces.

But we do not.

IN the case of windfarms, they have been shown in Germany, Denmark and Israel to quickly pay for themselves. Even without the true value/cost of fossil fuel burning taken into account the technology wins economically. If however, you do take the true cost into account, then it becomes a no brainier.

Satt and Bagua, I would ask you to back up your false claim that wind is not economically viable with something a bit more sound than your opinions on this matter. What major studies do you have - particularly in light of the successes that Germany Denmark and Israel have had with the tech (as well as China for that matter) - that indicate credibly that wind is "not ready for prime time?"

269 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:54:45pm

re: #268 ludwigvanquixote

For the record, I just meant that the market won't force the capital investment that it would require to make the transition, as long as oil remains as cheap and plentiful as it is; there's not a lot of incentive to make the infrastructure change, given that the current economic market vastly prefers short-term to long-term profits.

270 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 12:56:48pm

re: #269 Obdicut

For the record, I just meant that the market won't force the capital investment that it would require to make the transition, as long as oil remains as cheap and plentiful as it is; there's not a lot of incentive to make the infrastructure change, given that the current economic market vastly prefers short-term to long-term profits.

And that's exactly what the stimulus should have done. Can you imagine if we'd said we were going to put 500bil in stimulus towards such a thing, instead of just frittering it away?

271 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:02:26pm

re: #270 Aceofwhat?

And that's exactly what the stimulus should have done. Can you imagine if we'd said we were going to put 500bil in stimulus towards such a thing, instead of just frittering it away?

Was it politically feasible to do such a thing? Would it have spread the stimulus around the United States in the way that was necessary for the stimulus?

I totally agree there should have been more given to alternative energy research, and less to things like tax breaks that don't actually stimulate much. However, neither you nor I know if there was $500 billion of alternative energy projects to invest in. You can't just say "be there!"

Turning this discussion into stimulus-bashing strikes me as weird.

272 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:04:31pm

re: #267 ludwigvanquixote

But that is simply not true. Denmark, Germany, and Israel have demonstrated this through actual successful deployment.

Israel has some success, the others, not so much. I'll be happy to dig up some documentation for a later discussion. I'm all for alternatives that actually reduce the need for fossil fuels. What I'm against is Subsidy Farms that have no real saving and are only a feel good folly.

For example, Britain is on schedule to pay over 100 billion to deploy Wind/Subsidy Farms in an attempt to replace 20% of generation. Except they won't, and the identical base backup in fossil fuel based plant has to be built. For less money they could generate 80% of their electricity with nuclear, and have no need for additional fossil fuel based plants.

Wind is a delusion at this point. But if the money went to research instead, we'd have a real chance at something that actually reduced the use of fossil fuels.

273 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:07:47pm

re: #272 Bagua

Wind is a delusion at this point. But if the money went to research instead, we'd have a real chance at something that actually reduced the use of fossil fuels.

Maybe you could stop saying that until you do something about proving it.

274 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:08:07pm

re: #271 Obdicut

Was it politically feasible to do such a thing? Would it have spread the stimulus around the United States in the way that was necessary for the stimulus?

I totally agree there should have been more given to alternative energy research, and less to things like tax breaks that don't actually stimulate much. However, neither you nor I know if there was $500 billion of alternative energy projects to invest in. You can't just say "be there!"

Turning this discussion into stimulus-bashing strikes me as weird.

Not really. You said capital...if my figure was too large, then the point stands even more clearly.

275 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:11:47pm

re: #274 Aceofwhat?

Not really. You said capital...if my figure was too large, then the point stands even more clearly.

Huh?

The stimulus was for one purpose: To reinvigorate the economy during a time of financial crisis.

Asking it to also lead the charge into our change to alternative energy sources is idealistically nice, but probably impractical. Remember, one of the largest challenges for the stimulus was actually getting the money spent. "Shovel-ready projects" and all that.

In addition, a lot of the stimulus, like food stamps and payments to the states, had other desirable effects that couldn't have been served with alternative energy research and capital investment.

276 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:16:08pm

re: #272 Bagua

Israel has some success, the others, not so much. I'll be happy to dig up some documentation for a later discussion. I'm all for alternatives that actually reduce the need for fossil fuels. What I'm against is Subsidy Farms that have no real saving and are only a feel good folly.

For example, Britain is on schedule to pay over 100 billion to deploy Wind/Subsidy Farms in an attempt to replace 20% of generation. Except they won't, and the identical base backup in fossil fuel based plant has to be built. For less money they could generate 80% of their electricity with nuclear, and have no need for additional fossil fuel based plants.

Wind is a delusion at this point. But if the money went to research instead, we'd have a real chance at something that actually reduced the use of fossil fuels.

Whether to nuclear or to other non-carbon emitters, is it not commom ground that massive government intervention would be required to transition from hydrocarbon fuels within the time frame demanded by the AGW tipping-point proponents?

277 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:17:58pm

re: #272 Bagua

Israel has some success, the others, not so much.

Excuse me? Germany is on record of obtaining negative pricing on wind and Denmark is producing ~ 20% of its power form this source. Denamark is planning on expanding even further.

[Link: www.neatorama.com...]

The government invested heavily in clean and renewable energy systems, especially wind power. Today 21% of Denmark’s energy production comes from wind farms. On top of that, they lead the world in wind-power technology – another product to export. The industry has created more than 20,000 jobs.

For example, Britain is on schedule to pay over 100 billion to deploy Wind/Subsidy Farms in an attempt to replace 20% of generation.

irrelevant.

Wind is a delusion at this point. But if the money went to research instead, we'd have a real chance at something that actually reduced the use of fossil fuels.

This last statement is completely false and unsubstantiated.

278 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:19:57pm

re: #273 Obdicut

Maybe you could stop saying that until you do something about proving it.

Nonsense. I was evaluating a windmill for a building I owned back in 1975 and probably still have the brochure from Alcoa around somewhere, and have been following the subject closely since then. I'm right now looking at a possible partnership in a solar company.

279 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:19:58pm

re: #277 LudwigVanQuixote

PIMF

Excuse me? Germany is on record of obtaining negative pricing on wind and Denmark is producing ~ 20% of its power form this source. Denamark is planning on expanding even further.

[Link: [Link: www.neatorama.com...]...]

The government invested heavily in clean and renewable energy systems, especially wind power. Today 21% of Denmark’s energy production comes from wind farms. On top of that, they lead the world in wind-power technology – another product to export. The industry has created more than 20,000 jobs.

Break for your quote

For example, Britain is on schedule to pay over 100 billion to deploy Wind/Subsidy Farms in an attempt to replace 20% of generation.

irrelevant.

Wind is a delusion at this point. But if the money went to research instead, we'd have a real chance at something that actually reduced the use of fossil fuels.

This last statement is completely false and unsubstantiated.

280 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:22:17pm

re: #278 Bagua

You said 'nonsense', but nothing you said showed it was nonsense. You paid a lot of attention to AGW, as well, but that didn't stop you from being very, very wrong on the subject for a long period of time.

Ludwig has provided information that substantiates his position. Can you dispute it-- with anything other than your own profession of expertise?

281 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:22:52pm

re: #277 LudwigVanQuixote

Again: Whether to nuclear or to other non-carbon emitters, is it not commom ground that massive government intervention would be required to transition from hydrocarbon fuels within the time frame demanded by the AGW tipping-point proponents?

This being the case, then the question of economic feasibility under the current precarious economic conditions is a very real issue.

282 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:23:10pm

re: #275 Obdicut

Huh?

The stimulus was for one purpose: To reinvigorate the economy during a time of financial crisis.

Asking it to also lead the charge into our change to alternative energy sources is idealistically nice, but probably impractical. Remember, one of the largest challenges for the stimulus was actually getting the money spent. "Shovel-ready projects" and all that.

Yep. And we'd have been better off reinvigorating the economy in pursuit of a noble goal.

I know what the stimulus was touted for. But it's been quite ineffective.

Here's some Mankiw for you...

[Link: www.economics.harvard.edu...]

283 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:24:06pm

re: #277 LudwigVanQuixote

Irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant. The wind way save almost no CO2 and is unreliable and inefficient. The nuclear option could almost replace outright coal and gas generation. If your goal is less use of fossil fuel, then you should support nuclear and wind/solar research, not wind/solar deployment.

This last statement is completely false and unsubstantiated.

So you say. I said I will gather some documents and discuss this with you later. I believe your position is also false and unsubstantiated.

284 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:27:06pm

re: #282 Aceofwhat?

Ace, why are you ignoring my actual point? We could not necessarily have both reinvigorated the economy and done so by going after that 'noble goal'. You have not done anything to prove that we could. It'd be great if the stimulus could have addressed the problem of the inner cities, too, or erosion, or curing cancer. It did, in fact, have small amounts for each of those, but unless you can show there was half a trillion dollars worth of shovel-ready projects for alternative energy, then your point is invalid.


I know your opinion on the stimulus and I have zero desire to get into a debate with you on it right now, especially when there's a much more important topic being discussed.

285 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:28:50pm

re: #280 Obdicut

You said 'nonsense', but nothing you said showed it was nonsense. You paid a lot of attention to AGW, as well, but that didn't stop you from being very, very wrong on the subject for a long period of time.

Ludwig has provided information that substantiates his position. Can you dispute it-- with anything other than your own profession of expertise?

That's about the eighth time you have attempted to restart hostilities between me and Ludwig. I'm not interested, nor I believe is Ludwig. Troll someone else.

286 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:29:23pm

Unless America can first tame its chronic deficits and crippling debt, the vast public expenditures required to switch to alternate energy just ain't gonna happen.

287 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:37:14pm

re: #284 Obdicut

Ace, why are you ignoring my actual point? We could not necessarily have both reinvigorated the economy and done so by going after that 'noble goal'.

We may not have. But we did not reinvigorate the economy anyway. So at least we'd have been a step closer to the 'manhattan project II' or whatever.

Sorry. It's hard to watch that much money go by without actual solutions, especially when we're talking about huge capital investments.

288 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:39:41pm

re: #265 Bagua

Eh, not so much. The elections, Hamas, all of this is nonsense. Different terrorists is all, the PLO were just as bad or worse in terms of terrorism. The mistake is imposing a military solution that ends only with unconditional surrender. It matters not if it is Hamas or Fatah in power, my choice is neither.

Sorry, I'm popping in and out today.

Thanks for understanding my comments. I do think, though, that it was a terrible mistake by Bush. I think he really thought he would change the Arab World. Ariel Sharon warned him of doing this in Iraq. That it can't be done, but he wouldn't listen. Who listens to the Israelis? Everyone thinks their idea is the one that will be the winner. They keep going back to square one and hoping this time it will be different.

289 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:41:43pm

re: #288 marjoriemoon

Sorry, I'm popping in and out today.

Thanks for understanding my comments. I do think, though, that it was a terrible mistake by Bush. I think he really thought he would change the Arab World. Ariel Sharon warned him of doing this in Iraq. That it can't be done, but he wouldn't listen. Who listens to the Israelis? Everyone thinks their idea is the one that will be the winner. They keep going back to square one and hoping this time it will be different.

Yep, agreed.

290 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:47:04pm

re: #285 Bagua

That's about the eighth time you have attempted to restart hostilities between me and Ludwig. I'm not interested, nor I believe is Ludwig. Troll someone else.

Jesus christ, dude. I'm not trying to restart hostilities. I am reminding you, bluntly, that you have been substantially wrong on a similar subject before so a bit of humility here might behoove you.

291 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:48:44pm

re: #287 Aceofwhat?

As I said, Ace, I'm not interested in discussing whether or not the stimulus was a success. I can acknowledge that you believe that it wasn't, heck, I can acknowledge the subject is debatable. I don't see any point in us having that debate, here and now.

292 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:54:25pm

re: #285 Bagua

That's about the eighth time you have attempted to restart hostilities between me and Ludwig. I'm not interested, nor I believe is Ludwig. Troll someone else.

Bagua, this is not about hostilities. You have made a very strong and very false claim. I have backed up my statements and I do not need to look for more evidence or get back to you. Denmark and Germany and Israel have made wind profitable. It is a functioning technology and the existence of these programs proves that your argument is false. If you want to make any other sort of claim on the matter you are going to have to take it up with the Danes, the Germans and the Israelis.

293 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 1:59:22pm

re: #281 Spare O'Lake

Again: Whether to nuclear or to other non-carbon emitters, is it not commom ground that massive government intervention would be required to transition from hydrocarbon fuels within the time frame demanded by the AGW tipping-point proponents?

This being the case, then the question of economic feasibility under the current precarious economic conditions is a very real issue.

And the experience of Denmark, Germany, Israel and China shows that wind power and smart grids are profitable and sources of revenue in of themselves. On a pure economic ground, these programs win. As to massive government intervention, there is no way that oil or fossil fuel companies are going to voluntarily start building these things. They have a negative incentive to. This nescessitates government stimulus if not an outright program. The alternative to this is eco collapse in the long run and support of vile foreign nations that hate us, and the West in general, in the short run. In an even more specific argument about philosophy, you simply can not be pro Israel and pro oil at the same time. However, my main focus, and what I wish everyone's main focus would be is preventing eco-collapse. The fact that it is even short term profitable to do so, is really secondary.

294 Reginald Perrin  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 2:07:05pm

Scientific American

Samsung Signs $6.6 Billion Solar and Wind Power Deal with Ontario, Canada

by: Zachary Shahan


That takes my breath away. In one of the biggest renewable energy deals in the history of the world, a Korean consortium led by Samsung* has agreed to build 2,500 megawatts of wind and solar power capacity in the Canadian province of Ontario.

