Classic Conversation Thread

[Eric Prime]

 

[Dementeleus]

At least those seats look comfortable.  

[DAR]

5 minutes ago, CoolEric258 said:

 

Man too soon.

[Jason]

3 hours ago, PANDA said:

I’m annoyed that progressive politicians are willing to call themselves “Pro-Environment” but they’re not willing to endorse a revenue neutral carbon tax.

 

It’s the most efficient way to reduce emissions, and provides no cost to consumers.  It also should be easier to pass in progressive states if it was advertised as a bill that “Reduces the cost of public college tuition”, “Expands Medicare to more income groups” or “Reduces income taxes”, and is then funded by the Carbon Tax.

 

You can invest in Solar and clean energy, and that’s good.  But it isn’t going to get people off of carbon fast enough, given the effects of climate change are already starting to happen. 

 

I also dont think we can hold out hope for a single super genius to invent a carbon emission reversal process.  However, investing more money in climate scientists and environmental engineers couldn’t hurt.

 

Great post.

 

Additionally, I've been very frustrated by the fact that many progressives (worldwide) keep pushing solar/wind and opposing nuclear, despite the fact that in many locations (that already have a lot of nuclear or hydroelectric on the grid), the net effect of solar/wind is to cause emissions to go up, because natural gas/coal are needed to deal with  unstable the output is from wind/solar.

 

Also, wind and solar are far too expensive to replace fossil fuels right now (in part because of lack of reliability), and that won't change in the foreseeable future. I'm not saying the technology won't ever be cheap enough, but we don't have time to wait.

 

I can confirm we can't hold out hope for a carbon emission reversal process. The only carbon emission reversal process out there that is even remotely viable right now is called photosynthesis, and there are fundamental thermodynamic reasons why at best we might be able to match (but not exceed) its efficiency. All the bullshit out there about carbon capture is essentially fossil fuel companies funding research to make it appear like it might be possible. So far the proposed (long-term) capture schemes would essentially be even more expensive than just not emitting the carbon dioxide in the first place, and that's not likely to change.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Jason

[DAR]

The more ads I see of it the more I think Holmes and Watson is going to be a dud.

[That One Girl]

1 minute ago, DAR said:

The more ads I see of it the more I think Holmes and Watson is going to be a dud.

 

You've seen ads for it?

[Brainbug]

Ive eaten two muffins today. While doing that i realized that i hadnt eaten a single muffin in the last six months.

 

I will for sure buy more muffins in the coming weeks. I like muffins after all.

[DAR]

3 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

You've seen ads for it?

They've played a few during the NFL games this weekend

[Eric Prime]

8 minutes ago, DAR said:

The more ads I see of it the more I think Holmes and Watson is going to be a dud.

I talked about it in the Vice thread, but I wish McKay could take a break from Oscar bait and do another goofy Ferrell collaboration. Will's been slumming it lately, and something like Holmes & Watson would have been golden with McKay's touch.

[Dementeleus]

@PANDA @Jason I read an interesting article recently about a Norwegian architectural firm that's making buildings that are green-positive: they actually put a not-insignificant amount of energy back into the grid just from how they're designed (and of course what materials are being used). It's very cool and I hope catches on outside of Scandinavia.

[Barnack]

32 minutes ago, Jason said:

I can confirm we can't hold out hope for a carbon emission reversal process.

 

Humanity simply ending up reflecting the Sun energy (and fighting about how much, the ideal amount being different for everyone) with some chemical put in the high atmosphere sound quite more likely to me.

[Lordmandeep]

I think carbon taxes may work but I think they have to be put in correctly.

 

They have to be revenue netural or it is a regressive tax on the poor. 

[Dementeleus]

I mean, at this point, don't we wanna basically be trying EVERYTHING? 

[Brainbug]

2 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

I mean, at this point, don't we wanna basically be trying EVERYTHING? 

 

Maybe its time to balance some things out.

[The Panda]

55 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

@PANDA @Jason I read an interesting article recently about a Norwegian architectural firm that's making buildings that are green-positive: they actually put a not-insignificant amount of energy back into the grid just from how they're designed (and of course what materials are being used). It's very cool and I hope catches on outside of Scandinavia.

I feel like almost everything coming out of Norway has been positive and a great model for the world outside of Norway (and the other Scandinavian countries).

[Dementeleus]

5 minutes ago, Brainbug said:

 

Maybe its time to balance some things out.

 

I can't support The Purple Dildo and his techniques.

[The Panda]

12 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

I think carbon taxes may work but I think they have to be put in correctly.

 

They have to be revenue netural or it is a regressive tax on the poor. 

It’s funny that the main argument against fighting climate change is “the economy”.

 

Yet, revenue neutral carbon taxes is a policy liberal, moderate and conservative economists all agree on.  It’s not a hot topic at all, yet somehow it’s the inverse in the political world (where nobody wants to do it).

[cannastop]

China’s No. 2 Film This Weekend Was Hayao Miyazaki’s ‘My Neighbor Totoro’

https://www.cartoonbrew.com/box-office-report/chinas-no-2-film-this-weekend-was-hayao-miyazakis-my-neighbor-totoro-167940.html

[Lordmandeep]

54 minutes ago, PANDA said:

It’s funny that the main argument against fighting climate change is “the economy”.

 

Yet, revenue neutral carbon taxes is a policy liberal, moderate and conservative economists all agree on.  It’s not a hot topic at all, yet somehow it’s the inverse in the political world (where nobody wants to do it).

I think the problem is that people dont trust government in general these days so when they hear "we need to tax you more" people become cynical about it being for a greater good then frankly just fueling 'wasteful government'.

 

I would be honest I would automatically vote against any politician that wants carbon taxes or fees that are not offset with a rebate or a reduction in taxes. 

 

 

[JB33]

4 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

I think the problem is that people dont trust government in general these days so when they hear "we need to tax you more" people become cynical about it being for a greater good then frankly just fueling 'wasteful government'.

 

I would be honest I would automatically vote against any politician that wants carbon taxes or fees that are not offset with a rebate or a reduction in taxes. 

 

 

Bang on @Lordmandeep. Bang on.