22
   

What If Trump resigns or is Removed From Office?

 
 
glitterbag
 
  4  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 09:49 pm
@livinglava,
Your last post is looney tunes.
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 09:55 pm
@glitterbag,
I think your post is over-generous in the specificity of "last"
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  6  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2019 08:13 am
@eurocelticyankee,
eurocelticyankee wrote:

Seeing as Trump always fancied himself as an Emperor lets treat him as such. So if he's kicked out of office we should exile him.
I was thinking the moon, we could get Space Force to drop him up there.

Over time he could become a scary story you could tell your kids, the Moon Moron will get you.



Thanks. Got a belly laugh.😂
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2019 01:31 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:

Your last post is looney tunes.

You may be too deep into the Democrat worldview to think about anything I said in that post in an objective way.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2019 01:39 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
You may be too deep into the Democrat worldview to think about anything I said in that post in an objective way.

You are correct. Fried, dyed, and laid on her side brainwashed and all puffed up by her vicarious virtue courtesy of the Democratic party.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Oct, 2019 08:43 am
@livinglava,
your energy "trade-off" argument is based on limited data. The present power industry is basd mostly on fossil fuel.Weve got "legacy" contamination that youve quietly avoided discussing. Several states have legacy contamination from over 100 years of coal firing . Pennsylvania, for example, has 84K miles of streams and rivers (thats the second highest stream miles in all 50 states). Of that 84K stream miles , roughly 1/3 of our streams are heavily polluted by acid mine drainage. The more coal mined (as in West Virginia) the more stream miles they add to their own contamination measure. (Cleanup of acid mine drainage is laughably inadequate and held to silence by the industry). You must include that into fossil fuel pluses nd minuses

As far as "reforestation" , the states with a heavy forest products economy ARE reforesting at a rate higher than any time in history, and the reason theres not much reforestation in say, Nebraska, is that there are a large number of mostly prairie states where trees were NEVER part of a climax "forest"
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Oct, 2019 10:01 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

your energy "trade-off" argument is based on limited data. The present power industry is basd mostly on fossil fuel.Weve got "legacy" contamination that youve quietly avoided discussing. Several states have legacy contamination from over 100 years of coal firing . Pennsylvania, for example, has 84K miles of streams and rivers (thats the second highest stream miles in all 50 states). Of that 84K stream miles , roughly 1/3 of our streams are heavily polluted by acid mine drainage. The more coal mined (as in West Virginia) the more stream miles they add to their own contamination measure. (Cleanup of acid mine drainage is laughably inadequate and held to silence by the industry). You must include that into fossil fuel pluses nd minuses

I'm not even considering pluses and minuses, because I don't think we've even yet reached the point of realizing what our needs vs. wants are. We overuse resources because we want to make more money and indulge in things that we simply don't need to indulge in. We should cut back on energy use to figure out what the minimum is that we need to survive, and then look for ways to cultivate life beyond survival that have a positive instead of negative effect on the environment and long-term sustainability for ALL future generations.

Quote:
As far as "reforestation" , the states with a heavy forest products economy ARE reforesting at a rate higher than any time in history, and the reason theres not much reforestation in say, Nebraska, is that there are a large number of mostly prairie states where trees were NEVER part of a climax "forest"

I'm talking about reforestation at a more radical level, i.e. integrating biological growth into human habitations to the highest degree possible. Why is it important to maximize carbon-sequestration in areas where humans live and work? Because humans need to be free to live without being a threat to the environment and long-term sustainability of the planet.

Currently when land is cleared and developed, it represents a gradual chipping away of the natural environment and replacement with developed land. That should not be the case. First, undeveloped land should be left undeveloped whenever some other already-developed land can be used instead. It's simply unacceptable to clear forested land for development unnecessarily because it is cheaper than buying an already-developed piece of land.

Second, when an already-developed piece of land is refurbished/redeveloped, it should be reforested as part of the new development. In other words, the ground should be de-paved and replaced with arable soil planted with trees to maximize root penetration and canopy growth, and the footprint of buildings and pavements should fit between the trees. In this way, it should only take a century or so before all currently-developed land looks like forest from the sky, yet contains narrow, multistory buildings along with narrow roads, sidewalks, bike-paths, etc. that aren't so wide as to prevent large tree growth that stores carbon in solid form as wood, while also performing all the hydrological functions that natural land-cover provides.

Once all land used by humans is sufficiently restored/reforested to maximum biological-function, the absorption part of the carbon cycle is effectively fully restored, and then we just have to make sure we continue to minimize energy use so that the fossilizing carbon can stay in the ground, along with the nuclear fuel. We will just have to suffice using good insulation and whatever energy we can tap out of the wind and sunlight that is unobstructed ABOVE THE FOREST CANOPY (i.e. by putting solar arrays above trees instead of using cleared land to put solar arrays at ground level).

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Oct, 2019 09:39 am
@livinglava,
I cant diagree with anything youve said there, so we have to deal with the uncomfortable realization that we mostly agree on this.
Many of the NE states (I assume you live in the US?) have development rquirements and"brownfield redevelopment" requirements that regulate the %age of developed land must be left in "Open space" .Here in Pa, our open space requirements do have a calculation for "forest decking" (probably in anticipation of credit exchanges that never were implemented).They were never implemented because some folks in govt were owned by and therefore, represented power industries and fossil fuels industries that were trying to make people "buy" their hucksterism
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Oct, 2019 10:47 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Many of the NE states (I assume you live in the US?) have development rquirements and"brownfield redevelopment" requirements that regulate the %age of developed land must be left in "Open space" .Here in Pa, our open space requirements do have a calculation for "forest decking" (probably in anticipation of credit exchanges that never were implemented).They were never implemented because some folks in govt were owned by and therefore, represented power industries and fossil fuels industries that were trying to make people "buy" their hucksterism

Yes, the political obstruction to achieving what's right is amazing and disturbing. It's terrifying that these business interests our pushing the hope of self-governance by liberty to its limits.

As for "open space," requirements, that doesn't exactly solve the problem, since 'open space,' doesn't necessarily have to be reforested. They might have a few trees and mow the rest. Allowing the soil to foster tree roots and canopy to the maximum is what gets the carbon out of the air and into the wood/ground.

Also, there is a way you can develop land so that the ratio of tree canopy to developed square-footage is maximized. It involves, first, designing/planning a development around whatever trees are already established on site. That in itself is extremely difficult for developers who are used to working with standardized building layouts by clearing an entire parcel, putting down sand, and then building according to plan, including the addition of ornamental trees and green spaces after the fact.

Second, you have to design buildings, roads, etc. that fit between trees so that very little canopy/root space is displaced by the development. Paved sidewalks and bike paths can easily co-exist with trees/roots, but the wider a road or building foundation is, the less roots are going to penetrate the ground under it. So the challenge is to design narrow, multistory buildings that are integrated with trees/canopy. They can be connected by bridges, have upper stories that overhang trees, etc. but the measure of success is what the land would look like if all the built structures and pavement were removed. Would the remaining trees look like a relatively-dense forest, or would it look like a desert wasteland with a few scattered ornamental trees between the giant gaps where the buildings used to be?

You see, if you only think in terms of having greenspaces in addition to traditional development, you just end up with more sprawling, low-density development. If you think in terms of integrating dense development with dense reforestation within the same parcels, road corridors, etc. then you end up with urban forests that leave nothing to be desired in terms of playing a fully-functioning role as carbon-absorbing land.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 19 Oct, 2019 12:24 pm
@livinglava,
development occurs as a result of plans to utilize a piece of land that was acwuired in sale, not a preservation issue.
The Nature Conservancy and Farmland trusts acquire DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS from landowners and pay them a fee usually its based upon the number of "developble" acres. I own 172 acres and have placed 157 into Ag trust. for which I was payed 7500$ per acre, NOT to allow me to sell for development or develop the land. The easement travels with the land in perpetuity. So, Im in the middle of several thousand acres of land that is in ag trust. The 15 acres they did NOT include in my asement contract, couldnt be developed anyhow because its either wetlands or non-prime ag soils "Forests: arent the only things that exude O2 or sequester CO2, so do grasses and cash crops. Boreal forests have a minicule amount of CO2 sequestration compared to deiduous trees, an ALL trees exude CO2 in the absence of light. So, in some degree pres Reagan was right when he stated that trees are a source of CO2.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Oct, 2019 01:47 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

development occurs as a result of plans to utilize a piece of land that was acwuired in sale, not a preservation issue.

As long as land owners see it as their prerogative to develop the land acquired however they please without considering how to reforest/restore the carbon function of developed land, the climate crisis will continue.

Quote:
The Nature Conservancy and Farmland trusts acquire DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS from landowners and pay them a fee usually its based upon the number of "developble" acres. I own 172 acres and have placed 157 into Ag trust. for which I was payed 7500$ per acre, NOT to allow me to sell for development or develop the land. The easement travels with the land in perpetuity. So, Im in the middle of several thousand acres of land that is in ag trust. The 15 acres they did NOT include in my asement contract, couldnt be developed anyhow because its either wetlands or non-prime ag soils

Ok, so you got paid to not develop that land. Nevertheless, for there to be money to pay people not to develop land, other land has to be developed to produce economic value.

What I am saying is that the land that DOES get developed should/must be developed in a way that restores its maximum carbon-cycle functioning. If humans don't begin developing land in this way, human populations and their development/economic activities will continue to pose a climate threat.

Wouldn't it be good to just reform development and economic activities so that humans could live and work without knowing that their activities are detrimental and unsustainable?

Quote:
"Forests: arent the only things that exude O2 or sequester CO2, so do grasses and cash crops. Boreal forests have a minicule amount of CO2 sequestration compared to deiduous trees, an ALL trees exude CO2 in the absence of light. So, in some degree pres Reagan was right when he stated that trees are a source of CO2.

The bottom line is that CO2 is a gas, while wood is a condensed form of carbon. If you want clear skies, the water vapor in the air has to condense into liquid - and if you want to clear the skies of CO2, the carbon has to condense into plants and animals because there is no liquid state of CO2.

Look at the larger carbon cycle: sunlight mixes with CO2 to form trees/plants/animals/etc. Then those living carbon forms die and some of their carbon+energy condenses into various fossil fuels via long, gradual underground geological processes.

Human still don't understand the natural carbon cycle completely because it is so elaborate and long. We think the only thing that fossil fuels can do is be dug up by us to use for industrial power or to boil up in a volcano. The geology of Earth is a vast energy system, and the carbon cycle surely factors into it in many ways that never involved humans digging up fossil fuels and burning them to power appliances for pleasure and profit.

farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 19 Oct, 2019 04:33 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
Wouldn't it be good to just reform development and economic activities so that humans could live and work without knowing that their activities are detrimental and unsustainable?
You did say that you live in the USA?? Eminent domain requires real proof or evidence of public need (e used to do ED more frequently in the past, when during the gilded age private property rights were not held to as high a standard as today. US used to kick poor people and brown and black skinned and Native Americans off their land for pennies an acre. US,UK, Australia, and Canada have similar histories in that activity.

What you talk about is pretty much a socialistic proposal. I doubt it would be taken too seriously, because its called"taking" and without due and market based valuation its headed for court.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Oct, 2019 05:29 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
You did say that you live in the USA?? Eminent domain requires real proof or evidence of public need (e used to do ED more frequently in the past, when during the gilded age private property rights were not held to as high a standard as today. US used to kick poor people and brown and black skinned and Native Americans off their land for pennies an acre. US,UK, Australia, and Canada have similar histories in that activity.

You are talking about the practical aspects of whether or not you can make people steward their land properly. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about how people would have to steward their land if they wanted to start resolving the climate crisis and see CO2 levels start going down in the next few centuries.

Quote:
What you talk about is pretty much a socialistic proposal. I doubt it would be taken too seriously, because its called"taking" and without due and market based valuation its headed for court.

I don't care how it's taken politically. All I can tell you is that anything less is not going to restore the natural carbon cycle and restore natural climate.

I am personally just sick and tired of people fighting for the freedom to abuse the environment, waste resources, and ensure unsustainability, which demonizes human activity as a threat to nature.

I believe that liberty can and should be used to make the world better, and that humans can prosper in an economy where everyone takes responsibility for the environmental and climate/sustainability effects of their actions.

The fact that so many people get defensive when it comes to stewarding resources sustainably causes me to think that liberty is wasted on them. They say that freedom isn't free and it isn't; it should come with responsibility. That is not socialism because socialism has to do with making people work for others/government whether or not they want to.

The only thing I am talking about is people taking the liberty to do the right thing and prospering in a way that is sustainable for future generations.

That shouldn't incite any political resistance whatsoever but it does because people are more interested in protecting unsustainable economic practices against change than they are in achieving permanently-sustainable economic practices that ensure prosperity for all future generations.

What's even more offensive about you calling me socialist, however, is that the current industrial-consumerist economy is built on all sorts of socialist connections between government and private industry. We already have socialism and the way of reducing it is to reduce the amount of buildings and pavement and mowed land, and replace it with natural forested green space that requires little or no maintenance and thus costs no money, creates no jobs, and generally doesn't stimulate any economic activity or growth. That is true conservation, the opposite of socialism.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 19 Oct, 2019 05:51 pm
@livinglava,
I wasnt calling you socialist I was saying that what youve proposed is socialism pure and simple. Now, govt connected with industry is kinda fascism.

The neat thing about bing a Democrat is that theres no wntire bowl of kool aid I gotta drink (like the GOPers). Although with trump controlling the GOP and noon with a backbone to remind him he aint wring any clothes is very disturbing because, with the nationalism attachd to his MO, hes marching us into a Fascist state as well.

There are numbers of things we need to be doing to help the fight against GW. Theres no real reason to be screaming at people on the same side of the table.
Id been involved in a number of research programs to study uptake of CO2 by various silicate rock dusts. (Serpentine is the one that really worked fine).
Its either Rice, or A&M or that were working on C3 plants (grasses)with enhanced CO2 uptake and conversion to biomass.
Also part of the algae biofuel studies have incorporated sea algae to take up CO2.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Oct, 2019 06:18 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

I wasnt calling you socialist I was saying that what youve proposed is socialism pure and simple.

Socialism involves subjugating people, via taxation or other rules, to serve the economy for the benefit of others.

What I am talking about isn't forcing anyone to work. If anything it is taking away opportunities to work by insisting that construction projects have a smaller footprint, let trees grow, and stop mowing/landscaping except to promote healthier and more robust tree growth.

Of course people can work more if they want to build higher multi-story buildings, connect them with bridges over the tree canopy, etc. but no one requires you to build anything, except maybe basic infrastructure to get around.

The real socialism is creating an economy that has to be stimulated so everyone can drive a car, and then paving wide multilane roads and highways to create more contracts and jobs than necessary. That is Big Socialism.

Big Industrial Socialism could be shrunk down some by replacing most cars with buses and narrowing roads to single-lanes, bike/pedestrian paths, and other narrow strips of pavement that don't displace trees. Granted, the public transit and infrastructure would still be socialist, but it would cost a lot less than the big industrial socialism that pumps money into the automotive industries along with the multilane roads and highways that come with everyone driving a car.

Face it, people who don't want to give up Big Industrial Socialism call Green reforms 'socialist' without considering how much less it would cost to pave narrower roads and fund one bus instead of paying 50 people enough to drive their own car.

Quote:
Now, govt connected with industry is kinda fascism.

Nazi fascism was called 'national socialism' for a reason.

Quote:
The neat thing about bing a Democrat is that theres no wntire bowl of kool aid I gotta drink (like the GOPers). Although with trump controlling the GOP and noon with a backbone to remind him he aint wring any clothes is very disturbing because, with the nationalism attachd to his MO, hes marching us into a Fascist state as well.

I disagree. I think being a Democrat requires people to accuse the GOP of everything it is guilty of itself. That way, for example, people who have white guilt can join the Democratic party to feel better by scapegoating the other party for racism. I don't know of anyone who can reconcile the fact that the Democratic party was the exclusive party of the South before Civil Rights with their belief that it is now the party that supports minority rights, equality, social justice, etc.

Quote:
There are numbers of things we need to be doing to help the fight against GW. Theres no real reason to be screaming at people on the same side of the table.

Climate reform is going to get co-opted by people who are going to greenwash economic practices that are actually insufficient to achieve true sustainability. They are already promoting nuclear power, electric vehicles, solar farms, etc. as if all those things aren't being deployed in ways that are not ultimately sustainable. Why? Because no one wants to be honest about the truly sustainable economic choices that would undermine growth. The moment any reform is expected to undermine economic growth, it becomes taboo.

Quote:
Id been involved in a number of research programs to study uptake of CO2 by various silicate rock dusts. (Serpentine is the one that really worked fine).
Its either Rice, or A&M or that were working on C3 plants (grasses)with enhanced CO2 uptake and conversion to biomass.
Also part of the algae biofuel studies have incorporated sea algae to take up CO2.

So what, you want to concentrate CO2 uptake in certain areas so that we can be free not to reforest other areas? That's dumb when you can just start reforming the way humans live and steward resources so that it is sustainable.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Oct, 2019 06:56 am
@livinglava,
you are amazingly naive about Climate change and its remediation. For your information GW has been the basis of founding entirely new an quite successful technologies and businesses worldwide. We (the, US) are amazingly dumbat applying them motly becaue we attach obriquets lik you are doing to somehow draw suspicion ovr anything novel. Its either socialist (your definitions are fucke up may I say, Democratic socialist states are quite common and working just fin ithout your "belief")

As far as climate control, we will need the application of many many technologies , some of which havent been discovered yet. Sequestration by uses of novel mineral application is but one way to HELP.(Its never eiither or).... (Kinda like your preaching that planting trees seems to be the only method in your mind for dealing with all the climate active gases such as CH4, C2H6, etc etc).There are whole blocks of the earth that are prairies, desertified or savannahs , that are populated by grasses, not trees, (ever since the early Pliocene) most trees wont grow due to rainfall deficits, soil conditions or other climate effects.

Reforstation is good, I believe in it, just not alone and mindlessly applied.

If you ever get a chance to look at photos of the US Appalachian region from the early 1900's, you can see entire mountain chains (like the smokies or the Moosics or the WHite an Green mts).They were TOTLLY denuded of trees. Today those areas are denser forests than during th pre colonial period.
Whats wrong with technologies other than just reforestation alone?? Thats kind of inane. I see a really booming solar power industry even without govt interference. Also alternative heating and cooling (like GW source heat pumps, I think, if let alone, much of the market will deliver what we need. Govt must assist with reasonable regulations (to avoid whats happened to the clean waters of Pa, W Va, Ohio, Wyoming etc).
Look whats happning with coal it a dying technology bcause of market place pressures, not some wailing douche bag in DC claiming that he will bring "coal back"

Stripping the EPA into some toadies , powerless agency in what is actually approaching a fascist state does to clear the way or the industries for its cronies.





farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Oct, 2019 07:00 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
Socialism involves subjugating people, via taxation or other rules, to serve the economy for the benefit of others.
Whoa , youve been reading mostly NRA literature, or old Barry Goldwater ****.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Oct, 2019 07:34 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

you are amazingly naive about Climate change and its remediation. For your information GW has been the basis of founding entirely new an quite successful technologies and businesses worldwide. We (the, US) are amazingly dumbat applying them motly becaue we attach obriquets lik you are doing to somehow draw suspicion ovr anything novel. Its either socialist (your definitions are fucke up may I say, Democratic socialist states are quite common and working just fin ithout your "belief")

I'm not 'drawing suspicion to anything novel.' I just analyze how the technologies can be applied in more and less sustainable ways.

Solar panels, for example, can be deployed in a sustainable way, but not if they are put on the ground and prevent other kinds of carboniferous ground-cover, such as trees or crops from growing. If you have acres of solar farm next to acres of crops, for example, then you've displace trees whose wood is the densest form of carbon. If, on the other hand, you put the solar panels on raised platforms high enough for crops/orchard/forest to grow under them, you have increased the amount of land that can be reforested.

You can look at development and infrastructure the same way. I.e. if you clear and pave/build foundations and roads that are wide, you can grow far less trees on that land than if you design the buildings and roads with narrow footprints and leave trees growing between them. It's just a question of smart integration of trees within developments and road/highway corridors.

Quote:
As far as climate control, we will need the application of many many technologies , some of which havent been discovered yet. Sequestration by uses of novel mineral application is but one way to HELP.(Its never eiither or).... (Kinda like your preaching that planting trees seems to be the only method in your mind for dealing with all the climate active gases such as CH4, C2H6, etc etc).There are whole blocks of the earth that are prairies, desertified or savannahs , that are populated by grasses, not trees, (ever since the early Pliocene) most trees wont grow due to rainfall deficits, soil conditions or other climate effects.

Obviously you can't plant and/or preserve trees where they don't grow. My point with trees is that wood is dense. When you have a large-canopy hardwood tree, there is a lot of carbon condensed into the wood and roots of that tree, far more than if the same piece of land would be covered with grass, crops, or even bushes. So it just makes sense to let trees grow wherever they can, because that is how the planet evolved to absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere naturally.

Quote:
Reforstation is good, I believe in it, just not alone and mindlessly applied.

What I'm trying to explain is that there's not enough awareness that reforestation can happen as part of development and infrastructure, not just on rural land. It has to do with how developed parcels of land are redeveloped when their time has come. How often do you see an old building demolished and a new one put in its place without reforesting the parcel at the same time? Reforesting developed land and corridors requires designing narrower-footprint structures/foundations with room for full-canopy trees between them.

Quote:
If you ever get a chance to look at photos of the US Appalachian region from the early 1900's, you can see entire mountain chains (like the smokies or the Moosics or the WHite an Green mts).They were TOTLLY denuded of trees. Today those areas are denser forests than during th pre colonial period.

Yes, that's good but if we achieve architectural designs that allow similar reforestation of developed areas without displacing humans, then human development and its spread/expansion will no longer pose a threat to climate.

Quote:
Whats wrong with technologies other than just reforestation alone??

It depends on the technology. You can't evaluate the effects, short/long-term and scaled, of technology generally. You have to look at each technology separately. Certainly there are many technologies that can be scalable without being unsustainable over the longest term (i.e. permanently), but identifying those requires being honest about which technologies will become unsustainable over generations/centuries/millennia and how/why.

To much of our business-oriented culture is oriented toward whitewashing (or in this case greenwashing) things because people desire them and/or they make money for businesses.

Quote:
Thats kind of inane. I see a really booming solar power industry even without govt interference. Also alternative heating and cooling (like GW source heat pumps, I think, if let alone, much of the market will deliver what we need. Govt must assist with reasonable regulations (to avoid whats happened to the clean waters of Pa, W Va, Ohio, Wyoming etc).
Look whats happning with coal it a dying technology bcause of market place pressures, not some wailing douche bag in DC claiming that he will bring "coal back"

The politics get very complex. The bottom line is people have to be able to evaluate the long-term sustainability of a product or technology and then give it up voluntarily if it poses problems long-term. That can be very difficult when the problems aren't going to occur short-term or even medium-term and when there is money to be made and consumer demand to be satisfied.

Quote:
Stripping the EPA into some toadies , powerless agency in what is actually approaching a fascist state does to clear the way or the industries for its cronies.

There is another problem that comes with government regulation besides what is commonly assumed; and that is that the public falls into passivity where they think everything available for sale has been regulated by the government and is thus 'kosher' for them to use.

In reality, government is manipulated by various business and consumer interests, which allows many things to pass that actually shouldn't pass. E.g. replacing all cars with electric cars and then maintaining the same infrastructure and sprawling cities is not going to achieve climate reform and sustainability, but government will not restrict driving to a relatively small subset of the population because the public would vote them out.

When the government is willing to cater to a majority who isn't on board with fully reforming the economy/society to achieve full sustainability, it doesn't make sense to support regulations that lull them into feeling like the government is doing its job.

If the government doesn't protect future generations from the present majority, it's not doing enough.

Liberty should be enough for people to self-regulate for their own good and the good of future generations, but for it to work, the people have to be willing and able to make personal and business choices that aren't always the most lucrative, easy, or convenient/comfortable. People have to have the strength to make right choices even when it takes extra effort and sacrifice. When they do that, liberty is the best possible form of government because people who truly understand what needs to be done and have the ability to achieve it are more effective than people who are told what to do by managers and only do what they're told because they don't want to be punished.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Oct, 2019 07:38 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
old Barry Goldwater ****
Still available on Ebay.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Oct, 2019 11:48 am
@livinglava,
Quote:

The politics get very complex. The bottom line is people have to be able to evaluate the long-term sustainability of a product or technology and then give it up voluntarily if it poses problems long-term. That can be very difficult when the problems aren't going to occur short-term or even medium-term and when there is money to be made and consumer demand to be satisfied.


I think you should look at the ROOTS of some of our predicaments in energy and "sustainability". Americans are easily pushed around by our leaders as a nation. It isnt because we dont have enough sense, Its because (IMHO) we get caught up in useless rancor and soon we all start sounding lik Oralloy's nyah nyah nyah mantras. We start demonizing those with whom we disagree to the extent that many folks wish to use drastic (violent)means to remove their opponents presence and disallow them a voice in this, a supposed Constitutional Democratic Republic.


I have a"for instance" Example. The US used to lead the world in rail traffic and train design.All until say, the early 1950's when we, after bitter argument among industries and travelers, started to push cars and trucks and buses as our modes of travel. This all occurred when Eisenhower, flush with cash from GM,Standard Oil, Dupont, Gen Tire, etc etc (and easily manipulated by these lobbyists)

started th "Interstate highway systems" .It got so that the GM boys BOUGHT UP railroads and let em just fail (Then this became a GOP and urban DEM (mostly) mantra that railroads cant move traffic and they should be made extinct.
Unlike most other countries, where their RR;s are themajor tool of commerce and recreation.
So we now hve heavily polluted cities And large Greenhouse gas problems more than any other country , even China , which is gradually removing coal run industry from its plate.

We created the monster ourselves but why not (besides planting christmas trees), try to reduce much of te greenhouse gas excess with boosting a reinvention of mass transit?? I feel this will go a long way.Our interstate hiway systems are themselves big fossil fuel users (think of cement kilns, macadam plants, all te fuel used for space gobbling technology that should be going the way of the Conestoga wagon)

Intracity EV travel and Intercity mass transit would go a long way to reduce the carbon footprint per mile of travel for our exploding population.

You really need to make a list (since you seem really interested in the subjects) of the roots of some of our problems in energy development and use.
Even nuke power has a front end HUUUGE energy draw just to prepare nuke fuels.Where nukes come in is when the fuel is used for breeder-reactors and the amount of C actually Goes down precipitously per "next gen" kilowatts.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/07/2019 at 02:42:35