Samsung C&T and the Ontario government signed the deal on Thursday, January 21st. The agreement will bring thousands of jobs and clean energy for more than half a million homes to Ontario.

Building off of this new deal, Korean trade officials plan to make Ontario their base of operations for all of North American.

Samsung first proposed the deal about a year ago, but Ontario’s Green Energy Act is what seems to have actually moved the proposal to a reality — another reason for clean energy activists in the US to look with puppy dog eyes at the rest of the world as they speed ahead with clean energy (and clean energy jobs) and Americans remain tied to the old bone of dirty technology.

As The New York Times reports, “Under the terms of the agreement, officials said, Samsung must build four manufacturing plants in Ontario, promising 16,000 direct and indirect jobs over the next five years. The energy generated will be enough for 580,000 homes.”

The first phase of the project is scheduled to be built near an old coal plant that is supposed to be decommissioned by 2014 (near Windsor). Out with the old, in with the new.

Samsungs new manufacturing facilities under this deal (4 manufacturing plants in Ontario) will be producing wind turbine towers, wind blades, solar inverters and solar assembly by 2015.

Now, as Ontario’s premier, Dalton McGuinty, says, “This means Ontario is officially the place to be for green energy manufacturing in North America.” With generous subsidies for clean energy production under its new Green Energy Act, many more clean energy developers probably have their eye on Ontario as well.

With a project so big and so close to home, the US may start to take the clean energy and climate change legislation that is currently in the Senate a little more seriously. We will see.

*The other major player in the consortium that signed the deal with the Ontario government is the Korea Electric Power Corporation.


The Koreans are putting up the entire 6.6 billion dollar cost of the project but the Ontario gov't has agreed to a guaranteed price for the power generated, for wind generated power the amount is 14 cents per kw hour.
The province of Ontario is committed to completely eliminate the use of coal to generate electricity by the year 2014. There are more proposed wind projects than the grid is able to currently handle.

295 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 2:11:29pm

Just another link on the Danish wind program:

This is all from the Danish Ministry of Energy.

[Link: ens.dk...]

There is a cornucopia of data about wind from the Danes.

[Link: www.ens.dk...]

The windturbines field has developed fast since the beginning of the 1980s and, in particular, in the last ten to fifthteen years. Today windturbines account for a considerable proportion of electricity supplies in Denmark.

As of 1 January 2009, Denmark had a wind capacity of 3163 MW. Of this 422 MW is placed offshore. Since then Horns Rev II has been put in to operation. This means that Denmark now has 631 MW wind capacity placed offshore.

In 2007, wind-power production accounted for 19.7% of domestic electricity supply against 16.8% the previous year, this is due to better wind conditions. In 2006 Wind turbines produced 22 PJ of electricity, which amounts to 2.6% of corrected gross energy-consumption. In 2007 the power produced from wind turbines rose 17.4% compared to 2006, this was due to better wind conditions

296 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 2:18:01pm

re: #291 Obdicut

As I said, Ace, I'm not interested in discussing whether or not the stimulus was a success. I can acknowledge that you believe that it wasn't, heck, I can acknowledge the subject is debatable. I don't see any point in us having that debate, here and now.

That's fine. I respect that.

297 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 2:26:30pm

re: #292 LudwigVanQuixote

Bagua, this is not about hostilities. You have made a very strong and very false claim. I have backed up my statements and I do not need to look for more evidence or get back to you. Denmark and Germany and Israel have made wind profitable. It is a functioning technology and the existence of these programs proves that your argument is false. If you want to make any other sort of claim on the matter you are going to have to take it up with the Danes, the Germans and the Israelis.

I didn't say you did not back up your claim or have to get back to me, I said I will gather some documents to back up mine and get back to you. Nor was I referring to you about the hostilities, Obdicut has tried to start these up several times in your absence on this forum.

298 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 2:29:54pm

re: #290 Obdicut

Jesus christ, dude. I'm not trying to restart hostilities. I am reminding you, bluntly, that you have been substantially wrong on a similar subject before so a bit of humility here might behoove you.

And I'm reminding you, bluntly, that you are trolling when you try to restart dead arguments between Ludwig and I with your false spin that I was "substantially wrong." I do not concede that and never did, and any idiot knows we would have to restart the same conversations to establish our positions. So stay out of any conversation I am having with Ludwig and stop trolling me.

299 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 2:34:02pm

re: #295 LudwigVanQuixote

This is what I said Ludwig.

re: #283 Bagua

So you say. I said I will gather some documents and discuss this with you later. I believe your position is also false and unsubstantiated.

I am happy to be proven wrong as I'm a long time fan of Solar and Wind, I'm just not convinced it is ready for large scale deployment at this moment(more than about 5%) but I favour funding research and infrastructure to hasten the day.

300 AK-47%  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 2:39:56pm

re: #269 Obdicut

For the record, I just meant that the market won't force the capital investment that it would require to make the transition, as long as oil remains as cheap and plentiful as it is; there's not a lot of incentive to make the infrastructure change, given that the current economic market vastly prefers short-term to long-term profits.

O=il is "cheap" in the sense that the purchase price is relatively low. The actual cost is much higher, it is just hidden in other places.

And that is what a healthy, functioning market is supposed to do: ensure that prices reflect costs so that supply and demand can function properly and for everyone's benefit.

301 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 2:40:30pm

re: #298 Bagua

You were very, very wrong on AGW, to the extent that Charles called you out on it repeatedly.

I am not going to stay out of any conversations you are having on renewable energy, since it's the most important topic facing the world today.

If you back up your claims with evidence and proof, you'll get no guff from me. When you, as you did, dismiss solar and wind in the face of actual evidence, I will call you on it and remind you that your record on these subjects is far from spotless.

Calling this 'trolling' is bizarre. I disagree, deeply, with what you've said, and feel that it is amazingly and disastrously inaccurate. What on earth gives you the right to say that I shouldn't say so?

302 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 2:41:22pm

re: #300 ralphieboy

Exactly.

303 lostlakehiker  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 3:12:23pm

re: #8 Fozzie Bear

And yet, all we can get in terms of acting on the problem is bullshit talk about reductions and efficiencies, if that.

Being slightly less destructive isn't going to cut it. We need to start building nuke/wind/solar/geo plants NOW, and we need to invest alot of money to do it, even if it means borrowing.

Updinged, but the world as a whole cannot borrow. The only way to have the physical cement, steel, aluminum, and man-hours that must be dedicated to this effort is to divert them from something else we might be doing. Safer highways. More spacious housing. (No use pretending that the diversion can be drawn from frivolous uses; if frivolous uses didn't have the clout to get themselves included in society's budget, they would already not exist.)

This won't be cost free.

The upside of getting cracking is that if we can get ahead of the pack and move up the learning curve in a timely fashion, we'll be in a position to buy domestically instead of having to hand over half of Iowa as security for what we'll be borrowing to pay for other people's technology. We might even be able to get Germany to send us real beer in exchange for our solar tech, instead of us sending Germany however many quarter-pounders-with-cheese it takes to equal a wind turbine.

304 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 3:24:45pm

re: #301 Obdicut

Stop lying ObdiTroll. Your desire to re-open long dead arguments and repeat falsehoods is disgusting.

305 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 3:28:02pm

re: #304 Bagua

Stop lying ObdiTroll. Your desire to re-open long dead arguments and repeat falsehoods is disgusting.

Oh geez, Bagua. Just get over it already.

As I said: If you can back up your claims, as you have with the BP oil spill stuff, you'll get no guff from me, and I'll thank you for it.

If you say things that you can't back up, like you have here, I'll call you on it. As I did in the past, with your AGW-denial.

Whipping yourself up into a froth about it isn't going to change that. The only thing that you can do that will make me not call you out when you are saying things that are wrong is not saying things that are wrong. That is the one and only solution.

It should not be hard, as you're an intelligent man.

You should not be surprised that your past behavior on AGW is relevant to discussions of the mechanisms to address AGW, either.

306 Bagua  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 4:05:56pm

re: #305 Obdicut

...

You should not be surprised that your past behavior on AGW is relevant to discussions of the mechanisms to address AGW, either.

Nor should you be surprised that your past behaviour is being noted.

307 brownbagj  Wed, Jun 9, 2010 7:11:21pm

re: #43 Killgore Trout

Yeah, that why ODS sufferers are politically useless. The Blogs are more interested in trying to blame Obama for the oil spill. Fox is covering it but it get sandwiched in between bogus stories about secret socialist conspiracies and New World Order alex Jones crap. Useless.

We can blame the right wing blog all we want, but at least some covered it (and Fox).

Where is the "hate" for the silent left blogs? What they did was worse, right? Stand silent or side with Hamas....right???!

308 mkelly  Thu, Jun 10, 2010 11:46:57am

[Link: www.ngu.no...]


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
2 days ago
Views: 92 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 259 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1