Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 428 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostThu Sep 12, 2019 7:21 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
empty podium
empty podium

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1311 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostFri Sep 13, 2019 9:18 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
It would be like trumps idiotic trade disruptions on steroids and then multiplied exponentially.

Well that's a prediction we can check on eventually. Only at one aspect of cost is a simplistic measurement, but it's not clear that retail energy costs will go up significantly anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11060 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostFri Sep 13, 2019 11:03 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm wrote:
Well that's a prediction we can check on eventually. Only at one aspect of cost is a simplistic measurement, but it's not clear that retail energy costs will go up significantly anyway.

On the contrary, it's very, very clear.

One: The cost of maintaining standard, full base load plants as backup + the cost of building and maintaining boutique sources, is *not* less than the cost of standard, full base load plants by themselves. It is higher.

Higher costs = higher prices.

I note you didn't claim 'significantly'. That's a good out, since you're not claiming they won't go up at all.

More $$ for the exact same electrons in order to solve a problem which does not exist. I suggest an opt in program for all the believers who want to live their beliefs at their own expense, and all the costs of the boutique power being added to their bills. The roads, the many many miles of power towers and lines for tie ins, the added cost of running real power plants in the inefficient mode of spinning up and down to fill in for the dips and surges in boutique power production, etc.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6546 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostTue Sep 17, 2019 8:20 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
There are more reasons to move away from an oil dependent economy than just environmental

https://www.foxnews.com/world/locked-and-loaded-saudi-oil-attack-military-options-trump
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11060 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostTue Sep 17, 2019 2:17 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Great. Then do so in your own life. There are all kinds of reasons, sure. Act on them, and leave other innocent people alone.

You may get the idea that suggesting wonderful alternatives is unwanted. Not at all. It's the use of govt against innocent people which is unwanted. People have their own plans, they do not need One Great Central Plan...or else.

Alternatives are fine. Deciding for innocent people at cost of their rights, is not.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11060 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostTue Sep 17, 2019 2:17 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
(lead in from Cyclopath pontificating about other people's problems with dogmatic ideology(!) in the wet Sept thread) ....


....and so tell us about how you define 'dogmatic' and 'ideological', and let's see what shakes out, shall we?

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11060 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 18, 2019 9:03 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I didn't think so...  biggrin.gif

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6546 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Sep 18, 2019 9:20 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Great. Then do so in your own life. There are all kinds of reasons, sure. Act on them, and leave other innocent people alone.

The government should get itself completely out of the oil business and the oil companies themselves should have to ensure the security of the flow of oil.    The price at the pump should reflect the trillions spent propping up corrupt regimes and wars in the region.

The concept of a "innocent person" in the context of oil usage is ridiculous.   Everything in the economy is dependent on the fossil fuel infrastructure.   Including the growing of food.

We have acted collectively to build the current system, it is baloney to suggest that changing the system can only be effected by individual actions.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11060 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 18, 2019 9:59 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
The government should get itself completely out of the oil business and the oil companies themselves should have to ensure the security of the flow of oil.    The price at the pump should reflect the trillions spent propping up corrupt regimes and wars in the region.

I  agree.

Quote:
The concept of a "innocent person" in the context of oil usage is ridiculous.   Everything in the economy is dependent on the fossil fuel infrastructure.   Including the growing of food.

I could not disagree more. The concept of an innocent person is the foundation of morality, governance, justice, individual self determination and value, and so much more.

It is irrelevant what depends on what when using, applying, or discussing the concept of an innocent person. When a person violating no one's actual rights makes a non rights violating choice, there is no basis for acting against their rights as if they did.

I suspect you don't like the concept because it stand in opposition to the idea of using govt against persons who are not actually violating anyone's rights, when violation of same is the sole valid moral reason for use of govt against individuals.

RandyHiker wrote:
We have acted collectively to build the current system, it is baloney to suggest that changing the system can only be effected by individual actions.

I didn't argue it can only be effected by individual actions. Obviously, it is physically possible to use force against others and have an effect.

I argue it is the only morally valid way to change it. What can be done, and what is moral to do, are not the same things.

I find the arguments about 'we' and 'collective' to be intentionally vague and ill defined for any useful discussion using testable logical ideas and arguments. When 'we' do something, it is not necessarily any particular person, hence what 'we' do in that context is not applicable to any individual not doing the action in question.

The 'collective' is an even more troublesome argument, since any number of people, like the 'we', can be a 'collective', yet no individual has any responsibility whatsoever for actions they did not take or support.

It's been claimed that individual actions cannot solve the crisis we are told is a crisis. Nope, it's merely that those claiming we need the action refuse to accept the costs and risks of doing what they claim to want, and want to justify using other people to ease the burden of their own ideals. Nobody was placed here on Earth to ease the burdens of an individual living their own stated ideals.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11060 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 18, 2019 10:50 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
(lead in from Cyclopath pontificating about other people's problems with dogmatic ideology(!) in the wet Sept thread) ....


