I admit, sometimes I want to argue only because deep down I do understand that in today's society one must be good at arguing if only to get a few to listen to what I'm trying to say. For the most part I find it tedious and I rarely see anyone changing someone else's mind because of it. In our case, I doubt very much you or I will ever change each other's mind. While we agree on many things I think at our very cores we are based on an entirely different belief system. And as much as I'd love to believe that I only see one side of an issue... if that were really true then I doubt very much that I would even bother to argue at all.
Wanna hear a secret?
I'm not trying to change your mind. I mean, if I do, woo-hoo, but that's not my goal. My goal in this discussion is to get you (and anyone reading) to stop positing conspiracies and start looking at the underlying physics and economics of energy. Because I know that, once that happens, it will be impossible not to recognize the real problems we're facing, which are primarily problems of technology.
Re: different belief systems. I wouldn't say "entirely." In fact, we share a pretty important belief in common: we both believe that people are broken. The difference is whether or not you take the next step after that, which is thinking they can still be salvaged. Though admittedly not by anything here on earth.
I suspect that you already know the answer to this or you wouldn't even ask. They can't stop, its the only thing they can do. The system of life on this planet can only be sustained in its current form by continuing down this terribly polluted path. I disagree with you however that they represent the "biggest problem". They are well ahead of us in many areas
they are spending much, much more money going green than we are right now. To try and get a handle on this problem that they are facing. The thing is though, they actually seem willing to do it while we continue to make excuses not to.
What is going to be really interesting is to see if they can really do it. They can make a huge difference and perhaps even change the world if what they are attempting to do works. And we'll get to see most of this in our lifetime, should be very interesting to see how they do.
This is really interesting news from China's biggest city.
Well, first off, I think the most interesting thing about China's investments in green energy is that they're doing all that, and they
still pollute more. And as that article details, their emissions aren't likely to decline even two decades from now. Secondly, you seem to be making the assumption that investing in green energy guarantees results, but the whole argument here is that it doesn't. Sinking a billion dollars into a new energy is great...if it works out. If it doesn't, or if it produces only marginal results, then it's a waste. So saying they're "well ahead of us," when they're really just spending more, is kind of like saying the race is won by the guy exerting the most effort rather than the guy who's moving faster.
Thirdly, the fact that China's spending a ton on this doesn't mean we aren't spending quite a bit, too. You say we "make excuses not to" get a handle on things, but what's this based on? We spend billions on it. Almost a fifth of a trillion over the last few decades. And we do it despite getting
steadily crappy results. Technically, you can argue that we need to do more, but I don't see how someone could possibly say that this is being ignored.
That is exactly what I mean. Many, many countries worldwide aspire to be "just like America" and many of them would embrace any number of greener, healthier ways of living if we just led them.
Well, we have a major difference of opinion here, then. Not only do I not think this would work, but I don't think it has even a small chance of working. Many countries aspire to be "just like America" in the sense that they want to be wealthy and free. Those are the ends to which we are emulated. If a given American policy does not serve those ends, it won't be emulated.
See, this is where we argue about who's facts are the "right" facts. Are you aware that Bryce works and gets funded primarily by Exxon?
Actually, he works for a think tank which gets some money from the fossil fuel industry. Specifically, his employer has gotten
2.5% of their funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade. But somehow that's morphed into him working for Exxon, specifically, and being "primarily" funded by them?
That said, yes, I was aware of this, and I categorically reject the idea that we can play six-degrees-of-dinero with someone in order to earn the right to ignore the substance of their arguments. If we're going to start doing that, your first link has to go with it, because Media Matters is funded by all sorts of left-wing donors and has an admitted agenda. But of course, this doesn't mean they're wrong about him, does it? No, it doesn't. And it doesn't mean Bryce is wrong, either. Financial incentives are good for knowing when to scrutinize something more, or to know why someone may cling to a clearly incorrect idea. But they don't tell you more than that.
You say that "this is where we argue about who's facts are the 'right' facts." But shouldn't that be the
entire argument? Why are we arguing motive instead?
It seems your mind is already made up. You believe that Oil and only Oil is the answer and how can you be wrong?
I don't think this at all, actually. I'm a big proponent of nuclear power, which is conspicuously left out of most of these discussions. It seems like a natural point of compromise, and I don't know why more environmentalists don't embrace it.
I think oil is the only answer
now because that's the actual underlying physical reality: oil is insanely useful and potent and we currently have nothing comparable. But I can answer your rhetorical question all the same: I could be wrong if you could show me how it's economically feasible to dramatically shift to renewable energy sources.
All the "facts" point to you being right. I feel for you Chris, you are being misled. I know you can't believe this, but its true. And something else that I imagine you may tee-hee about as I'm sure many others do is the fact that someday; we really are going to run of the stuff that runs the entire world. Probably a lot sooner than most of us care to believe we will too. But the vast majority of people continue on with their daily lives wishing gas was cheaper and just hoping that someday they'll find oil next door to them so that those pesky gas prices will finally go down "and this time they'll stay down by god!". No, it won't happen. In another few years we'll be paying $5.00 bucks a gallon and then $6.00. Why do you suppose that is? Is it because there's somebody out there driving up the price? Really?
Okay, but...what's actually being argued in this paragraph? I see the claim that oil will run out at some point. Okay. I see that it will be a lot sooner than most of us care to believe. I don't think anyone knows that (people have been predicting Peak Oil for a very long time), but it's possible. And you say a lot of people will wish gas were cheaper. Yup, true. So what? What does any of this have to do with renewable energy?
I feel like a huge part of the debate about energy has really just become a litany or complaints about the oil industry. Or, even less productive, a list of complaints about the perceived mindset of other citizens. But the debate is what to
do, right? So, if you say oil is bad, I say: it's not bad, but even assuming it is, what would be
good? Environmentalists can reel off huge lists of things they hate without even thinking (and they often do; ba-dum-chink!
), but most don't seem to have really considered the viability of the alternatives.
And I see your Bryce and raise you a
Shah.
I can gladly go through these point by point if you want, but it doesn't seem that any of them dispute the point I'm trying to make here. The first is the only one that tries, and it's way too vague to even try to contradict properly. That said, I notice off the top of my head that it's linking to a document by a firm that does renewable energy consulting, so if you're tossing out people with a financial stake in their arguments you'd probably start there. It also doesn't appear to mention the costs, which are usually massive on this scale. Also, buried in the document in question are some notes about assuming costs based on tax credits. And I hope it goes without saying that lots of things look suddenly affordable if someone else is picking up the tab.
I just wish I could've been smart enough to get an electric car back when they were cheap, oh wait, they've never been cheap and in fact, (I learned this from one of those docs you rarely watch) GM killed the electric car just a few short years ago. Why would they do that? A group of people took over a MILLION dollars down to the lot after the cars had been recalled and tried to buy the cars from them and were refused. Why? I thought auto makers wanted to make money, instead the cars were all taken and crushed. Ridiculous. There's not enough oil in an electric car is the problem.
I think this is where things go off the rails a bit, respectfully. The stunt at the dealership only shows us that large companies have protocol, and they don't generally sell you recalled products because they can't vouch for them and may have no system in place for maintenace or repairs. Which, by the way, is
exactly what GM said in response to the film. The guy on the lot wasn't the CEO, he just worked for a dealership, right? Wouldn't that make the offer equivalent to bribing him to violate the recall order? And the total doesn't change anything, because we're talking about a multi-billion-dollar company. Also, they weren't all destroyed; one was given to the Smithsonian. Which kind of puts the damper on the idea that they had to destroy it because it was secretly awesome.
Every major car manufacturer is making hybrids. Chevy makes an electric car called the Volt. It's selling terribly. Why? You seem to want to argue both that the car companies suppress these things,
and that ordinary people won't sacrifice to make it happen. I don't see how those two ideas can co-exist. If the problem is that people won't buy them, then we don't need a conspiracy to tell us why car companies don't make many.
As for political documentaries; I watch ones I agree with even more rarely than the ones I don't. I think they are, in general, highly manipulative, and that people put way too much stock in them as an information source. They are every bit as capable of misleading or misinforming as the written word. Probably moreso, because they can create a complete emotional impression that writing can't, and watching them is an inherently more passive activity.
But, at this point, you've alluded to me not watching political documentaries, and you've said I'm being "misled." So I think you'll agree that turnabout is fairplay when I ask: do you watch documentaries that argue this issue from the other side? Had you seen GM's response? Had you read anything by Bryce? Don't worry, I'm not going to be That Guy. I'm not saying your opinion is invalid if the answer to these questions is "no." I'm asking to find out one simple thing: do you genuinely want to investigate the issue? If not, then I can't imagine how you could avoid being misled yourself, let alone to the point at which you'd feel comfortable telling others
they're being misled.
If we as a government can force or impose our will against another nation over oil or any other natural resource we want, we can easily do it for going greener. We simply play the same political hard ball that is played now and tell them the cost of doing business with the US means doing things a certain way.
Meaning what? We won't trade with any nation above a certain level of emissions? We don't trade with all the largest manufacturers' in the world, and thus become a protectionist nation? If so, get ready for a real depression, because you ain't seen nothin' yet.
I'm not sure what political hard ball we can play, either, or what hard ball you think we're playing now. We trade with almost everyone now, and we're a lot better for it (and so are they). And playing "hard ball" only works if you have an alternative ready to go.
In what way are we not dictating how Iraq's economy is going to work in the future? How are we not re-building their entire infrastructure? How many companies from Iraq are doing real work, noticeable work there, besides Halliburton and all the many other American companies that are there?
I'm kind of confused by the question, really. Rebuilding infrastructure is nothing like dictating a country's policies to them. You seem to be just mashing the war and the rebuilding and energy policy into one big category called "doing stuff" and saying, if we can do some stuff, why not some other stuff? Well, because the other stuff is blatant imperialism, mainly.
And you hated the first stuff anyway, didn't you? So at best this would be an argument about why certain conservatives should be theoretically okay with the idea, not an actual reason that you would be personally satisfied by.
See, I agree with all of this...
And it really isn't difficult to "lead the way". All we have to do is set out to get each and every person to a carbon emission of zero in ten to fifteen years. Once we do that we begin to embrace real change.
That's all? You're basically talking about reverting to an agrarian economy.
The problem here is that the rhetoric and the consequences are so, so far apart. The rhetoric makes it sound like we all just need to stop driving hummers, buy hybrids, slap a few solar panels on the roof and and be willing to pay a little more for our energy. The reality is absolutely nothing like that. The reality is that if we had to move off of fossil fuels as things are now, the grid wouldn't even function.