0
   

If Politicians and Scientists were actually...

 
 
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2021 11:44 am
If politicians and scientists were actually committed to cleaning up the world, wouldn't they just do it?

But instead, they set up punitive "carbon tax" rules about pollution which amount to taxes on the poor. When you have only money to burn wood that you found from fallen branches, and someone in Washington decides you aren't being clean enough, you basically are freezing in your house, or paying through the nose on taxes.

Meanwile, poor Greta. She suffers so, in her small carbon-materials boat which took factories more to build than a simple steel one. Or how it took four trips to pick her up from that virtue signalling vehicle. Or how most of the freeze-died food this bitch eats is actually made from disposable plastic packaging.
https://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Greta-Thunbergs-Not-So-Little-Carbon-Footprint.html

These laws are basically the equivalent of having a water shortage, and instead of building a well, you decide to tell everyone that they can either not drink water or pay a huge tax. One of these saves the town. The other basically fleeces the public so some people get to die of thirst.

Quote:
To solve climate change and keep the current population levels as they are now we need to reduce our CO2 emissions by a factor of 6. this means basically reduce our energy use by 6 -> meaning basically freezing in winter eating no more meat , showering less often ... etc
there is no way i see this happening through a standard political system. The only way people will accept such drastic reductions is in a war context. Meaning we will have wars/ civil wars. This does not look good at all. But no politicians will tell you this. these guys are paid to tell people everything will be good, they will not be elected otherwise.


Or... you could build machines that could suck up carbon pollution. We already have air purifiers. I know that this can be done on a larger scale. The more energy-efficient these purifiers are built, the less strain on society. But wait, we already have such a device and it even uses no power plants. It's called a tree. If environmentalists are so concerned, why are there no calls to plant more trees?
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2021 12:45 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:


If politicians and scientists were actually committed to cleaning up the world, wouldn't they just do it?

But instead, they set up punitive "carbon tax" rules about pollution which amount to taxes on the poor. When you have only money to burn wood that you found from fallen branches, and someone in Washington decides you aren't being clean enough, you basically are freezing in your house, or paying through the nose on taxes.

Meanwile, poor Greta. She suffers so, in her small carbon-materials boat which took factories more to build than a simple steel one. Or how it took four trips to pick her up from that virtue signalling vehicle. Or how most of the freeze-died food this bitch eats is actually made from disposable plastic packaging.
https://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Greta-Thunbergs-Not-So-Little-Carbon-Footprint.html

These laws are basically the equivalent of having a water shortage, and instead of building a well, you decide to tell everyone that they can either not drink water or pay a huge tax. One of these saves the town. The other basically fleeces the public so some people get to die of thirst.

Quote:
To solve climate change and keep the current population levels as they are now we need to reduce our CO2 emissions by a factor of 6. this means basically reduce our energy use by 6 -> meaning basically freezing in winter eating no more meat , showering less often ... etc
there is no way i see this happening through a standard political system. The only way people will accept such drastic reductions is in a war context. Meaning we will have wars/ civil wars. This does not look good at all. But no politicians will tell you this. these guys are paid to tell people everything will be good, they will not be elected otherwise.


Or... you could build machines that could suck up carbon pollution. We already have air purifiers. I know that this can be done on a larger scale. The more energy-efficient these purifiers are built, the less strain on society. But wait, we already have such a device and it even uses no power plants. It's called a tree. If environmentalists are so concerned, why are there no calls to plant more trees?


My first thought after reading this OP was, "Bulma is really a dirtbag."

But I would not call you that here, so I put it aside.

If you really think that "If politicians and scientists were actually committed to cleaning up the world, wouldn't they just do it?"...

...you just do not understand the complexity of dealing with problems of this sort. Perhaps this is not the kind of issue you should be addressing.

Why not try posting something about "reality TV"...or "What to do with those last few slivers of a soap bar?"

0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Oct, 2021 06:47 pm
And it's not that simple. Part of the flooding problem is because so much of the earth is paved or concreted over. What did Joni Mitchell sing? "We paved paradise and put up a parking lot". Too true. There are communities creating roof gardens, vertical gardens, hydroponic gardens, community gardens, planting trees, etc. And what would you say to China, India and the like who are huge polluters but refuse to acknowledge it? What about all the land fills?

There are things many of us do and we can do more. I don't believe it's just up to the politicians to fix it. I think everyone, including corporations can do their bit. Stop with the packaging, stop changing device cables so often, stop making plastic water bottles, stop having products made by dirt poor people in factories that have barred exits, etc, etc, etc.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2021 05:06 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
Well scientists certainly don't have any power, whatsoever, to clean up the world. They discover things. The implementation of those things is 99% done by governments and corporations (who also fund the research), and in a few cases, by the population.

Calling the concept of Carbon Taxes are tax on the poor (and not on everyone) is a gross misunderstanding of how Carbon Taxes work. It also misses the bigger picture - for energy generation/use - the cost of a cleaner world is, at least in the initial stages, higher prices (for everyone), no matter what method you use. The quicker you want to get to completely clean energy, the higher the cost in the initial years/decades.

Quote:
Or... you could build machines that could suck up carbon pollution. We already have air purifiers. I know that this can be done on a larger scale.
I've little doubt the scale needed for billions (or is it trillions?) of tonnes of annual pullantants to be cleared - from the geographical area of the whole world - would be astranomical in:
- the land needed
- the construction stage
- the ongoing energy costs
- the filtration maintainence / replacements
. the money needed (for the land, construction, energy, staff, and maintainence)...
....which money would drive up the costs of everything. Would this increased cost result in you arging that it is a tax on the poor?


bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 9 Oct, 2021 10:33 pm
@vikorr,
Of course they do!

Scientists do not merely discover, many of them have degrees in engineering or other fields. That is, they can make things.

If scientists can get together one the Manhattan project, and make a nuclear bomb, which for the most part made life worse in terms of cancer incidence, if they can all get together to try to blot out the sun...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/geoengineering-treatment-stratospheric-aerosol-injection-climate-change-study-today-2018-11-23/
https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-gates-backs-project-to-dim-the-sun-michael-shellenberger
https://www.planetxnews.org/archives/6458
https://www.israel365news.com/135548/tower-babel-2019-bill-gates-block-sun/
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/solar-geoengineering-sun-blocking-spray-climate-change-global-warming-harvard-a8817506.html
Yeah, pretty sure if they're willing and able to do something like this, then they can damned well do something far less ambitious like having air purifiers in every city.

I'm looking online at air purifiers. There are many many household air purifiers. It is not rocket science to understand that there are some logistical differences to building one much larger and outside, but nonetheless this can be done.

Scientists made this world what it is today. They helped develop theories that led to inventions. X-Rays? Wilhelm Röntgen. Water screw (irrigation)? Archimedes. Many of the advances for decent watches (prior to digital)? Robert Hooke. Bifocals? Ben Franklin. Battery? Alessandro Volta. Pasteurized milk? Take a wild guess.

It is only theoretical scientists like Hawking that never actually invent anything practical. These scientists I have no use for.

Governments do diddly squat. They raise taxes. They present programs... so they can raise taxes again. They build roads and bridges, well actually they don't, private contractors do, then they pay them and raise taxes while taking credit for so-called created jobs. You could #defundthegovernment and after an awkward period, most people would just privatize things. The Post Office is run by the government, and it is a mess.

Corporations sort of do things, in that they tend to use inventions. The only part of government that can be relied on to do the same is military. And because they accountable for their successes and failures and cannot just spend into debt and collect more taxes, they have incentives to figure out how to use effectively. If a government proposed such a mega-purifier, it would waste thousands a day in electricity, spewing smoke from power plants to clean up a single city. They'd declare it a huge success even when the energy costs far exceeded the amount it was to clean up. If a corporation built one, they'd figure out how to use the lowest possible amount of electricity.

Scientists very much have power, and so do corporations. Governments are filled with useless tools that pretend to have power while they build things that ruin lives. Like mandates that you can't store your own rainwater.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2021 03:55 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
Umm...dude...you are comparing apples with oranges while thinking they are peaches.

I'm not sure how you can possibly think scientists, paid a wage, can possibly buy all the land required, pay for and build the trillions of dollars worth of facilities, pay for all the staff required every year, etc . The scientists you referred to, on a project to build two small items (compared to what you are suggesting), were utterly backed up by government, without whom, they could do nothing.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Manhattan-Project
Quote:
by mid-1942 it was obvious that a vast array of pilot plants, laboratories, and manufacturing facilities would have to be constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers so that the assembled scientists could carry out their mission


It was government that coordinated their efforts across international borders. Ie it is very obvious that your suggestion requires international political cooperation.

Quote:
In the fall of 1941 Harold C. Urey and Pegram visited England to attempt to set up a cooperative effort, and by 1943 a combined policy committee with Great Britain and Canada was established. In that year a number of scientists of those countries moved to the United States to join the project there.


Scientists who also engineer things do so at the small scale (which still requires funding by someone else). The large scale requires funds, facilities, materials that must be paid for by government/corporations that can afford such things:

Quote:
Several physical methods to do this were intensively explored, and two were chosen—the electromagnetic process developed at the University of California, Berkeley, under Ernest Orlando Lawrence and the diffusion process developed under Urey at Columbia University. Both of these processes, and particularly the diffusion method, required large, complex facilities and huge amounts of electric power to produce even small amounts of separated uranium-235.


And each linked example you provided , the actual engineering/execution parts are left to government/corporations with deep pockets. The other examples you provided, after the initial discovery, were also taken over by business / corporations etc. Ie. the scientists made the discovery, the worldwide implementation was done by others.

Quote:
Governments do diddly squat
Governments purpose has always been order, and facilitation. Order by its very nature means records/restrictions/judements/defence. Facilitation by its very nature is indirect. You want corporations to build these things...government provide incentives to corporations to carry out projects that would otherwise be economically unsound for them to carry out.


No where in here, at all, do scientists have the power to do what you are suggesting. The money side alone makes it impossible. Scientists aren't going to be able (or willing) to pay out of their wages for trillion dollar solutions. Impossibility aside - to imply they do so is patently unjust (everyone should have to pay for it).

Moving on from the finance impossibility, the engineering scale is so astranomical that even you should be able to see how ludicrous the suggestion is to say that soft, deskbound scientists shold leave their workplaces by the hundreds of thousands to suddenly work as:
- welders, scrapers, concreters, electricians, fitters and turners, plumbers, civil engineers, architects, estimators, accountants, lawyers (contracts), logistics, administration (payroll, front office etc),....etc

It's good to want global warming solved. It's not helpful to yourself - to not think through how something would actually be carried out.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Oct, 2021 04:26 pm
@vikorr,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
Quote:
The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (equivalent to about $23 billion in 2019)
Paid for by government, co-ordinated by government, with enormous supporting staff implemented by government...to help the scientists discover the correct way to produce two small atomic bombs.
0 Replies
 
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » If Politicians and Scientists were actually...
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2021 at 09:53:37