....and so tell us about how you define 'dogmatic' and 'ideological', and let's see what shakes out, shall we?

Could it be that the terms and ideals are becoming indistinguishable from religious ones?

NBC wants you to confess ...

Quote:
Climate Confessions
Even those who care deeply about the planet's future can slip up now and then. Tell us: Where do you fall short in preventing climate change? Do you blast the A/C? Throw out half your lunch? Grill a steak every week? Share your anonymous confession with NBC New


I can hardly wait for the acts of penitence and the nature of the indulgences for forgiveness...I suspect support for enforcement of climate 'morality'

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6546 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Sep 18, 2019 12:34 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
I argue it is the only morally valid way to change it. What can be done, and what is moral to do, are not the same things

But apparently you are morally OK with our collective military actions that have killed 100,000s of thousands in order to ensure your convience and economy at the gas pump.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11060 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 18, 2019 12:49 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
But apparently you are morally OK with our collective military actions that have killed 100,000s of thousands in order to ensure your convience and economy at the gas pump.

No I am not. I agreed with your prior statement for that reason, among others.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6546 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Sep 18, 2019 1:15 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
But apparently you are morally OK with our collective military actions that have killed 100,000s of thousands in order to ensure your convience and economy at the gas pump.

No I am not. I agreed with your prior statement for that reason, among others.

So you say, but everything else you say on this subject advocates for no collective action to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

I also reject the entire notion that government policy has no role in shaping society.   There is tons of social engineering in government policy.   E.g. we collect gasoline taxes to pay for public roads, we don't require people to individually construct and maintain roads.  Government safety standards guide the construction of vehicles.  We don't leave it up to individuals to determine the safety standards of their vehicle.     Is it moral to require people to have functioning brake lights on their vehicle or should this moral choice be left up to the individual as you suggest for energy policy.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11060 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Sep 18, 2019 1:48 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
So you say, but everything else you say on this subject advocates for no collective action to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

I also reject the entire notion that government policy has no role in shaping society.   There is tons of social engineering in government policy.   E.g. we collect gasoline taxes to pay for public roads, we don't require people to individually construct and maintain roads.  Government safety standards guide the construction of vehicles.  We don't leave it up to individuals to determine the safety standards of their vehicle.     Is it moral to require people to have functioning brake lights on their vehicle or should this moral choice be left up to the individual as you suggest for energy policy.

Yes, so I say. They're my arguments, and I make them.

The fact is that the second argument is not in any way contradictory to the first part of the argument. It is not contradictory to oppose military action in support of oil and oppose 'collective' action against citizens to oppose oil use, it is logically consistent.  In both cases I oppose the use of State power.

Unlike your opposition to the use of State power against people to secure oil, but your support of State power against people to force them off it.

Nor did I reject 'collective' action. I merely rejected your formulation of 'collective' action, rooted in force against innocent people. Every one of the True Believers acting in service of their beliefs in the own lives, is *also* collective action, by definition. But of course that doesn't achieve the goal of effectiveness via force, does it. I see your arguments as justifying the means by the ends.

Nor did I ever argue govt has no role in shaping society. This arguments is sloppy.

Govt protection negative rights 'shapes' society, certainly. That is the entire point. You can even call it social engineering, but what it does not do is violate the negative rights of innocent people. The constant is..govt should not violate innocent people's rights.

Of course these things should be left up to individuals, because they are legally and personally responsible for failure to drive safely. I do not support collective pre-punishment of the innocent, on the basis that someone else did something wrong. I don't see citizens who disagree as the problem, or people to be forced by govt to serve my ends. I see them as folks who own the right to live their lives within the sphere of their rights.

I don't calibrate my positions and arguments in ways to justify using govt against them. They're not here to serve my plans, or A Great Federal Plan. They have their *own* plans, and the right to try and live them.

A chief element of your argument seems to be 'we already do X', which is irrelevant. What is wrong is wrong, no matter who does it already.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6546 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Sep 18, 2019 2:25 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Of course these things should be left up to individuals, because they are legally and personally responsible for failure to drive safely. I do not support collective pre-punishment of the innocent, on the basis that someone else did something wrong. I don't see citizens who disagree as the problem, or people to be forced by govt to serve my ends. I see them as folks who own the right to live their lives within the sphere of their rights.

So what government regulations do you find "morally objectionable" ? Fleet fuel efficiency standards?  Emissions standards?  Banning of leaded gasoline?  Is it "punishment of the innocent" to require catalytic converters on vehicles manufactured since 1980?  Provide some detail.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday polecatjoe!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy