So if they have a car then they shouldn't be protesting someone building a pipeline in their yard? this country is rotting for within and China has NOTHING to do that. why does "being a major world power" even matter? We haven't done ANYTHING good with the power so far as far as I'm concerned.
I think helping the Soviets defeat the Nazis was worthwhile. The Marshall plan was noble. We kept half of Korea free Lately we haven’t been doing as well. I do think we should turn our attention to our own people and our own problems.
Yes I agree that we have done some virtuous things. But since I was born in 1980 I haven’t seen anything good. Just compounding corruption. We’ve been left behind by our corporate overlords… but they expect us to keep going to work business as usual. Why is it that the working class makes all these big wigs rich and those bigwigs don’t even think we deserve a living wage? I mean… a huge chunk of our population doesn’t make 50k. I’d bet it’s more than half the country. How are we the “richest country in the world” when we just keep on printing the money??? Impending doom is a feeling I have often.
To that huge chunk of the population who isn't even making $50K, they should have just done everything "right" from the beginning! It's not the "productive class's" fault that they chose to be teachers or public servants! Nor is it "our" fault that they aren't bright enough to become corporate or Wall Street attorneys. Even MIT CS and EE graduates know better now than to take jobs at local electrical utilities/co-ops or engineering firms; Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex are where the money's at, man! But hey, even if you're stuck at $50-$60K annual income, save a lot of money and/or put it into an IRA or 401k (or pension in the rare cases where that's a thing) and watch it grow, baby! Don't worry about affording a brand new car either - they've got 10 year loans for that. Wanting a BMW, Audi or Infiniti? Just make sure your credit is perfect and you can lease one! And don't go blaming us you got $100K in student debt, can't afford to buy your own house in most cities and that a single minor medical emergency could land you in bankruptcy. That just means you did something wrong! /s
Of course I agree with you and I've had the feeling of impending doom since the days of Reaganomics and Thatcher.
P.S. I was speaking from my personal feelings of impending doom, as when I was growing up Reagan was in the White House and Thatcher was forcing austerity on the UK.
I'm always up for a good discussion. What do you think this all dates back to? I mean, I'm even open to the notion that it goes as far back as the Reconstruction and/or Industrial Revolution when the U.S. government and local police forces were used to crush worker union strikes. But I'm guessing you'll probably point me to the beginning of the Trilateral Commission or Bretton Woods, which I'd also agree with.
It seems reasonable that if you against “fossil fuels” you should divest your life of them. Hardest change in life is changing yourself. I used to enjoy sports but since they have embraced BLM I have eliminated them from my life.
Apple, Microsoft and Google have also embraced BLM as well as a ton of other corporations you may want to look into so you can divest your life of them. Or not, either way…it’s not about being perfect because that’s kinda impossible.
Would you call it hypocrisy to be an advocate of alternative energy sources and still use air travel to get from place to place? Especially in the USA where we have absolutely zero high speed rail.
Whenever one of these brainwashed "hyper-capitalist" cultists is asked why we don't have things like high-speed rail, or universal health care, they usually respond with, "that won't work in America".
It's always interesting, isn't it, that American "exceptionalism" never seems to apply when it comes to technology that other countries have utilized successfully for years.
You might want to check to see if your American-made car has any parts in it from China, or Mexico, or Canada. You wouldn't want to be some kind of ironic hypocrite, would you?
I protested by not eating at Taco Bell anymore. It was a tough choice on my part, and I, along with my fellow Bell Beeferists, suffered greatly because of it. But, thankfully, due mainly to the economic pressure that I was able to exert, Taco Bell is supposed to bring back the Bell Beefer in 2023. The system works!
lol never heard of that one. I did see that they drastically scaled back their menu during COVID just like Applebees and Chilis did and that some people were pissed.
It's a free country (not really, but that's how the saying goes) so you can invest or divest in anything you so choose. I'm sorry that the sports leagues you used to enjoy so much, and which are mainly made up of Black athletes decided to embrace a movement that sheds light on police overreach and structural racism in policing that it isn't even controversial to point out or difficult to document. I guess as long as they were willing to suck it up, keep their mouths shut, accept the high pay to entertain you, you were fine with it. Not that very many NFL or NBA athletes ever really last that long or get rich, but that's another topic. I am also guessing you had absolutely zero issues with the taxpayer funded stadiums, pre-game military flyovers and constant "defense" department propaganda on display before and during the games.
Why would it be so hard for anyone to believe that, in fact, yes many of us DO "divest" our lives from them inasmuch as it is possible in a country where you basically have no other choices? I have absolutely nothing against your choice to eliminate the activity of viewing grown men participate in often violent games as a profession, but that's a much easier and more convenient choice for an American to make than it is to completely divest one's life from fossil fuels. I hope you realize that.
I have less "eliminated sports" than "eliminated financial contribution TO the corrupt edifice of American Professional Sports"*. Or at least doing my damnedest to do so.
*- I may condemn American Professional Sports, but compared to the Olympic Grift, it's clean as the Catholic Girls School Curling League.
What does China have to do with any of this? Also, aside from whatever your views are on fossil fuel, why is it Ok to break treaties by putting an unwanted pipeline through native land? I assume that since you are on the right, you are a big fan of private property rights. I too support the rights of private landowners to use their property as they wish, so long as this usage does not harm others. In the case of this pipeline, however, the state grants some corporation the right to use land that isn’t theirs (by way of breaking native treaties or by use of eminent domain to “purchase” it from individual landowners). Last I checked, eminent domain isn’t supposed to be about enriching billionaires at the expense of everyone else and we are supposed to honor our treaties. This isn’t, and shouldn’t, just be just about fossil fuel usage and our environmental policy. Whether you simply support property rights OR you are an environmentalist, there is great reason to oppose this pipeline.
Your version of events is apparently just something you've made up, and you 'know" it must be true because "it all fits together" with all the other stuff you've said in the past.
Never mind the tribal councils and the heads thereof (NOT going to call them CHEIFS, lest I get REEEEEE!!!-ed upon) thought they HAD negotiated agreements of minimal environmental impact (pipeline's pretty passive, just sits there), and maximal positive economic impact for the tribes they represented. Now I don't know if they took a cut, paid someone off, whatever, but they had made a deal, and it was supported by other indigenous people.
The way you've portrayed it seems...tryin' to be nice, but blatantly inaccurate is about as nice as it gets. Do you have some image of feather-bonneted, buckskin-clad tipi-dwellers being conned by some Wild West sharpies?? Because the indigenous people are themselves suit-wearing lawyers, cutting their own deals, I don't know what kind of imaginary scenario you've cooked up. The Olde West parchment-and-quill-pen Indian Territory documents were long ago superseded.
I share your bafflement as to China's role in this matter, but it seems to me the REAL interlopers, the people REALLY interfering with tribal rights are the PROTESTORS who are unhappy with the deal the tribes freely agreed to. And the claim that this pipeline was "unwanted" surely needs confirmation. The people who wanted the oil, and to resell the oil, and to drive their cars, wanted it. The people who wanted the jobs working on the pipeline wanted it. The people who negotiated the deal wanted it. Indeed the actual situation might be closer to OPPOSITE of the gibberishish account you've presented.
Next time somebody says "WE represent the true wishes of [marginalized group X]." feel free to examine the veracity of their claim with as much skepticism as you would those of the widow of the Prince of Nigeria. (who also wants you to invest in a pipeline, interestingly enough)
The whole native treaty thing is kind of weird, because the natives aren't sovereign. They have to abide by federal laws and such. How can you contract a treaty with a non-sovereign entity? They are more like MOAs. Anyway, eminent domain seizure of land is entirely possible, so there is no resemblance to a treaty with a foreign nation.
This is the dumbest gotcha line when it comes to climate activism. So the only people that can credibly speak out on climate are those that don't participate in industrialized society? Very convenient for you, Mr. Status Quo Man.
If it is an “existential” threat(which I do NOT believe) then it would behoove the purveyors of such nonsense to at least attempt to act in a manner that demonstrates their fealty to such hoohaw. I have to give that nut cake Greta some credit for sailing to America
I'm not disagreeing with you here, but the few catastrophic failures have been, well, catastrophic. It's a case of disproportionate invisible success vs. highly visible failure. Hard for me to expect everybody to just rationally run the numbers and not have an emotional knee-jerk reaction after Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.
...it probably didn't help that nuke power got emotionally conflated with ICBMs back during the Cold War.
Chernobyl was essentially run like Springfield Nuclear PP on The Simpson’s. When the meltdown happened, a nuclear physicist put the engineering snafu in layman’s terms as “Imagine if the breaks and the gas pedal were switched on a car unawares!”That said, if managed/engineered properly-like in France, where the majority of nations power needs are met by nuclear, I stand by my statement. The USSR bureaucracy destroyed anything it touched-in the 70s and 80s, 50% of house fires in Moscow were caused by exploding TV sets-same engineering that went into Chernobyl.....
Proliferation is a big issue. If every country has nuclear reactors, they will all be a lot closer to owning nuclear weapons. Maybe that's actually ok for world peace but maybe not.
True. On the other hand France generates upwards of 75% of their electricity from nuclear. They EXPORT electricity. France jumped on the nuclear bandwagon early, primarily for the energy security it provided. People tend to forget even 20 years after WW2, it was still fresh in European minds. Can we learn something from France, or have they just been lucky?
Nuclear power -as history has clearly demonstrated- cannot be put into the hands of those whose aim is personal/political power, or financial gain. It is simply too dangerous. They only work "efficiently" when operated under the strictest design and safety protocols. IOW, when the plant is designed, built, and operated at a continuous financial loss, at least in the hyper-capitalist sense. Plus, the issue of how to safely dispose of the waste absolutely does NOT make it the "cleanest and most efficient energy source out there." If it were, it would be much more widely adopted, worldwide. The future lies in "local" electricity production, moving away from private, for-profit utilities.
Yes. Essentially, given our experiences over the last 50 years, nuclear power scares the hell out of anybody who might be responsible for running the show at a plant. And, yes again: The cost and very real danger involved in storing the waste is another barrier. It ain't like shovelin' coal into the boiler and then grabbing a cup of coffee and playing a little solitaire.
I think you might want to update your reading material.
People can support nuclear power or not support nuclear power, I don't care. But those who oppose nuclear power need to shut up about "climate crisis."
Don't forget... Opposition to nuclear comes from every other industry providing energy. Solar and wind companies hire lobbyists to spread disinformation, just like every other lobbyist in DC.
Is this directed at my comments? Reading material? And I'm not supporting or not supporting nuclear power in my comments. I'm not advocating for any mode of energy in my comments. And I said nothing about the "climate crisis." And: I wouldn't deny (and never mentioned) that "opposition to nuclear comes from every other industry providing energy."
What's your point? There's opposition, organized or not, everywhere against everything. And finally, nobody mentions the "climate crisis" more than Big Oil, in "opposition" to alternative (green, sustainable, what have you) as well as the very existence of climate change. Big Oil long ago recognized "climate change," correctly viewing it as a threat to their bottom lines. That's when they ramped up their propaganda. Ditto for the Pentagon. This is all well-documented.
The Pentagon commissoned a comprehensive strategic-themed study 10 years ago in preparation for climate change. They take the science seriously. Don't doubt that solar and wind companies "hire lobbyists to spread disinformation, just like every other lobbyist in DC."--Ii'll take your word for it. I would welcome a share of some of YOUR reading and research.
My point is that your comment -- "Essentially, given our experiences over the last 50 years, nuclear power scares the hell out of anybody who might be responsible for running the show at a plant" -- is rather outdated.
One doesn't have to be the victim of an "accident" to suffer the deleterious effects of radiation - just be in proximity to where uranium is mined ....
Then of course there is the release of tritium when a plant is operating "normally"
I don't, at least on principle, disagree. However, the images of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are still too fresh and prominent in too many people's minds to make "nuclear" a serious and viable alternative. Add to that the fact that the nuclear power industry has done little too nothing to change the public's mind.
I agree. A lot of the fears are overblown. Fossil fuels have been way, way more destructive and responsible for far, far more deaths and negative health impacts. Yet for some reason we've been mostly all good with that up until fairly recently. However, the criticisms of nuclear are serious and legitimate. With very high costs, long roll out times, centuries of commitment to waste storage being just a few of them. These are things we need to grapple with if we want a real clean energy future.
Serious question for those opposed to oil pipelines: Why do you oppose them? Several things that make me wonder. For the foreseeable future we will continue to rely on fossil fuels, even as alternative and renewables come online. Aren't pipelines safer than transporting oil and fuels by rail or truck? Given how clean it burns why is there opposition natural gas pipelines? Since the US gave up on nuclear power years ago, aren't we going to need fossil fuels to generate electricity for many decades yet, especially as the share of electrically powered cars increases? I get being against something, but what's the better alternative after stopping pipelines? This is not a troll. I'm interested in your point of view.
For one thing, there is a gamut - a spectrum if you will. Some people oppose ALL pipelines, but that isn't the topic of this installment of Activism Uncensored. This is a specific pipeline with a history of leaks being installed by a company with a history of bad pipeline management and resultant catastrophic environmental events. It is also an issue of treaties, whereby a group of Native Americans are given treaty rights to use the land and waters where this pipeline is being put in and the risks it poses to their ability to safely use the land/water to exercise their treaty given right to farm rice and hunt/fish.
That said, I'm against some but not all pipelines. For example I'm pro the Nordstream 2 from Russia to Germany - Strangely, both the Trump and Biden administrations were against that one. Hmmm...
I'm not against pipelines, personally, while considering this question I searched "pipeline failure statistics' and found that there are way more safety incidents than I expected. Pipeline catches fire, on average, every 4 days, explodes every 11 days and someone dies from them every 26 days (!). Whoa. I'm fairly sure this isn't the reason for the protests, but those aren't good stats. If those numbers are accurate, it seems like there is a market opportunity for someone to provide a better pipeline solution.
They were the first result on the search 'pipeline failure statistics.' Admittedly, I spent zero time digging into those, so I probably shouldn't have commented on it, but those numbers are out there, in virtual nature, for all to see.
"Their [FracTracker] analysis covered three types of pipelines: natural gas transmission lines that carry natural gas from production areas to processing plants and municipal distribution areas, liquids (including oil), and natural gas distribution lines that carry gas from plants to customers. . . .
They concluded that hazardous liquids pipelines cause the majority of incidents (64%) and damages (also 64%) even though the liquids account for less than 8% of the total mileage of the network.
Natural gas distribution lines account for most injuries (79%), deaths (73%), evacuees (62%), fires (71%), and explosions (78%)."
Two things strike me about these statistics. First, there is no comparative analysis of safety vis-a-vis other means of transporting and distributing using pipelines. And second, the lions share of injuries, deaths, evacuations, fires, and explosions were in pipelines that distribute natural gas to customers, which would primarily be private residences. There really is no other reasonable means to distribute natural gas. The only real alternative is to convert homes to all electric, which I don't see happening for a VERY long time, if ever.
I used to work at Colonial Pipeline (yeah, the same one that doesn't have very secure IT standards), and we used to regularly have leaks. Our pipeline was low pressure, refined product, so the leaks would typically not be dangerous. They'd just make a big mess. Usually Colpipe would roll up with a VERY generous offer to buy the property that we'd just messed up. In the rare case that the pipeline broke near a river, it was an all-hands sort of thing. Basically everyone at the company would go out there and help cleanup, working 8 hours on, 8 hours off, until the cleanup was over. Those were kind of the most fun times at that job, actually. But in the end, we'd clean up the mess and move on. Spilling some gasoline on some dirt it turns out isn't the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced. Even if it's a lot of gasoline, it's actually pretty manageable. Rivers were a bit tougher, but not as bad as you'd think. You can actually catch it and syphon it off the top of the river, as it floats.
The reason, and only reason, that we no longer build nuclear power plants is due to the enormous costs of constructing them and bringing them online, and the equally onerous cost of keeping them on line. Utilities and other energy concerns got out of the nuclear business because there's more money to be lost, then made, with nuclear. And the specter and liability expenses incurred from a potential core meltdown, or any other serious mishap, pretty much seals the no-deal for investors. It's not just low-margin power, but potential anti-margin power. This may change in the future, but it's a relatively distant future.
According to Gates, “if we’re serious about solving climate change, and quite frankly we have to be, the first thing we should do is keep safe reactors operating.”
But “even then, just maintaining that status quo is not enough. We need more nuclear power to zero out emissions in America and to prevent a climate disaster,” Gates said Wednesday.
Ah yes - "safe reactors" - anything like those "safe bio-safety labs"?
The NRC isn't exactly a non aligned party.
No doubt the Gates Foundation would be a big investor and already has his fingers in the pie ...
The same Bill Gates who opposes TRIPS IP waivers for vaccines? Or is this a different Bill Gates - considering he's into GMOs, maybe he has had himself cloned ...
Is this directed at my comments? Reading material? And I'm not supporting or not supporting nuclear power in my comments. I'm not advocating for any mode of energy in my comments. And I said nothing about the "climate crisis." And: I wouldn't deny (and never mentioned) that "opposition to nuclear comes from every other industry providing energy."
What's your point? There's opposition, organized or not, everywhere against everything. And finally, nobody mentions the "climate crisis" more than Big Oil, in "opposition" to alternative (green, sustainable, what have you) as well as the very existence of climate change. Big Oil long ago recognized "climate change," correctly viewing it as a threat to their bottom lines. That's when they ramped up their propaganda. Ditto for the Pentagon. This is all well-documented.
The Pentagon commissoned a comprehensive strategic-themed study 10 years ago in preparation for climate change. They take the science seriously. Don't doubt that solar and wind companies "hire lobbyists to spread disinformation, just like every other lobbyist in DC."--Ii'll take your word for it. I would welcome a share of some of YOUR reading and research.
Again, once again, I am neither advocating for nuclear power, nor am I advocating against nuclear power. I am aware of Bill Gate's nuclear project and his advocacy of it as a positive source of energy for mitigating the effects of climate change. In the name of humanity, I wish him godspeed.
Fromm your link:
“Today, nuclear power is at a crossroads. Nearly 20% of America’s electricity comes from nuclear,” Gates said. “But while America’s current nuclear capacity serves the country well, there are far more reactors slated for retirement than there are new reactors under construction.”
In April, the Indian Point Energy Center nuclear power plant north of New York City retired its last operating nuclear reactor. And the Exelon Corporation has announced plans to retire two of its Illinois nuclear power plants in the fall.
If these retirements come to fruition, 2021 could set a record for the most retirements of nuclear generators in a year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Since 1960, the United States has retired 40 nuclear generators but it has never this many in one year, sasy an EIA spokesperson."
This speaks to my point, I believe. There's no reason to believe that if nuclear power were economically viable, at the moment, these plants would either remain on-line or if needed, upgraded. I've not commented on the current efficacy of nuclear technology due, mostly, because I'm not a nuclear engineer. I havenot studied nor am I privy to it.
Here, though, is someone who has, lurking beneath the fold in this piece":
"....Jacobson says that, in fact, “investing in new nuclear power is the surest way to climate disaster.” Climate change is urgent, and new nuclear power plants are expensive and take a long time to build, he says.
Jacobson, who has published a textbook on renewable energy, also points out that nuclear power comes with concerns that renewables don’t have, including weapons proliferation, meltdowns, radioactive waste and uranium mining risks.
Again, I'm not an advocate, one way or another. And as for Gates' Natrium project, it certainly helps to have $160 billion in the checking account. Jeff Bezos, I hear, is using his billions to go spelunking in the Andromeda Galaxy. I wish the two of them well in their scientific exploits.
Yes. And presumably there are some engineers squirreled away in a Western mountain range working on a new technology that will "make nuclear power viable again." And it will be marketed and sold to the American public accordingly.
Pipeline activists expected Biden to keep his promises? Seriously? After all this time one would think they would know better ... I am beginning to wonder if idealism and naivete are joined at the hip ... How many of these folks voted for him? Why? Did they believe It was either that or Trump? Another LOTE election? ... but doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of ..... There was another choice more in sync with their cause so why didn't they choose that? Every time I ask this question I get "3rd parties can't win". But that's BS, any candidate on a ballot can win if enough folks vote for 'em.
And TPTB know this too, so, as we concentrate on voter suppression, we pay no attention to the "poison pills" stuck in the much heralded HR1 that make it almost impossible for 3rd parties to even get on the ballot - just in case enough of us figure out that a particular 3rd party is actually what we want and would actually vote for. So, great, more and more folks can vote for either Tweedle dee or Tweedle dum - Yippee, what a victory for democracy!
And nobody - independent journalists included, seem to have noticed this or give a flying fu**
I totally agree!! I’ve heard about that particular tidbit in the bill as well but I’ve never heard another word about it anywhere else. Why is no one concerned about that in media? Hmm. I wonder.
I think Biden made a huge mistake cancelling the Keystone Pipeline. All the jobs are now dead and most of the pipeline was already completed. Will that oil be safer now traveling by train or truck?
First, only in the hyper-partisanized propagandized U.S. (and increasingly Australian) political climate (pun intended) must one be "the left" to see the problems with continuing to rely so heavily on fossil fuels. For one thing, just getting them out of the ground tends to be a really messy and pollutive process. For another, in most places including the USA, rights of extraction are handed over to oligarchical interests or cronies who profit immensely from them while only a small number of "regular folks" can get in on the action (pipeline workers, oilfield workers, chemical engineers, geologists, etc.), but usually at a fraction of what the rich guys at the top are making. Shouldn't the profits be shared with people of a given locale or state in which fossil fuel extraction is causing direct environmental harm (again, not getting into global warming here)? Hell, in a lot of places in Texas you can't even get mineral rights when you buy a plot of land. Why is that, I wonder? Whose interests is that protecting?
Sure, fossil fuels are currently necessary to enable the trans-oceanic movement of goods as part of "free trade" agreements and import/export activity as well as air travel and of course (massively over-subsidized) automobile use. But why does one have to be labeled a "leftist" if one wants to start moving toward higher efficiency standards, lower pollution regulations, and even alternative energy sources? Not to mention, is it "leftist" to believe in the sanctity of treaties and the rightful ownership of certain pieces of land with the ostensible right to dictate what can and cannot be done on that land? If so, then call me a "leftist" and I'll happily bear the moniker.
Please respond to what I wrote and not whatever it is you seem to think I wrote. I never said we don't *currently* need fossil fuels. I also never said that we'll ever be completely free of them unless some grand breakthrough in physics happens (and I don't doubt that one will if we don't all destroy ourselves first). All I said is that it's ridiculous and stupid that in the US, Australia (and other places for sure) you get labeled a "leftist" (I'm not commenting one way or the other on my personal labor politics here) for supporting alternative sources of energy and research toward those ends. It's also kind of stupid to attribute any belief that humans are in fact contributing substantially to the Earth's rise in temperature to "leftism" as well, but I do think there's some merit to that science based on my own education and reading (and Exxon Mobil's own research from the 60s), so if that makes me a "leftist" so be it.
But I agree with you that for now it has to be an all of the above approach. We probably disagree on how quickly we need to get to a "less of the fossil fuels" scenario, but at least we share *some* beliefs, I hope.
It’s not “Leftist” to take an all of the above approach or embrace technology advances in renewables or to embrace nuclear. It’s a matter of making sense.
"But why does one have to be labeled a "leftist" if one wants to start moving toward higher efficiency standards, lower pollution regulations, and even alternative energy sources?"
I understand why we don't want pollution. Pollution is always a problem. But why would we want alternative energy sources? Particularly if they're expensive and inefficient like wind and solar power generation. Could you please explain?
Pollution is especially always the problem with fossil fuels. You're being disengenuous when you admit to fossil fuel pollution being a problem and then state "pollution is always a problem." Alternatives are becoming less expensive and more efficient. At some point, we transition to alternatives. It's in the cards. Just ask Exxon Mobil.
I understand why we wouldn't want horseshit in the streets, but horseshit in the streets is always a problem. And them new-fangled horseless carriages? Expensive and inefficient, always breaking down and getting flat tires.
Where do I claim that strip mining for heavy metals for batteries and magnets is NOT pollution free? I could care less if they are or are not pollution free. They certainly are not pollution free, but again, what information do you derive from any of my posts that suggests that I think they are? I'm not on record favoring fossil fuels or any alternatives to fossil fuels.
I merely assert, from my current knowledge on the subject, that alternatives---some alternative---will someday replace fossil fuels.10 years. 20 years.100 years. If you don't agree with this, fine. We'll continue to use fossil fuels. For how long, I don't know. Do you know? This also is an uncontroversial statement. Wood, coal, whale oil, petroleum products---they all make an appearance on the world's energy stage as the lead actor and they all, eventually, assume supporting roles or are jettisoned from the cast entirely.
What's important to keep in mind, and to understand, is that wind and solar as energy sources are the logical next step in our energy evolution---
if we can make it work. It will be an incremental process. Each step will look much differently than the previous step.
Can we make it work? How the hell do I know? Do you know? You think we'll still be driving Chevy's in 100 years? What I do know is that the transition away from fossil fuels to a basket of alternatives is slowly underway. This is well-documented. Every energy source we've had, every energy source we'll ever have, on earth, is derived directly or indirectly from the sun.
Stating that fossil fuels are a source of pollution is not controversial. And by making this assertion I'm clearly not saying that batteries and magnets are not sources of pollution. Clearly. Read a little more carefully.
You know what else is bad for the environment? Poverty. And if we force ordinary people to give up fossil fuels, then what we're really forcing them to do is to live in poverty.
Have you considered the social and economic ramifications of abandoning fossil fuels because they cause pollution? By the way, what is exactly are the pollutants emitted by fossil fuels? Carbon Dioxide?
What would a world look like without fossil fuels? A lot of death and misery.
Please provide examples in my posts where I'm advocating that we "force ordinary people to give up fossil fuels." Again, you're being disengenuous. It's my belief that fossil fuels will continue to play an important part in our energy equation for the foreseeable future. But read the below links. I may be wrong. You may be wrong. I can't predict the future. You can't predict the future. These days, it's even difficult to plan for the future.
In my posts, I describe what other experts, scientists, industry officials are thinking and what actions they are taking---or not taking.
Some quick research:
"....Burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil produces greenhouse gases that trap solar radiation in the atmosphere and cause climate change. But it also releases tiny poisonous particles known as PM2.5. Small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs, these particles can aggravate respiratory conditions like asthma and can lead to lung cancer, coronary heart disease, strokes and early death. But it also releases tiny poisonous particles known as PM2.5.
"....The burdens of both climate change and conventional pollution fall more heavily on low-income communities and communities of color. Numerous studies have shown that toxic waste sites are more likely to be found in vulnerable communities[25] and the same is true of coal fired power plants.[26] Race and poverty also predict higher exposure to harmful PM2.5 air pollution.[27] Climate change will also have a highly unequal impact across the world.
"A recent U.N. study found that climate change could “push more than 120 million more people into poverty by 2030 and will have the most severe impact in poor countries, regions, and the places poor people live and work.”[28]
"....More than 8 million people around the world die each year as a result of breathing polluted air that contains particles from fossil fuels, a new study has found. Burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil produces greenhouse gases that trap solar radiation in the atmosphere and cause climate change."
I'd ask you who you're working for but this is such sloppy propaganada that I assume you're not being paid for it. Unless Exxon-Mobil has you on retainer.
And normally I'd tell you to get the fuck outta here with you're sloppy propaganda, but feel free to keep sending it to me for easy refutation. Always glad to be of service to the community at large.
You're just repeating what other people say. Some of your facts are bullshit. They're made up. Like the figure of 8 million people dying from air pollution. Baloney. You don't know that. And yet you're willing to believe without question. You don't respect science. You respect scientific authority. You respect credentials. That's a mistake. You should look at the data for yourself and arrive at your own conclusions.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Perhaps you weren't aware of this.
Another question: What demographic are you referring to when you write "ordinary people?"
And: "...The richest one percent of the world’s population are responsible for more than twice as much carbon pollution as the 3.1 billion people who made up the poorest half of humanity during a critical 25-year period of unprecedented emissions growth...."
By the way, what's your take on the extreme poverty that has come to roost in the U.S. over the past 40 years, generated by extreme income inequality? Generated by phenomenally regressive tax rates, which has created in the short space of 20 years and given rise to a billionaire class of overlords?
Who in turn use their obscene wealth to wholly capture our government and put it to work as fully owned subsidiary of their non-tax-paying corporations? Or the extreme concentration of monopoly capital that has decimated the middle class by wiping out jobs? The wholesale corporate-directed transfer of millions of middle class jobs overseas? Jobs that once offered a high standard of living? Now replaced by $12/hour service jobs?
Take a few shots of 10W40 and please get back to me with your thoughts on this.
Come on, is this serious? I'm going to have to answer you with a question.
"inefficient" is a relative term. You can't talk about the efficiency of fossil fuel based energy production without considering the environmental ramifications of both extraction and use. And yes, pollution will always be a problem no matter what until we learn to do things - across the board - much more cleanly.
And since when did efficiency become a concern w/ fossil fuel energy generation? Only when it saves money or when the government insists on regulations, which invariably the fossil fuel and auto industries have fought tooth and nail. So there's that.
But why WOULDN'T you want to continue investing in alternative energy sources so that the can become MORE efficient?
And another question: Do you think fossil fuels are going to take us to Mars or wherever the human race travels to in the solar system (or beyond - assuming we don't all kill ourselves first)?
Hell, even a third question: Do you think fossil fuels are an infinite resource and if so please provide the science behind that opinion? The Earth is a finite system. I've yet to see any good arguments that new oil and natural gas are being produced on an ongoing basis, but maybe you have some evidence that those resources are somehow bucking the laws of thermodynamics and finite systems?
I'm dead serious. I think advocates for alternative fuels are delusional. They imagine that we can abandon fossil fuels and adopt alternative generation methods without any serious consequences. They imagine that the world will end if we continue using fossil fuels. It's all bullshit. There's certainly no evidence of it.
All of the available evidence shows that the current climate state is not out of the ordinary or expected. The Earth is fine.
Pollution is always a problem. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
The world's gonna end with or without us continuing to use fossil fuels....and THAT ain't no bullshit. I assume you mean "unexpected," not "expected." And there's that word "ordinary" again. I don't know about you, but in my lifetime I've never experienced the state of the climate to be "ordinary."
The earth is always fine. The earth has always been fine.The earth will always be fine. I'm not a GAIA dude. Earth is a large rock with a slowly cooling molten center, 5 billion years old, that has harbored living organisms in a variety of forms throughout a sizable chunk of its history, organisms characterized by, among other attributes, widely varying speciation.
Species that successfully adapted to earth's changing conditions or catastrophic events---and some that did not. With our knowledge of this history we can, or should, expect similar such cycles of life and extinction in the future. The earth will be fine for another 11 billion years, when the expanding sun melts and blows it apart. The continuation of life on earth, well, that's another matter.
And also, you shouldn't assume others are propagandists like yourself. Some of us are merely out to glean information and find some answers. Answers that will help us navigate the increasingly complex and disturbing world. And if you're not a propagandist, paid or otherwise, the ignorance and laziness of your posts paint you as part of the problem, not the solution.
That depends upon your definition of "disappointment." I am one of many people who voted for Obama and felt swindled.
I am incredulous at the idea that anyone could vote for Biden not knowing exactly what they were getting. You would have to have been living inside a black box, consuming no political reportage, for the last 40 years. "Hi, I'm Schrödinger's cat. Not sure if I'm dead or alive, but I'm voting for Joe Biden, he'll build it back better. No malarkey!"
It would be like Republicans voting for Lindsey Graham and being surprised they ended up with a shameless neocon who has no principles, sketchy defense industry friends, corporate connections, and more than a few big brother tendencies. Come on man this is Joe Biden! You should know what you are getting at this point. While we are on the subject can someone please tell me why so many social justice Democrats forgot he wrote the '94 Crime Bill? After almost half a year of Black Lives Matter rioting and protesting, the Left was more than happy to go with the man who should have a lifetime achievement award for putting young black males in prison?
Seriously! If you wanted a "systemic racism" ticket, you'd start with the guy who'd been writing racist laws for decades, and then you'd add a corrupt DA who used those laws to lock up minorities she knew were innocent!
Bu bu but - they were the LOTE! And that's the rule - gotta vote LOTE, for some, enough, it was Trump. What if we had a LOTE party ... oh wait, we do, 2 in fact ....
"someone please tell me why so many social justice Democrats forgot he wrote the '94 Crime Bill? After almost half a year of Black Lives Matter rioting and protesting, the Left was more than happy to go with the man who should have a lifetime achievement award for putting young black males in prison?"
The only explanation I can offer is that we are all fictional characters living in a Philip K. Dick novel. The memory-holing of the Crime Bill by racial/social "justice activists" who should theoretically care about this kind of thing the most is completely insane. If it wasn't "structural racism," what is?
...I apologize for the minor tangent here, but there's an argument to be made that the aggressive gun-banning provisions of the Crime Bill were a not insignificant factor in the GOP sweeping Congress in the '94 midterms. Bill Clinton was able to woo a lot of NRA "bubbas" in '92. In '94 they felt stabbed in the back.
Insofar as it has already outlived its purpose, I am really curious to see how long this excuse will maintain steam. 2 years into the Biden/Harris regime? 4? Does anyone think Joe will even be able to run in '24?
grisha, one need look no further than MSNBC, and the S**t Lib Cultist Liberal Blogosphere (i.e. Crooks and Liars, Raw Story, Alternet, et al) As far as these quislings are concerned, Trump is a bigger threat than Covid and Betelgeuse, combined. It is both sad, and funny.
My favorite reaction is the people who thought that electing Joe Biden would magically make everything go back to normal. Half a year later they are realizing that there is little interest in bringing the country back to normal.
There is also the fact that a lot of the Black community leaders at the time were pushing for harsh criminal penalties. You can bet that they do not want anyone remembering their role in the whole thing. On a side note anyone remember the "super predator" thing?
As I learned (painfully so during the 2016 POTUS election cycle) any criticism of Hillary's record -regardless of its basis in facts, data, history, and empiricism- is sexism/misogyny, and proof that you are a Russian Bot.
<<On a side note anyone remember the "super predator" thing?>>
Oh yeah. It's evident in retrospect that les Clintones learned from Lee Atwater's Willie Horton bag of tricks and were trying to out-racist GHWB. And it worked! Remember Bill going after Sister Souljah?
It's the narcotic effect of seeing Trump out of office that clouds their minds. Try and start a conversation about the Biden administration and count the seconds before it turns to how bad was Trump.
TDS is real. I've been listening to some various podcasts from mid-2020, and the press had most of the country thinking the world was actually ending. Propaganda of that power is fucking dangerous.
While I like the idea of living in a Phil Dick novel I think there's an easier explanation. Biden supporters were in the CNN/MSNBC echo chamber. Biden's racist crime bill, much like his deranged kid's laptop, was never one of the echoes allowed in that particular echo chamber. Therefore it didn't exist. When you combine that with the fact that every time CNN/MSNBC mentioned Trump's name, every Democrat inadvertently squirted a little pee into their already bunched up panties, I think y'all find a recipe for the Joe Biden/Kamala Harris fondue we're now being force fed.
Not that I don't see evidence of your Phil Dick hypotheses. With everything from the rise of UFOs out of the military's clandestine underoos to the fact that most people now stare at a little electronic device like they want to fuck it or Vulcan mind meld with it, I'd say that Phil's probably somewhere jumping up & down & screaming, "See motherfuckers, I told ya so. Over & over. Did ya listen? Nope. Well Fuck y'all ya easily led by the nose dumbfucks."
Speaking of S&M. Way back in the day my best friend & I used to have a little drug business going. Pot, hash & acid only.
One of his clients was a dominatrix. I tagged along to meet her.
She charged $200 an hour to belittle her male clients. No sex was involved.
While we were there she mentioned that she had a black dude in her yard who was cleaning up her dog's shit because he wanted to be treated like a slave.
She then offered us $50 each to go out & beat his ass. She said he'd love it. While the cash was tempting somehow the idea of beating a guy into an erection had no appeal to us so we took a hard pass.
Now $200 and hour probably meant that all of her clients were most likely well off, yet they ached to be belittled & treated like shit.
See, the real racial and justice advocates were shut down and not covered. The Dems have some loyal (bought) mouthpieces, they just called them "progressive" for a year.
It is fortunate (for the establishment) that the majority of actual progressives have been taught to be conflict averse. If you're so sensitive to micro-aggression, there's no way you're going to stand against the bullshit the establishment can throw at you.
Cognitive Dissonance + Trump Derangement Syndrome. If they were true to their values, they would've supported Bernie. Fact is, they would've voted for Trump than Bernie.
Or like the republicans voting for Donald Trump and not knowing that he was a five-time loser in the bankruptcy courts, or that he was a serial molester and adulterer, a shameless but largely unsuccessful con artist, and that, and that---oh, that's right---they knew all this. Never mind.
Not really. It's more of a melancholy yearning. I genuinely miss the sloppy humor, the extended anarchic stream-of-consciousness gibberish, the off-the-cuff Henny Youngmanesque insults generously proffered to all comers---he made me laugh. But most of all he taught me to draw faith from my congenital cynicism, by providing reassurance, every day for more than 1500 days, that we are indeed a nation of morons. God bless him, where ever he is.
On the contrary, for this great country, Joe Biden is the logical and appropriate bookend to Donald Trump. A whirling dervish of a loud mouth double-talking con man from New York, to a Delawarian with less life and charisma than the Audio-Animatronic Chester A. Arthur at Disney World's Hall of Presidents. Perfectly executed!
"less life and charisma than the Audio-Animatronic Chester A. Arthur"
I take umbrage at your disparagement of "The Dude President" in this manner, sir. Even a clockwork simulation thereof possesses more innate charisma than Joseph Robinette Biden.
The 'pubs should run the Arthur automaton in '24 and see what happens. Some straight Ambrose Bierce shit. Fuck around and find out, as the Bernie Bros. used to say.
"Let me tell you about this cat Jack, he was bad news, a bad dude. They called him Tidy Paws, he used to carry a bicycle chain and claws."
...has there been any concerted effort by literary scholars to revise Joe's inchoate public utterances into metered, rhyming surrealist poetry yet? You wouldn't have to do very much. As a voter, I am on the record as favoring an NEH grant for such a project.
I seem to remember someone (probably Bill Maher's staff) doing something like that for Sarah Palin after she entered the meth'y rambling stage. They put it to an electronic beat. It was pretty damn funny.
I could see Joe having a lot of potential there as an accidental hip hop star. Just make the chorus end "...then you ain't black!"
Now I'm imagining one of those cliche 90's/early00's gangsta rap album covers which just has a lot of thug iconography poorly photoshopped together. Joe's in the middle with an ice cream cone and it's called "Corn Pop a Cap in Yo A$$"
Oh I think Beat idea totally works, and probably better considering what an antiquated weirdo Joe is. I'll grow a goatee and snap my fingers in approval.
Minus the rhyming (I think) this was done with Don Rumsfeld's words during the W administration. Good stuff. I'd welcome Biden receiving the same treatment.
I remember that one. I think Rummy's slightly clipped way of pronouncing words along with his braggadocio about the might of the military lent itself well to rapping.
Full circle: Schrödinger's Cat is simultaneously a known-unknown and an unknown-known.
I suspect the reason Biden got elected was hubris of Trump. I think a bigger surprise than Trump's win against Hillary is that he managed to squander that win and to lose to Biden.
For easily excited - no, I'm not a Trumpista. Just the facts, ma'am.
Well, I never expected anything from Biden. We have 40+ years of being a sell-out. Obama only had a few years in the Illinois and U.S. Senate of backing away from anything controversial.
The only sonic weapons I saw in that video were the tired old hippy chants. Seriously annoying.
I though the native people didn't believe that land was "owned" by anyone -how then does this break a treaty?
Honestly, it's a non-news-event when reporting that Biden is the same old, same old.
He's been a puppet that dances on the money strings for his entire career. How is this a revelation?
A friend of mine who was acting chief for a period up in British Columbia reports to me that the tribal councils all got together and agreed that the Keystone pipeline was going to be a good thing and they were going to be compensated well for it -and have cheaper oil.
This is seven or eight tribal chiefs coming together to agree on something: rare but they were happy with the agreement -until the white hippies showed up and started protesting.
He said they were offering free beer to the few natives who DID join their protests and that they didn't represent the tribes there at all. They were the people who ALWAYS cause trouble and are usually out-of-their-mind-drunk by 10PM every night and really embarrassing. They don't represent any councils or band governments.
I hope you realize that my post wasn't a cry of solidarity for the anti-pipeline folks. Doing away with fossil fuels would be fine if they had an economical & efficient replacement for them but they don't.
Contrary to what most Dems seem to believe, electric cars & smartphones aren't really powered by meth-ed out hamsters furiously running on grid connected exercise wheels.
My new attitude towards "activism" has been colored by Portland, where they've been protesting non stop for over a year. That has led me to wonder how one pays rent & buys food with that lucrative protest wage. Are there employers who offer a special activism leave of absence where you can still draw a paycheck while chanting "No justice, no peace?" In other words, it appears that someone is funding it all. Who is probably debatable.
Then again maybe they're all converted Breatharians who have learned the neat mystical trick of living on air alone.
Those electric cars are coal-powered battery cars and unless energy can be produced without coal or oil-fuel and they are actually MORE harmful to the environment.
No problem. These days, doesn't the S in USA usually stand for scam?
I should confess that I didn't really watch much of the video. I've seen that episode of Lawless & Disorder for over a year now. It has grown quite old.
And, I really don't give a fuck anymore. According to climate things that I read in the 80s we should all be living in a 21st century version of Atlantis. Let's say I'm also a bit lackadaisical about my recycling habits. Something my 2 oldest "save the Earth" children like to hassle me about until I point out that neither one of them can survive summer without an air conditioner blasting 24/7.
THAT was "ruthless exploitation of savages we considered just barely more evolved than the ape" (which was pretty generous considering it was PRE-Darwin and all).
THIS is a sensitive, respectful negotiation taking into account the savage colonialist greed of the white devil and the generous wisdom of earth-attuned indigenes.
I wouldn't bet on a dramatically different result, though..
I'm an outlier who supports limiting use of fossil fuels and eliminating their use as soon as practicable, but the anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts reject my support. A compelling case can be made for that without ever mentioning climate change, which doesn't set the scene for virtue signaling. My support isn't wanted because it's for the "wrong" reason. That's a religion, not science.
The mining activity necessary to build high-density batteries is as damaging as that done to extract fossil fuels, and the technology does not yet exist to build the plants, the generators, the transmission lines needed without increasing output of CO2.
Other factors are seldom considered. The mining activity necessary to build wind turbines and solar panels (from components of steel to rare earth minerals). We tend to ignore these because much of the mining and production occur in other countries. Even the production of the concrete, rebar, and other construction materials has huge impact, as does the actual process of construction. We seldom even consider the scale necessary to "replace" existing energy. We don't see much publicized in terms of square miles of terrain to be cleared and prepared for renewables nor the total number required to achieve whatever the goal is (assume total replacement). The problem is far murkier than a simple X good, Y bad. We can agree on a need to get away from fossil fuels, the problem is in the propaganda and technological limitations surrounding how that happens. As you mentioned, both sides are overly addicted to and reliant upon the conflict to move on to the difficult and time consuming exploration of decent alternatives.
One other bit. When I used to completely define myself as a lefty, although not a Dem, I'd occasionally buy a magazine called Adbusters. One issue had a full page that was empty except for this sentence: "Humanity needs to find the courage to allow itself to go extinct."
So, if the Left truly believes that fossil fuels will end us, why are they complaining?
Do they have wisher's remorse?
Maybe they should just make up their fucking minds.
Pff. I hope they keep running over the cliff. Big Picture: When we're gone things will go one as they always have, until the sun burps a layer and burns it all off.
One of the "Great Filters" of the Fermi Paradox (yes, I know, not really a paradox) is the instability of so many stars, compared to our rather placid one, and the sensitivity of intelligent species to the effects of super volcanoes, vast solar flares, extreme variations in stellar outputs and the impacts of meteors, asteroids, comets, etc.
Matter of fact, if you look at the wide range of natural phenomena that would terminate our "advanced" civilization, we are way past "living on borrowed time".
And since we're going anyway, before it happens I would dearly love to see the more virtuous among us setting a good example by "allowing themselves to go extinct". I promise to graciously laud their high moral precedent. There could be tears.
I don't see the point. Every iota of fossil fuels will be burnt until it runs out. Why? It's cheap energy. Even a government that agreed to curb it's use would be overthrown or dominated by those who are willing to use the cheap energy. Look at China. The use of this energy enables economic and ultimately military hegemony.
Under the circumstances, those trying to stop pipelines and such are tilting at windmills. Why do things that can only have impact in the smallest ways? Might as well belly up to the trough until the music stops playing, in the worst kind of mixed metaphor. Get the tribe some money for that pipeline.
They actually DO bely up to the trough. My friend up in BC Canada is on his tribal council and told me that the band offices all got together and voted to approve of the Keystone Pipeline.
A month later, all these white cunt hippies showed up from Vancouver and started offering native people free beer to come march with them for photo ops.
Repeat: the tribal councils from all of the bands involved APPROVED the pipeline so that they could finally make some money to help their own people live a better life and the hippies showed up to ruin it.
China doesn't have, nor will it achieve, economic and military hegemony because of their willingness to use fossil fuels - they might, repeat...MIGHT, achieve it for no other reason than so many people in the West (re rapacious globalists/hyper-capitalists) gave it to them.
I think you are underestimating their actual productive effort. A lengthy war with the Chinese would expose the hollowness the Western industrial base. They also have seized monopoly share on some commodities by making the costs prohibitive to compete in the West, think rare earths. Their web of clients in Asia and Africa restrict supply to the West if we do not play ball with them.
All of this activity is powered with fossil fuels, primarily coal.
The Nazis had a similar view of the US in 1941. Makers of razor blades and records or some such.
China is powerful because the most powerful among us made them that way. And on the way to making China powerful, those most powerful among us got richer than hell.
I think we didn't fight it at the point when it could have been hindered, but their execution of their economic plan was all them. Late 90s was the turning point, and what was done then will look like 1930s appeasement does today.
In practice that is not how it is going to go. The military disagrees also, and while they are not oracles about how combat goes, they do usually have a good idea of the timeframe of conflict. If anything, they'd tend to underestimate the length of conflicts, and they seem to have arrived on the 3-6 month figure.
At the outer edge of that, all prewar stocks are essentially fired off and you're relying on your industrial base to replenish.
By 10 minutes, I was referring to a nuclear exchange. The military war games every imaginable scenario. But do you really think that the U.S. (and allies?) and China would, or could, fight a protracted, conventional war? Without it escalating into a nuclear exchange? what I hear it's cyberwar time anyway. Guns are passe and obsolete for the big boys. All that shit---tanks, F-16s, ships, subs, etc.---those are just toys we get in exchange from the defense contractor welfare queens for keeping them on the dole.
Here is what "cheap energy is cheap until it isn't" means. The "externalities" of fossil fuel consumption are already well known and have been as long as we've been burning fossil fuels. Not only can these externalities be accurately predicted, they are accurately predicted.
And not only are they accurately predicted (forecast), the costs of these externalities can---and are--- accurately measured, assessed, and calculated.
Externality: "....a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved."
We know damn well what the side effects and consequences of burning fossil fuels are. They are just not "reflected in the cost" of burning them. But when the final bill comes due.....
If we can't predict the co2 effect on climate, which we can't, and 50 years of failed predictions bear me out on this, the externality remains unknown.
Who said anything about the "Co2 effect on climate?" Of course we can predict the "Co2 effect on climate." Why are you introducing a completely different subject that has no bearing on our last exchange? Of course we can predict the effect of Co2 on climate. We just can't predict all the effects from Co2 on climate. Not accurately all the time, but we do know that these effects are not good effects.
What specific Co2 effects on climate are you offering up for discussion? There are lots of'em, and none to pleasant I'm afraid. There are myriad "externalities," to use your phrase, attached to fossil fuel use. Dozens, if not hundreds. Briefly, and most obviously, the deletrious effects it has on human health, the environment, and the air we breathe. Break each of those categories down, and they each contain countless "externalities. Ever hear of an oil spill? Those, I'm told are whoppers of externalities. The 8 million people a year that die from pollution linked to fossil fuel-produced particulates and smog? That's a big externality, especially for those 8 million. Use your imagination, kid---or better yet, do a little research before entering the comment portion of our programming here at TK.
We know that increasing amounts of Co2 greatly affect the atmosphere, and we know how those effects affect us. What we don't know is what the effects on the atmosphere in the future will look like, because, yes, it's the future.
And how about presenting a nice little sample basket of your "50 years of failed predictions," whatever the hell that means. Must be a lot of "em. And predictions of what, exactly? You need to spell this out. UFO sightings? I'm beginning to think you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Bear yourself out boy, bear yourself out. You certainly don't know what an externality is, and that's what got this whole damn discussion going.
I wonder if Warren Buffet pays the protestors more than minimum wage, do they have employer paid insurance, taxes withheld, railroad workers pensions, etc. Maybe the IRS and OSHA should look in on these activities.
Do you have any actual evidence that Buffet paid these protesters? Besides. I thought George Soros was the universal boogeyman for this sort of thing. Is he on summer holiday?
I didn't say he was paying anyone anything, I said I wonder if he is; but he strikes me as enough of a lowlife to do so. I am quite certain there is a 50% chance he is in someway involved.
What trains? The U.S. has zero high speed rail. Uzbekistan has more than that. Besides, if we are going to have to rely on billionaire investor/philanthropists to have nice things, what kind of country is this?
The statement meant oil is being transported by rail instead of pipeline. People give Warren Buffet a hard time because he owns many shares in railways. I doubt the claim Warren is behind cancelling Keystone, but folks always need something to gossip about.
I suspect you have as much evidence to support your conclusion as I have to support mine, correct? As for him owning shares in railroad, I couldn't care less, but he strikes me as greedy enough to at least attempt to manipulate situations to enhance his portfolio.
While he has obviously gotten rich, it isn't because he is creative, it's because he manipulates. He takes over companies created by others, and at least several times has run them into the ground, causing people to lose jobs and savings. Consider the recent history of Russell Corporation.
But good ol' Warren really, really does want the government to make him pay more in taxes......
Now that I was informed he has stakes in rail and that rail is used to transit oil, hey, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he was helping to fund activities that might enhance his own portfolio and hurt competing ones.
Yeah and what you've described is basically how vulture private equity firms operate. Take over a functioning, even thriving, company, gut them by laying people off in order to increase short term shareholder value, kill off the R&D division, do a round or two of stock buybacks and then cash out leaving the company to rot. American capitalism at work, baby!
Buffet is a monopoly prospector. He sniffs out mid-range, back-alley, under-the-radar businesses with firm balance sheets that dominate their particular market.
There is something you might want to look into Mr. Tabbi. Remember when they had the Standing Rock Pipeline protests? There was a lot of shady actions from federal authorities from the little I could find out about it. Then there was the Bundy Standoff. If you ever read the Judge's affidavit about why she threw the case out with prejudice, you will find out how little the "official" story met reality. I would be interested in someone digging deeper into the use of federal lands and how federal officials abuse their power in conjunction with media support to get their way time and again.
"Activists say the development violates treaties and will have serious environmental consequences, and the Biden administration has been conspicuously silent about it."
When has the United States government or the banking/energy/war-making profiteers that own it ever had any qualms about violating treaties?
Besides: The US Is Not Agreement Capable Because It Is Ungovernable. The presidents and the administrations are not in charge. The permanent regime (whose representatives I mentioned above) is.
The day of two paths is about ripe. When treaties are broken, they are no longer valid. Each party then takes the actions that they see fit, according to intuition and discernment. Sometimes, those are not popular or politically "correct", but they are right in the eyes of your spirit. So, choose. As children of the earth, it is our responsibility to protect her, or perish as fools. There is no differentiation between banks, governments, and corporations. Black Rock, Bill Gates, Amazon, are but a few among the giants who are land grabbing; staking a claim in the end game they call the Great Reset. Strategic survival of the elites through collapse. The creation of covert covid weapons of mass destruction, lead the masses to take their "medicine" to get the carrot; the freedoms taken from you, with your consent. Ivermectin suppression, censorship of professors and wise elders. The ancestors knew, nobody owns a planet! As if they created it themselves! Ha! The light laughs from beyond the veil. Indigenous law will surely rise through the ashes of our humiliation. Communities that feed themselves carry the ability to free themselves. Everything is energy. It's all a game. Who represents your interests? What do you value? Be your own guru! Peace, peace, peace.
I assume they all walked to the protest? This country is going to destroy itself while China marches on. We are fools.
So if they have a car then they shouldn't be protesting someone building a pipeline in their yard? this country is rotting for within and China has NOTHING to do that. why does "being a major world power" even matter? We haven't done ANYTHING good with the power so far as far as I'm concerned.
I think helping the Soviets defeat the Nazis was worthwhile. The Marshall plan was noble. We kept half of Korea free Lately we haven’t been doing as well. I do think we should turn our attention to our own people and our own problems.
Yes I agree that we have done some virtuous things. But since I was born in 1980 I haven’t seen anything good. Just compounding corruption. We’ve been left behind by our corporate overlords… but they expect us to keep going to work business as usual. Why is it that the working class makes all these big wigs rich and those bigwigs don’t even think we deserve a living wage? I mean… a huge chunk of our population doesn’t make 50k. I’d bet it’s more than half the country. How are we the “richest country in the world” when we just keep on printing the money??? Impending doom is a feeling I have often.
To that huge chunk of the population who isn't even making $50K, they should have just done everything "right" from the beginning! It's not the "productive class's" fault that they chose to be teachers or public servants! Nor is it "our" fault that they aren't bright enough to become corporate or Wall Street attorneys. Even MIT CS and EE graduates know better now than to take jobs at local electrical utilities/co-ops or engineering firms; Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex are where the money's at, man! But hey, even if you're stuck at $50-$60K annual income, save a lot of money and/or put it into an IRA or 401k (or pension in the rare cases where that's a thing) and watch it grow, baby! Don't worry about affording a brand new car either - they've got 10 year loans for that. Wanting a BMW, Audi or Infiniti? Just make sure your credit is perfect and you can lease one! And don't go blaming us you got $100K in student debt, can't afford to buy your own house in most cities and that a single minor medical emergency could land you in bankruptcy. That just means you did something wrong! /s
Of course I agree with you and I've had the feeling of impending doom since the days of Reaganomics and Thatcher.
It wasn't Reaganism or Thatcherism. But the rest of your point is a valid beef.
P.S. I was speaking from my personal feelings of impending doom, as when I was growing up Reagan was in the White House and Thatcher was forcing austerity on the UK.
I'm always up for a good discussion. What do you think this all dates back to? I mean, I'm even open to the notion that it goes as far back as the Reconstruction and/or Industrial Revolution when the U.S. government and local police forces were used to crush worker union strikes. But I'm guessing you'll probably point me to the beginning of the Trilateral Commission or Bretton Woods, which I'd also agree with.
Hey there! The Taliban, Zionists, Saudis and the slavers of Libya disagree with you! We've done a LOT of good for them!
By your logic, they should also not be protesting if they happen to have, or be wearing, any items made of plastic, or made in China.
It seems reasonable that if you against “fossil fuels” you should divest your life of them. Hardest change in life is changing yourself. I used to enjoy sports but since they have embraced BLM I have eliminated them from my life.
Apple, Microsoft and Google have also embraced BLM as well as a ton of other corporations you may want to look into so you can divest your life of them. Or not, either way…it’s not about being perfect because that’s kinda impossible.
Correct. I use Duck duck go. Avoid Amazon etc. I am suddenly “woke” as to who benefits from my money
But it IS about hypocrisy. Ironic, isn’t it?
We’re all hypocrites. Moot point. This looks to be about sacred land and a treaty the US should honor.
Yes, I don’t celebrate it. But it certainly is something we all have in common
Would you call it hypocrisy to be an advocate of alternative energy sources and still use air travel to get from place to place? Especially in the USA where we have absolutely zero high speed rail.
Whenever one of these brainwashed "hyper-capitalist" cultists is asked why we don't have things like high-speed rail, or universal health care, they usually respond with, "that won't work in America".
It's always interesting, isn't it, that American "exceptionalism" never seems to apply when it comes to technology that other countries have utilized successfully for years.
Yes, I would. You don’t really need to go somewhere that high speed transit enables. Geezuz, get a clue.
You might want to check to see if your American-made car has any parts in it from China, or Mexico, or Canada. You wouldn't want to be some kind of ironic hypocrite, would you?
It does. So what? What’s your point?
When Taco Bell got rid of the Bell Beefer,
https://tacobell.fandom.com/wiki/Bell_Beefer
I protested by not eating at Taco Bell anymore. It was a tough choice on my part, and I, along with my fellow Bell Beeferists, suffered greatly because of it. But, thankfully, due mainly to the economic pressure that I was able to exert, Taco Bell is supposed to bring back the Bell Beefer in 2023. The system works!
lol never heard of that one. I did see that they drastically scaled back their menu during COVID just like Applebees and Chilis did and that some people were pissed.
Blows against the Empire, mate.
Big sacrifice; now you miss out on those oh so cool F-35 flyovers that last 10 seconds, all at a miniscule cost of $1.7 trillion.
That's a pretty big slice of the Virtue Pie you got there. Try not to eat it all in one bite, otherwise you might choke on it.
Really?? Don’t feel all that virtuos.
Did you notice that red line under virtuos when you typed it? It means you misspelled it and not that a communist was watching you when you posted.
It's a free country (not really, but that's how the saying goes) so you can invest or divest in anything you so choose. I'm sorry that the sports leagues you used to enjoy so much, and which are mainly made up of Black athletes decided to embrace a movement that sheds light on police overreach and structural racism in policing that it isn't even controversial to point out or difficult to document. I guess as long as they were willing to suck it up, keep their mouths shut, accept the high pay to entertain you, you were fine with it. Not that very many NFL or NBA athletes ever really last that long or get rich, but that's another topic. I am also guessing you had absolutely zero issues with the taxpayer funded stadiums, pre-game military flyovers and constant "defense" department propaganda on display before and during the games.
Why would it be so hard for anyone to believe that, in fact, yes many of us DO "divest" our lives from them inasmuch as it is possible in a country where you basically have no other choices? I have absolutely nothing against your choice to eliminate the activity of viewing grown men participate in often violent games as a profession, but that's a much easier and more convenient choice for an American to make than it is to completely divest one's life from fossil fuels. I hope you realize that.
It'd be a shame if they planted someone in the WH who was the physical embodiment of systemic racism... Oh wait -they did.
I have less "eliminated sports" than "eliminated financial contribution TO the corrupt edifice of American Professional Sports"*. Or at least doing my damnedest to do so.
*- I may condemn American Professional Sports, but compared to the Olympic Grift, it's clean as the Catholic Girls School Curling League.
Support the table tennis!
What does China have to do with any of this? Also, aside from whatever your views are on fossil fuel, why is it Ok to break treaties by putting an unwanted pipeline through native land? I assume that since you are on the right, you are a big fan of private property rights. I too support the rights of private landowners to use their property as they wish, so long as this usage does not harm others. In the case of this pipeline, however, the state grants some corporation the right to use land that isn’t theirs (by way of breaking native treaties or by use of eminent domain to “purchase” it from individual landowners). Last I checked, eminent domain isn’t supposed to be about enriching billionaires at the expense of everyone else and we are supposed to honor our treaties. This isn’t, and shouldn’t, just be just about fossil fuel usage and our environmental policy. Whether you simply support property rights OR you are an environmentalist, there is great reason to oppose this pipeline.
Your version of events is apparently just something you've made up, and you 'know" it must be true because "it all fits together" with all the other stuff you've said in the past.
Never mind the tribal councils and the heads thereof (NOT going to call them CHEIFS, lest I get REEEEEE!!!-ed upon) thought they HAD negotiated agreements of minimal environmental impact (pipeline's pretty passive, just sits there), and maximal positive economic impact for the tribes they represented. Now I don't know if they took a cut, paid someone off, whatever, but they had made a deal, and it was supported by other indigenous people.
The way you've portrayed it seems...tryin' to be nice, but blatantly inaccurate is about as nice as it gets. Do you have some image of feather-bonneted, buckskin-clad tipi-dwellers being conned by some Wild West sharpies?? Because the indigenous people are themselves suit-wearing lawyers, cutting their own deals, I don't know what kind of imaginary scenario you've cooked up. The Olde West parchment-and-quill-pen Indian Territory documents were long ago superseded.
I share your bafflement as to China's role in this matter, but it seems to me the REAL interlopers, the people REALLY interfering with tribal rights are the PROTESTORS who are unhappy with the deal the tribes freely agreed to. And the claim that this pipeline was "unwanted" surely needs confirmation. The people who wanted the oil, and to resell the oil, and to drive their cars, wanted it. The people who wanted the jobs working on the pipeline wanted it. The people who negotiated the deal wanted it. Indeed the actual situation might be closer to OPPOSITE of the gibberishish account you've presented.
Next time somebody says "WE represent the true wishes of [marginalized group X]." feel free to examine the veracity of their claim with as much skepticism as you would those of the widow of the Prince of Nigeria. (who also wants you to invest in a pipeline, interestingly enough)
The whole native treaty thing is kind of weird, because the natives aren't sovereign. They have to abide by federal laws and such. How can you contract a treaty with a non-sovereign entity? They are more like MOAs. Anyway, eminent domain seizure of land is entirely possible, so there is no resemblance to a treaty with a foreign nation.
This is the dumbest gotcha line when it comes to climate activism. So the only people that can credibly speak out on climate are those that don't participate in industrialized society? Very convenient for you, Mr. Status Quo Man.
If it is an “existential” threat(which I do NOT believe) then it would behoove the purveyors of such nonsense to at least attempt to act in a manner that demonstrates their fealty to such hoohaw. I have to give that nut cake Greta some credit for sailing to America
or maybe we should ask the white Christians why they think the oil is theirs, indegenious people have more of a right to it then oil companys
oh my, how much longer do we have to put up with this type of comment. Grow up
Nuclear power is the cleanest and most efficient energy source out there, but American society has a knee jerk rejection of it.
I'm not disagreeing with you here, but the few catastrophic failures have been, well, catastrophic. It's a case of disproportionate invisible success vs. highly visible failure. Hard for me to expect everybody to just rationally run the numbers and not have an emotional knee-jerk reaction after Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.
...it probably didn't help that nuke power got emotionally conflated with ICBMs back during the Cold War.
Chernobyl was essentially run like Springfield Nuclear PP on The Simpson’s. When the meltdown happened, a nuclear physicist put the engineering snafu in layman’s terms as “Imagine if the breaks and the gas pedal were switched on a car unawares!”That said, if managed/engineered properly-like in France, where the majority of nations power needs are met by nuclear, I stand by my statement. The USSR bureaucracy destroyed anything it touched-in the 70s and 80s, 50% of house fires in Moscow were caused by exploding TV sets-same engineering that went into Chernobyl.....
Proliferation is a big issue. If every country has nuclear reactors, they will all be a lot closer to owning nuclear weapons. Maybe that's actually ok for world peace but maybe not.
True. On the other hand France generates upwards of 75% of their electricity from nuclear. They EXPORT electricity. France jumped on the nuclear bandwagon early, primarily for the energy security it provided. People tend to forget even 20 years after WW2, it was still fresh in European minds. Can we learn something from France, or have they just been lucky?
Nuclear power -as history has clearly demonstrated- cannot be put into the hands of those whose aim is personal/political power, or financial gain. It is simply too dangerous. They only work "efficiently" when operated under the strictest design and safety protocols. IOW, when the plant is designed, built, and operated at a continuous financial loss, at least in the hyper-capitalist sense. Plus, the issue of how to safely dispose of the waste absolutely does NOT make it the "cleanest and most efficient energy source out there." If it were, it would be much more widely adopted, worldwide. The future lies in "local" electricity production, moving away from private, for-profit utilities.
It’s actually quite safe. Read Schellenbergers book.
Yes. Essentially, given our experiences over the last 50 years, nuclear power scares the hell out of anybody who might be responsible for running the show at a plant. And, yes again: The cost and very real danger involved in storing the waste is another barrier. It ain't like shovelin' coal into the boiler and then grabbing a cup of coffee and playing a little solitaire.
I think you might want to update your reading material.
People can support nuclear power or not support nuclear power, I don't care. But those who oppose nuclear power need to shut up about "climate crisis."
Don't forget... Opposition to nuclear comes from every other industry providing energy. Solar and wind companies hire lobbyists to spread disinformation, just like every other lobbyist in DC.
Is this directed at my comments? Reading material? And I'm not supporting or not supporting nuclear power in my comments. I'm not advocating for any mode of energy in my comments. And I said nothing about the "climate crisis." And: I wouldn't deny (and never mentioned) that "opposition to nuclear comes from every other industry providing energy."
What's your point? There's opposition, organized or not, everywhere against everything. And finally, nobody mentions the "climate crisis" more than Big Oil, in "opposition" to alternative (green, sustainable, what have you) as well as the very existence of climate change. Big Oil long ago recognized "climate change," correctly viewing it as a threat to their bottom lines. That's when they ramped up their propaganda. Ditto for the Pentagon. This is all well-documented.
The Pentagon commissoned a comprehensive strategic-themed study 10 years ago in preparation for climate change. They take the science seriously. Don't doubt that solar and wind companies "hire lobbyists to spread disinformation, just like every other lobbyist in DC."--Ii'll take your word for it. I would welcome a share of some of YOUR reading and research.
My point is that your comment -- "Essentially, given our experiences over the last 50 years, nuclear power scares the hell out of anybody who might be responsible for running the show at a plant" -- is rather outdated.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
One doesn't have to be the victim of an "accident" to suffer the deleterious effects of radiation - just be in proximity to where uranium is mined ....
Then of course there is the release of tritium when a plant is operating "normally"
I don't, at least on principle, disagree. However, the images of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are still too fresh and prominent in too many people's minds to make "nuclear" a serious and viable alternative. Add to that the fact that the nuclear power industry has done little too nothing to change the public's mind.
I agree. A lot of the fears are overblown. Fossil fuels have been way, way more destructive and responsible for far, far more deaths and negative health impacts. Yet for some reason we've been mostly all good with that up until fairly recently. However, the criticisms of nuclear are serious and legitimate. With very high costs, long roll out times, centuries of commitment to waste storage being just a few of them. These are things we need to grapple with if we want a real clean energy future.
Uranium stocks have gone bananas. $$$$
See my comment above. If nuclear were cost-effective, it would be happening now, regardless of American knees.
Serious question for those opposed to oil pipelines: Why do you oppose them? Several things that make me wonder. For the foreseeable future we will continue to rely on fossil fuels, even as alternative and renewables come online. Aren't pipelines safer than transporting oil and fuels by rail or truck? Given how clean it burns why is there opposition natural gas pipelines? Since the US gave up on nuclear power years ago, aren't we going to need fossil fuels to generate electricity for many decades yet, especially as the share of electrically powered cars increases? I get being against something, but what's the better alternative after stopping pipelines? This is not a troll. I'm interested in your point of view.
For one thing, there is a gamut - a spectrum if you will. Some people oppose ALL pipelines, but that isn't the topic of this installment of Activism Uncensored. This is a specific pipeline with a history of leaks being installed by a company with a history of bad pipeline management and resultant catastrophic environmental events. It is also an issue of treaties, whereby a group of Native Americans are given treaty rights to use the land and waters where this pipeline is being put in and the risks it poses to their ability to safely use the land/water to exercise their treaty given right to farm rice and hunt/fish.
That said, I'm against some but not all pipelines. For example I'm pro the Nordstream 2 from Russia to Germany - Strangely, both the Trump and Biden administrations were against that one. Hmmm...
Thanks for the reply. I certainly understand having specific.reasons to oppose a pipeline with a troubled history.
No, Biden got in office and Nordstream 2 was given the green light.
I'm not against pipelines, personally, while considering this question I searched "pipeline failure statistics' and found that there are way more safety incidents than I expected. Pipeline catches fire, on average, every 4 days, explodes every 11 days and someone dies from them every 26 days (!). Whoa. I'm fairly sure this isn't the reason for the protests, but those aren't good stats. If those numbers are accurate, it seems like there is a market opportunity for someone to provide a better pipeline solution.
Source? Those stats don't seem right. They may be but I'd like to consider the source.
They were the first result on the search 'pipeline failure statistics.' Admittedly, I spent zero time digging into those, so I probably shouldn't have commented on it, but those numbers are out there, in virtual nature, for all to see.
Specifically, they're from NRDC.org
I believe I found what you were referring to here:
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/amy-mall/pipeline-incident-statistics-reveal-significant-dangers
Some excerpts:
"Their [FracTracker] analysis covered three types of pipelines: natural gas transmission lines that carry natural gas from production areas to processing plants and municipal distribution areas, liquids (including oil), and natural gas distribution lines that carry gas from plants to customers. . . .
They concluded that hazardous liquids pipelines cause the majority of incidents (64%) and damages (also 64%) even though the liquids account for less than 8% of the total mileage of the network.
Natural gas distribution lines account for most injuries (79%), deaths (73%), evacuees (62%), fires (71%), and explosions (78%)."
Two things strike me about these statistics. First, there is no comparative analysis of safety vis-a-vis other means of transporting and distributing using pipelines. And second, the lions share of injuries, deaths, evacuations, fires, and explosions were in pipelines that distribute natural gas to customers, which would primarily be private residences. There really is no other reasonable means to distribute natural gas. The only real alternative is to convert homes to all electric, which I don't see happening for a VERY long time, if ever.
I used to work at Colonial Pipeline (yeah, the same one that doesn't have very secure IT standards), and we used to regularly have leaks. Our pipeline was low pressure, refined product, so the leaks would typically not be dangerous. They'd just make a big mess. Usually Colpipe would roll up with a VERY generous offer to buy the property that we'd just messed up. In the rare case that the pipeline broke near a river, it was an all-hands sort of thing. Basically everyone at the company would go out there and help cleanup, working 8 hours on, 8 hours off, until the cleanup was over. Those were kind of the most fun times at that job, actually. But in the end, we'd clean up the mess and move on. Spilling some gasoline on some dirt it turns out isn't the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced. Even if it's a lot of gasoline, it's actually pretty manageable. Rivers were a bit tougher, but not as bad as you'd think. You can actually catch it and syphon it off the top of the river, as it floats.
Great call out. I'm guessing it will be met with a silence similar to that of anti-nuke folks when similarly questioned...
The reason, and only reason, that we no longer build nuclear power plants is due to the enormous costs of constructing them and bringing them online, and the equally onerous cost of keeping them on line. Utilities and other energy concerns got out of the nuclear business because there's more money to be lost, then made, with nuclear. And the specter and liability expenses incurred from a potential core meltdown, or any other serious mishap, pretty much seals the no-deal for investors. It's not just low-margin power, but potential anti-margin power. This may change in the future, but it's a relatively distant future.
It's not 1970 any more.
Bill Gates three days ago:
According to Gates, “if we’re serious about solving climate change, and quite frankly we have to be, the first thing we should do is keep safe reactors operating.”
But “even then, just maintaining that status quo is not enough. We need more nuclear power to zero out emissions in America and to prevent a climate disaster,” Gates said Wednesday.
And he's putting his money where his mouth is.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/11/bill-gates-bullish-on-using-nuclear-power-to-fight-climate-change.html
Ah yes - "safe reactors" - anything like those "safe bio-safety labs"?
The NRC isn't exactly a non aligned party.
No doubt the Gates Foundation would be a big investor and already has his fingers in the pie ...
The same Bill Gates who opposes TRIPS IP waivers for vaccines? Or is this a different Bill Gates - considering he's into GMOs, maybe he has had himself cloned ...
I suspect he has more than one bunker ready ....
Read again:
Latouche31 min ago
Is this directed at my comments? Reading material? And I'm not supporting or not supporting nuclear power in my comments. I'm not advocating for any mode of energy in my comments. And I said nothing about the "climate crisis." And: I wouldn't deny (and never mentioned) that "opposition to nuclear comes from every other industry providing energy."
What's your point? There's opposition, organized or not, everywhere against everything. And finally, nobody mentions the "climate crisis" more than Big Oil, in "opposition" to alternative (green, sustainable, what have you) as well as the very existence of climate change. Big Oil long ago recognized "climate change," correctly viewing it as a threat to their bottom lines. That's when they ramped up their propaganda. Ditto for the Pentagon. This is all well-documented.
The Pentagon commissoned a comprehensive strategic-themed study 10 years ago in preparation for climate change. They take the science seriously. Don't doubt that solar and wind companies "hire lobbyists to spread disinformation, just like every other lobbyist in DC."--Ii'll take your word for it. I would welcome a share of some of YOUR reading and research.
Again, once again, I am neither advocating for nuclear power, nor am I advocating against nuclear power. I am aware of Bill Gate's nuclear project and his advocacy of it as a positive source of energy for mitigating the effects of climate change. In the name of humanity, I wish him godspeed.
Fromm your link:
“Today, nuclear power is at a crossroads. Nearly 20% of America’s electricity comes from nuclear,” Gates said. “But while America’s current nuclear capacity serves the country well, there are far more reactors slated for retirement than there are new reactors under construction.”
In April, the Indian Point Energy Center nuclear power plant north of New York City retired its last operating nuclear reactor. And the Exelon Corporation has announced plans to retire two of its Illinois nuclear power plants in the fall.
If these retirements come to fruition, 2021 could set a record for the most retirements of nuclear generators in a year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Since 1960, the United States has retired 40 nuclear generators but it has never this many in one year, sasy an EIA spokesperson."
This speaks to my point, I believe. There's no reason to believe that if nuclear power were economically viable, at the moment, these plants would either remain on-line or if needed, upgraded. I've not commented on the current efficacy of nuclear technology due, mostly, because I'm not a nuclear engineer. I havenot studied nor am I privy to it.
Here, though, is someone who has, lurking beneath the fold in this piece":
"....Jacobson says that, in fact, “investing in new nuclear power is the surest way to climate disaster.” Climate change is urgent, and new nuclear power plants are expensive and take a long time to build, he says.
Jacobson, who has published a textbook on renewable energy, also points out that nuclear power comes with concerns that renewables don’t have, including weapons proliferation, meltdowns, radioactive waste and uranium mining risks.
Again, I'm not an advocate, one way or another. And as for Gates' Natrium project, it certainly helps to have $160 billion in the checking account. Jeff Bezos, I hear, is using his billions to go spelunking in the Andromeda Galaxy. I wish the two of them well in their scientific exploits.
"But those who oppose nuclear power need to shut up about "climate crisis."
Why is this? Hey, man, you're commenting at TK, and this smacks of stifling free speech. Censorship. Don't go all nuclear-woke on us, now.
Old enough to remember when nuke power was being sold to us a "too cheap to meter" ....
Yes. And presumably there are some engineers squirreled away in a Western mountain range working on a new technology that will "make nuclear power viable again." And it will be marketed and sold to the American public accordingly.
No doubt - if it doesn't blow us up first ...
Starting to look that way.
Property rights are top tier importance
Pipeline activists expected Biden to keep his promises? Seriously? After all this time one would think they would know better ... I am beginning to wonder if idealism and naivete are joined at the hip ... How many of these folks voted for him? Why? Did they believe It was either that or Trump? Another LOTE election? ... but doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of ..... There was another choice more in sync with their cause so why didn't they choose that? Every time I ask this question I get "3rd parties can't win". But that's BS, any candidate on a ballot can win if enough folks vote for 'em.
And TPTB know this too, so, as we concentrate on voter suppression, we pay no attention to the "poison pills" stuck in the much heralded HR1 that make it almost impossible for 3rd parties to even get on the ballot - just in case enough of us figure out that a particular 3rd party is actually what we want and would actually vote for. So, great, more and more folks can vote for either Tweedle dee or Tweedle dum - Yippee, what a victory for democracy!
And nobody - independent journalists included, seem to have noticed this or give a flying fu**
"So, great, more and more folks can vote for either Tweedle dee or Tweedle dum - Yippee, what a victory for democracy!"
"If you always vote for the lesser of two evils, you will always have evil, and you will always have less.”
[Ralph Nader]
Scarcely mentioned is the voter suppression activity that the DNC engaged in during both the 2016 and 2020 Democratic primaries.
Gee, even Bernie didn't mention it ....
Sheepdogs usually don't. Frankly I'm surprised Huffpost let this article make it to print. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-is-a-faux-socialist-and-a-sheepdog_b_9292618
I totally agree!! I’ve heard about that particular tidbit in the bill as well but I’ve never heard another word about it anywhere else. Why is no one concerned about that in media? Hmm. I wonder.
Shucks, wouldn't it be nice if Matt dealt with it :D
Smart analysis. Thx
I think Biden made a huge mistake cancelling the Keystone Pipeline. All the jobs are now dead and most of the pipeline was already completed. Will that oil be safer now traveling by train or truck?
Shhh! People are clinging bitterly to the fantasy that it will never leave the ground now.
I don't understand the left's hostility to fossil fuels. Climate catastrophism is mighty thin gruel.
First, only in the hyper-partisanized propagandized U.S. (and increasingly Australian) political climate (pun intended) must one be "the left" to see the problems with continuing to rely so heavily on fossil fuels. For one thing, just getting them out of the ground tends to be a really messy and pollutive process. For another, in most places including the USA, rights of extraction are handed over to oligarchical interests or cronies who profit immensely from them while only a small number of "regular folks" can get in on the action (pipeline workers, oilfield workers, chemical engineers, geologists, etc.), but usually at a fraction of what the rich guys at the top are making. Shouldn't the profits be shared with people of a given locale or state in which fossil fuel extraction is causing direct environmental harm (again, not getting into global warming here)? Hell, in a lot of places in Texas you can't even get mineral rights when you buy a plot of land. Why is that, I wonder? Whose interests is that protecting?
Sure, fossil fuels are currently necessary to enable the trans-oceanic movement of goods as part of "free trade" agreements and import/export activity as well as air travel and of course (massively over-subsidized) automobile use. But why does one have to be labeled a "leftist" if one wants to start moving toward higher efficiency standards, lower pollution regulations, and even alternative energy sources? Not to mention, is it "leftist" to believe in the sanctity of treaties and the rightful ownership of certain pieces of land with the ostensible right to dictate what can and cannot be done on that land? If so, then call me a "leftist" and I'll happily bear the moniker.
Has to be an “all of the above” approach. Until we adopt Nuclear and advance technology in renewables, we will need fossil fuels. Sorry.
Please respond to what I wrote and not whatever it is you seem to think I wrote. I never said we don't *currently* need fossil fuels. I also never said that we'll ever be completely free of them unless some grand breakthrough in physics happens (and I don't doubt that one will if we don't all destroy ourselves first). All I said is that it's ridiculous and stupid that in the US, Australia (and other places for sure) you get labeled a "leftist" (I'm not commenting one way or the other on my personal labor politics here) for supporting alternative sources of energy and research toward those ends. It's also kind of stupid to attribute any belief that humans are in fact contributing substantially to the Earth's rise in temperature to "leftism" as well, but I do think there's some merit to that science based on my own education and reading (and Exxon Mobil's own research from the 60s), so if that makes me a "leftist" so be it.
But I agree with you that for now it has to be an all of the above approach. We probably disagree on how quickly we need to get to a "less of the fossil fuels" scenario, but at least we share *some* beliefs, I hope.
It’s not “Leftist” to take an all of the above approach or embrace technology advances in renewables or to embrace nuclear. It’s a matter of making sense.
Yes.
Totally agree, right wingers can call it conservation
Which is what I do
"But why does one have to be labeled a "leftist" if one wants to start moving toward higher efficiency standards, lower pollution regulations, and even alternative energy sources?"
I understand why we don't want pollution. Pollution is always a problem. But why would we want alternative energy sources? Particularly if they're expensive and inefficient like wind and solar power generation. Could you please explain?
Pollution is especially always the problem with fossil fuels. You're being disengenuous when you admit to fossil fuel pollution being a problem and then state "pollution is always a problem." Alternatives are becoming less expensive and more efficient. At some point, we transition to alternatives. It's in the cards. Just ask Exxon Mobil.
I understand why we wouldn't want horseshit in the streets, but horseshit in the streets is always a problem. And them new-fangled horseless carriages? Expensive and inefficient, always breaking down and getting flat tires.
So strip mining for heavy metals for batteries and magnets is pollution free?
Where do I claim that strip mining for heavy metals for batteries and magnets is NOT pollution free? I could care less if they are or are not pollution free. They certainly are not pollution free, but again, what information do you derive from any of my posts that suggests that I think they are? I'm not on record favoring fossil fuels or any alternatives to fossil fuels.
I merely assert, from my current knowledge on the subject, that alternatives---some alternative---will someday replace fossil fuels.10 years. 20 years.100 years. If you don't agree with this, fine. We'll continue to use fossil fuels. For how long, I don't know. Do you know? This also is an uncontroversial statement. Wood, coal, whale oil, petroleum products---they all make an appearance on the world's energy stage as the lead actor and they all, eventually, assume supporting roles or are jettisoned from the cast entirely.
What's important to keep in mind, and to understand, is that wind and solar as energy sources are the logical next step in our energy evolution---
if we can make it work. It will be an incremental process. Each step will look much differently than the previous step.
Can we make it work? How the hell do I know? Do you know? You think we'll still be driving Chevy's in 100 years? What I do know is that the transition away from fossil fuels to a basket of alternatives is slowly underway. This is well-documented. Every energy source we've had, every energy source we'll ever have, on earth, is derived directly or indirectly from the sun.
Stating that fossil fuels are a source of pollution is not controversial. And by making this assertion I'm clearly not saying that batteries and magnets are not sources of pollution. Clearly. Read a little more carefully.
Is this directed a comment of mine?
Alternatives? Like what? Wind and solar? LOL
OK, I get it now. I'm a little slow at times, but....
You know what else is bad for the environment? Poverty. And if we force ordinary people to give up fossil fuels, then what we're really forcing them to do is to live in poverty.
Have you considered the social and economic ramifications of abandoning fossil fuels because they cause pollution? By the way, what is exactly are the pollutants emitted by fossil fuels? Carbon Dioxide?
What would a world look like without fossil fuels? A lot of death and misery.
Please provide examples in my posts where I'm advocating that we "force ordinary people to give up fossil fuels." Again, you're being disengenuous. It's my belief that fossil fuels will continue to play an important part in our energy equation for the foreseeable future. But read the below links. I may be wrong. You may be wrong. I can't predict the future. You can't predict the future. These days, it's even difficult to plan for the future.
In my posts, I describe what other experts, scientists, industry officials are thinking and what actions they are taking---or not taking.
Some quick research:
"....Burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil produces greenhouse gases that trap solar radiation in the atmosphere and cause climate change. But it also releases tiny poisonous particles known as PM2.5. Small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs, these particles can aggravate respiratory conditions like asthma and can lead to lung cancer, coronary heart disease, strokes and early death. But it also releases tiny poisonous particles known as PM2.5.
"....The burdens of both climate change and conventional pollution fall more heavily on low-income communities and communities of color. Numerous studies have shown that toxic waste sites are more likely to be found in vulnerable communities[25] and the same is true of coal fired power plants.[26] Race and poverty also predict higher exposure to harmful PM2.5 air pollution.[27] Climate change will also have a highly unequal impact across the world.
"A recent U.N. study found that climate change could “push more than 120 million more people into poverty by 2030 and will have the most severe impact in poor countries, regions, and the places poor people live and work.”[28]
"....More than 8 million people around the world die each year as a result of breathing polluted air that contains particles from fossil fuels, a new study has found. Burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil produces greenhouse gases that trap solar radiation in the atmosphere and cause climate change."
I'd ask you who you're working for but this is such sloppy propaganada that I assume you're not being paid for it. Unless Exxon-Mobil has you on retainer.
And normally I'd tell you to get the fuck outta here with you're sloppy propaganda, but feel free to keep sending it to me for easy refutation. Always glad to be of service to the community at large.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/09/world/climate-fossil-fuels-pollution-intl-scn/index.html
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/research/8-reasons-why-we-need-to-phase-out-the-fossil-fuel-industry/
You're just repeating what other people say. Some of your facts are bullshit. They're made up. Like the figure of 8 million people dying from air pollution. Baloney. You don't know that. And yet you're willing to believe without question. You don't respect science. You respect scientific authority. You respect credentials. That's a mistake. You should look at the data for yourself and arrive at your own conclusions.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Perhaps you weren't aware of this.
I think you're being a little defensive. This is not about me or whether I'm a bot or get paid. Are you angry with me?
> what is exactly are the pollutants emitted by fossil fuels
You can't be this ignorant.
Probably all that mercury released as a result of burning coal.
Another question: What demographic are you referring to when you write "ordinary people?"
And: "...The richest one percent of the world’s population are responsible for more than twice as much carbon pollution as the 3.1 billion people who made up the poorest half of humanity during a critical 25-year period of unprecedented emissions growth...."
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity
Let us hope that your paymasters don't read TK.
By the way, what's your take on the extreme poverty that has come to roost in the U.S. over the past 40 years, generated by extreme income inequality? Generated by phenomenally regressive tax rates, which has created in the short space of 20 years and given rise to a billionaire class of overlords?
Who in turn use their obscene wealth to wholly capture our government and put it to work as fully owned subsidiary of their non-tax-paying corporations? Or the extreme concentration of monopoly capital that has decimated the middle class by wiping out jobs? The wholesale corporate-directed transfer of millions of middle class jobs overseas? Jobs that once offered a high standard of living? Now replaced by $12/hour service jobs?
Take a few shots of 10W40 and please get back to me with your thoughts on this.
Wealth inequality doesn't cause poverty. I think there's a problem with your sequence of logic.
Come on, is this serious? I'm going to have to answer you with a question.
"inefficient" is a relative term. You can't talk about the efficiency of fossil fuel based energy production without considering the environmental ramifications of both extraction and use. And yes, pollution will always be a problem no matter what until we learn to do things - across the board - much more cleanly.
And since when did efficiency become a concern w/ fossil fuel energy generation? Only when it saves money or when the government insists on regulations, which invariably the fossil fuel and auto industries have fought tooth and nail. So there's that.
But why WOULDN'T you want to continue investing in alternative energy sources so that the can become MORE efficient?
And another question: Do you think fossil fuels are going to take us to Mars or wherever the human race travels to in the solar system (or beyond - assuming we don't all kill ourselves first)?
Hell, even a third question: Do you think fossil fuels are an infinite resource and if so please provide the science behind that opinion? The Earth is a finite system. I've yet to see any good arguments that new oil and natural gas are being produced on an ongoing basis, but maybe you have some evidence that those resources are somehow bucking the laws of thermodynamics and finite systems?
Lipo is a prop-bot from the API and I'm diggin' it!
We have plenty of fossil fuels awaiting extraction and we should continue to do so. Wind and solar power are bullshit. You can take my word for it.
Let's blow some more mountaintops!
Thanks, but I don't think I'll take your word for it.
You should listen to the media. They always tell the truth about wind and solar power.
I'm dead serious. I think advocates for alternative fuels are delusional. They imagine that we can abandon fossil fuels and adopt alternative generation methods without any serious consequences. They imagine that the world will end if we continue using fossil fuels. It's all bullshit. There's certainly no evidence of it.
All of the available evidence shows that the current climate state is not out of the ordinary or expected. The Earth is fine.
Pollution is always a problem. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
The world's gonna end with or without us continuing to use fossil fuels....and THAT ain't no bullshit. I assume you mean "unexpected," not "expected." And there's that word "ordinary" again. I don't know about you, but in my lifetime I've never experienced the state of the climate to be "ordinary."
How would you characterize the current climate state?
The earth is always fine. The earth has always been fine.The earth will always be fine. I'm not a GAIA dude. Earth is a large rock with a slowly cooling molten center, 5 billion years old, that has harbored living organisms in a variety of forms throughout a sizable chunk of its history, organisms characterized by, among other attributes, widely varying speciation.
Species that successfully adapted to earth's changing conditions or catastrophic events---and some that did not. With our knowledge of this history we can, or should, expect similar such cycles of life and extinction in the future. The earth will be fine for another 11 billion years, when the expanding sun melts and blows it apart. The continuation of life on earth, well, that's another matter.
I never worry about the earth---nor should you.
Cue George Carlin's immortal words.
And also, you shouldn't assume others are propagandists like yourself. Some of us are merely out to glean information and find some answers. Answers that will help us navigate the increasingly complex and disturbing world. And if you're not a propagandist, paid or otherwise, the ignorance and laziness of your posts paint you as part of the problem, not the solution.
Some of us know more than others.
All lot of people have retirement accounts. If they aren't busy divesting, the public can get in on the ownership action.
Wait, wut? What does my post have to do with retirement accounts?
Plenty of fossil fuel drillers are public companies. Buy some shares if you think the owners are making hay.
How do the leftists think their Norwegian welfare state paradise gets it’s funding?!?!
Norway is passing laws to curb carbon emissions.
Sacrifices to the weather gods have been going on since time immemorial. It must be good politics.
Biden - bigger disappointment than Obama
That depends upon your definition of "disappointment." I am one of many people who voted for Obama and felt swindled.
I am incredulous at the idea that anyone could vote for Biden not knowing exactly what they were getting. You would have to have been living inside a black box, consuming no political reportage, for the last 40 years. "Hi, I'm Schrödinger's cat. Not sure if I'm dead or alive, but I'm voting for Joe Biden, he'll build it back better. No malarkey!"
It would be like Republicans voting for Lindsey Graham and being surprised they ended up with a shameless neocon who has no principles, sketchy defense industry friends, corporate connections, and more than a few big brother tendencies. Come on man this is Joe Biden! You should know what you are getting at this point. While we are on the subject can someone please tell me why so many social justice Democrats forgot he wrote the '94 Crime Bill? After almost half a year of Black Lives Matter rioting and protesting, the Left was more than happy to go with the man who should have a lifetime achievement award for putting young black males in prison?
Seriously! If you wanted a "systemic racism" ticket, you'd start with the guy who'd been writing racist laws for decades, and then you'd add a corrupt DA who used those laws to lock up minorities she knew were innocent!
You can't make this up!
Bu bu but - they were the LOTE! And that's the rule - gotta vote LOTE, for some, enough, it was Trump. What if we had a LOTE party ... oh wait, we do, 2 in fact ....
Pssst...
(We don't. We have one corporate party and a very skilled propaganda operation.)
Well yes, but they need to maintain the illusion of 2 because otherwise how could you have a LOTE!
"someone please tell me why so many social justice Democrats forgot he wrote the '94 Crime Bill? After almost half a year of Black Lives Matter rioting and protesting, the Left was more than happy to go with the man who should have a lifetime achievement award for putting young black males in prison?"
The only explanation I can offer is that we are all fictional characters living in a Philip K. Dick novel. The memory-holing of the Crime Bill by racial/social "justice activists" who should theoretically care about this kind of thing the most is completely insane. If it wasn't "structural racism," what is?
...I apologize for the minor tangent here, but there's an argument to be made that the aggressive gun-banning provisions of the Crime Bill were a not insignificant factor in the GOP sweeping Congress in the '94 midterms. Bill Clinton was able to woo a lot of NRA "bubbas" in '92. In '94 they felt stabbed in the back.
But, but, but....
Trump bad!
Insofar as it has already outlived its purpose, I am really curious to see how long this excuse will maintain steam. 2 years into the Biden/Harris regime? 4? Does anyone think Joe will even be able to run in '24?
We should prepare ourselves for Kamala Harris to be the DNC anointed one. The "variable" in this equation is who will run against her?
grisha, one need look no further than MSNBC, and the S**t Lib Cultist Liberal Blogosphere (i.e. Crooks and Liars, Raw Story, Alternet, et al) As far as these quislings are concerned, Trump is a bigger threat than Covid and Betelgeuse, combined. It is both sad, and funny.
My favorite reaction is the people who thought that electing Joe Biden would magically make everything go back to normal. Half a year later they are realizing that there is little interest in bringing the country back to normal.
Biden/Harris regime won't last 2 years. The 25th will be invoked sooner than that.
There is also the fact that a lot of the Black community leaders at the time were pushing for harsh criminal penalties. You can bet that they do not want anyone remembering their role in the whole thing. On a side note anyone remember the "super predator" thing?
As I learned (painfully so during the 2016 POTUS election cycle) any criticism of Hillary's record -regardless of its basis in facts, data, history, and empiricism- is sexism/misogyny, and proof that you are a Russian Bot.
Beetle boop, tovarishch.
<<On a side note anyone remember the "super predator" thing?>>
Oh yeah. It's evident in retrospect that les Clintones learned from Lee Atwater's Willie Horton bag of tricks and were trying to out-racist GHWB. And it worked! Remember Bill going after Sister Souljah?
I'm beginning to think one of the main things that sets Tabbi and Greenwald readers apart is functional long term memory.
Hey now! I work hard to make the simulation run smoothly. If sometimes there's a little cognitive dissonance here or there, it is what it is!
Nothing to apologize for, grisha. Great post. And +10,000 hit points for working in Philip K. Dick.
"+10,000 hit points"
[turns into Judge Holden]
"He says that he will never die."
It's the narcotic effect of seeing Trump out of office that clouds their minds. Try and start a conversation about the Biden administration and count the seconds before it turns to how bad was Trump.
TDS is real. I've been listening to some various podcasts from mid-2020, and the press had most of the country thinking the world was actually ending. Propaganda of that power is fucking dangerous.
My experience is that I get 'I can't talk about this'. People literally refuse to discuss Biden/Harris/Fauci.
While I like the idea of living in a Phil Dick novel I think there's an easier explanation. Biden supporters were in the CNN/MSNBC echo chamber. Biden's racist crime bill, much like his deranged kid's laptop, was never one of the echoes allowed in that particular echo chamber. Therefore it didn't exist. When you combine that with the fact that every time CNN/MSNBC mentioned Trump's name, every Democrat inadvertently squirted a little pee into their already bunched up panties, I think y'all find a recipe for the Joe Biden/Kamala Harris fondue we're now being force fed.
Not that I don't see evidence of your Phil Dick hypotheses. With everything from the rise of UFOs out of the military's clandestine underoos to the fact that most people now stare at a little electronic device like they want to fuck it or Vulcan mind meld with it, I'd say that Phil's probably somewhere jumping up & down & screaming, "See motherfuckers, I told ya so. Over & over. Did ya listen? Nope. Well Fuck y'all ya easily led by the nose dumbfucks."
"I like the idea of living in a Phil Dick novel"
You may have sadomasochistic tendencies. His protagonists' lives are terrible!
You know this story, right?
https://www.theage.com.au/world/missing-robot-takes-a-leaf-out-of-sci-fi-20060213-ge1r4o.html
Speaking of S&M. Way back in the day my best friend & I used to have a little drug business going. Pot, hash & acid only.
One of his clients was a dominatrix. I tagged along to meet her.
She charged $200 an hour to belittle her male clients. No sex was involved.
While we were there she mentioned that she had a black dude in her yard who was cleaning up her dog's shit because he wanted to be treated like a slave.
She then offered us $50 each to go out & beat his ass. She said he'd love it. While the cash was tempting somehow the idea of beating a guy into an erection had no appeal to us so we took a hard pass.
Now $200 and hour probably meant that all of her clients were most likely well off, yet they ached to be belittled & treated like shit.
We found it all very odd.
We also found it all very very funny.
Gee, so you can actually see the ball gag....?
"I think y'all find a recipe"
"You will" ya idiot, not y'all"
See, the real racial and justice advocates were shut down and not covered. The Dems have some loyal (bought) mouthpieces, they just called them "progressive" for a year.
It is fortunate (for the establishment) that the majority of actual progressives have been taught to be conflict averse. If you're so sensitive to micro-aggression, there's no way you're going to stand against the bullshit the establishment can throw at you.
Cognitive Dissonance + Trump Derangement Syndrome. If they were true to their values, they would've supported Bernie. Fact is, they would've voted for Trump than Bernie.
Just a couple of days ago I watched the 'Glitch in the Matrix'. That Dick fella was on to something....
Or like the republicans voting for Donald Trump and not knowing that he was a five-time loser in the bankruptcy courts, or that he was a serial molester and adulterer, a shameless but largely unsuccessful con artist, and that, and that---oh, that's right---they knew all this. Never mind.
Rent free
Not really. It's more of a melancholy yearning. I genuinely miss the sloppy humor, the extended anarchic stream-of-consciousness gibberish, the off-the-cuff Henny Youngmanesque insults generously proffered to all comers---he made me laugh. But most of all he taught me to draw faith from my congenital cynicism, by providing reassurance, every day for more than 1500 days, that we are indeed a nation of morons. God bless him, where ever he is.
"I'll be back!"
He's getting fitted with an Imortan Joe mask for his 2024 run for the presidency.
Harris vs Trump. Doesn't that make your butthole pucker?
The TDS. And the corrupt DNC?
On the contrary, for this great country, Joe Biden is the logical and appropriate bookend to Donald Trump. A whirling dervish of a loud mouth double-talking con man from New York, to a Delawarian with less life and charisma than the Audio-Animatronic Chester A. Arthur at Disney World's Hall of Presidents. Perfectly executed!
"less life and charisma than the Audio-Animatronic Chester A. Arthur"
I take umbrage at your disparagement of "The Dude President" in this manner, sir. Even a clockwork simulation thereof possesses more innate charisma than Joseph Robinette Biden.
The 'pubs should run the Arthur automaton in '24 and see what happens. Some straight Ambrose Bierce shit. Fuck around and find out, as the Bernie Bros. used to say.
*"Hi, I'm Schrodo-Schruduh-Shoulder-Suredeal-Soho-Soma-Schlmo... Slowdangle's Cat."
"Let me tell you about this cat Jack, he was bad news, a bad dude. They called him Tidy Paws, he used to carry a bicycle chain and claws."
...has there been any concerted effort by literary scholars to revise Joe's inchoate public utterances into metered, rhyming surrealist poetry yet? You wouldn't have to do very much. As a voter, I am on the record as favoring an NEH grant for such a project.
I seem to remember someone (probably Bill Maher's staff) doing something like that for Sarah Palin after she entered the meth'y rambling stage. They put it to an electronic beat. It was pretty damn funny.
I could see Joe having a lot of potential there as an accidental hip hop star. Just make the chorus end "...then you ain't black!"
Now I'm imagining one of those cliche 90's/early00's gangsta rap album covers which just has a lot of thug iconography poorly photoshopped together. Joe's in the middle with an ice cream cone and it's called "Corn Pop a Cap in Yo A$$"
I -- showing my age -- was thinking of Biden as an ersatz beat poet a la Maynard G. Krebs, but your idea would probably have broader appeal.
I just recently made a BULWORTH reference. Plate of shrimp.
Oh I think Beat idea totally works, and probably better considering what an antiquated weirdo Joe is. I'll grow a goatee and snap my fingers in approval.
Maynard G. Krebs! That IS a blast from the past.
Don't think there is anything for Biden yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slGYJfPtW7c&ab_channel=MaestroZiikos
what a fucking great tune!
Minus the rhyming (I think) this was done with Don Rumsfeld's words during the W administration. Good stuff. I'd welcome Biden receiving the same treatment.
I remember that one. I think Rummy's slightly clipped way of pronouncing words along with his braggadocio about the might of the military lent itself well to rapping.
Full circle: Schrödinger's Cat is simultaneously a known-unknown and an unknown-known.
I suspect the reason Biden got elected was hubris of Trump. I think a bigger surprise than Trump's win against Hillary is that he managed to squander that win and to lose to Biden.
For easily excited - no, I'm not a Trumpista. Just the facts, ma'am.
So what will you do now? Biden? Harris? in '24?
Well, I never expected anything from Biden. We have 40+ years of being a sell-out. Obama only had a few years in the Illinois and U.S. Senate of backing away from anything controversial.
I have a nice box of Obama Disappointmints. I've not tried any, I don't think.
"Nothing will fundamentally change."
{Joe Biden}
The only sonic weapons I saw in that video were the tired old hippy chants. Seriously annoying.
I though the native people didn't believe that land was "owned" by anyone -how then does this break a treaty?
Honestly, it's a non-news-event when reporting that Biden is the same old, same old.
He's been a puppet that dances on the money strings for his entire career. How is this a revelation?
A friend of mine who was acting chief for a period up in British Columbia reports to me that the tribal councils all got together and agreed that the Keystone pipeline was going to be a good thing and they were going to be compensated well for it -and have cheaper oil.
This is seven or eight tribal chiefs coming together to agree on something: rare but they were happy with the agreement -until the white hippies showed up and started protesting.
He said they were offering free beer to the few natives who DID join their protests and that they didn't represent the tribes there at all. They were the people who ALWAYS cause trouble and are usually out-of-their-mind-drunk by 10PM every night and really embarrassing. They don't represent any councils or band governments.
This looks a lot like that to me.
I hope you realize that my post wasn't a cry of solidarity for the anti-pipeline folks. Doing away with fossil fuels would be fine if they had an economical & efficient replacement for them but they don't.
Contrary to what most Dems seem to believe, electric cars & smartphones aren't really powered by meth-ed out hamsters furiously running on grid connected exercise wheels.
My new attitude towards "activism" has been colored by Portland, where they've been protesting non stop for over a year. That has led me to wonder how one pays rent & buys food with that lucrative protest wage. Are there employers who offer a special activism leave of absence where you can still draw a paycheck while chanting "No justice, no peace?" In other words, it appears that someone is funding it all. Who is probably debatable.
Then again maybe they're all converted Breatharians who have learned the neat mystical trick of living on air alone.
Oh, I was just adding to it.
Those electric cars are coal-powered battery cars and unless energy can be produced without coal or oil-fuel and they are actually MORE harmful to the environment.
It's all a giant scam.
No problem. These days, doesn't the S in USA usually stand for scam?
I should confess that I didn't really watch much of the video. I've seen that episode of Lawless & Disorder for over a year now. It has grown quite old.
And, I really don't give a fuck anymore. According to climate things that I read in the 80s we should all be living in a 21st century version of Atlantis. Let's say I'm also a bit lackadaisical about my recycling habits. Something my 2 oldest "save the Earth" children like to hassle me about until I point out that neither one of them can survive summer without an air conditioner blasting 24/7.
Free alcohol to the natives-that’s not exploitative negotiating tactics circa 1750 or anything!!!
Oh hell to the nah, mang.
THAT was "ruthless exploitation of savages we considered just barely more evolved than the ape" (which was pretty generous considering it was PRE-Darwin and all).
THIS is a sensitive, respectful negotiation taking into account the savage colonialist greed of the white devil and the generous wisdom of earth-attuned indigenes.
I wouldn't bet on a dramatically different result, though..
I'm an outlier who supports limiting use of fossil fuels and eliminating their use as soon as practicable, but the anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts reject my support. A compelling case can be made for that without ever mentioning climate change, which doesn't set the scene for virtue signaling. My support isn't wanted because it's for the "wrong" reason. That's a religion, not science.
The mining activity necessary to build high-density batteries is as damaging as that done to extract fossil fuels, and the technology does not yet exist to build the plants, the generators, the transmission lines needed without increasing output of CO2.
Other factors are seldom considered. The mining activity necessary to build wind turbines and solar panels (from components of steel to rare earth minerals). We tend to ignore these because much of the mining and production occur in other countries. Even the production of the concrete, rebar, and other construction materials has huge impact, as does the actual process of construction. We seldom even consider the scale necessary to "replace" existing energy. We don't see much publicized in terms of square miles of terrain to be cleared and prepared for renewables nor the total number required to achieve whatever the goal is (assume total replacement). The problem is far murkier than a simple X good, Y bad. We can agree on a need to get away from fossil fuels, the problem is in the propaganda and technological limitations surrounding how that happens. As you mentioned, both sides are overly addicted to and reliant upon the conflict to move on to the difficult and time consuming exploration of decent alternatives.
All correct. Moving from fossil fuels to renewables will take at least a century, while the demand for petrochemicals will continue rising.
One other bit. When I used to completely define myself as a lefty, although not a Dem, I'd occasionally buy a magazine called Adbusters. One issue had a full page that was empty except for this sentence: "Humanity needs to find the courage to allow itself to go extinct."
So, if the Left truly believes that fossil fuels will end us, why are they complaining?
Do they have wisher's remorse?
Maybe they should just make up their fucking minds.
Pff. I hope they keep running over the cliff. Big Picture: When we're gone things will go one as they always have, until the sun burps a layer and burns it all off.
One of the "Great Filters" of the Fermi Paradox (yes, I know, not really a paradox) is the instability of so many stars, compared to our rather placid one, and the sensitivity of intelligent species to the effects of super volcanoes, vast solar flares, extreme variations in stellar outputs and the impacts of meteors, asteroids, comets, etc.
Matter of fact, if you look at the wide range of natural phenomena that would terminate our "advanced" civilization, we are way past "living on borrowed time".
And since we're going anyway, before it happens I would dearly love to see the more virtuous among us setting a good example by "allowing themselves to go extinct". I promise to graciously laud their high moral precedent. There could be tears.
I don't see the point. Every iota of fossil fuels will be burnt until it runs out. Why? It's cheap energy. Even a government that agreed to curb it's use would be overthrown or dominated by those who are willing to use the cheap energy. Look at China. The use of this energy enables economic and ultimately military hegemony.
Under the circumstances, those trying to stop pipelines and such are tilting at windmills. Why do things that can only have impact in the smallest ways? Might as well belly up to the trough until the music stops playing, in the worst kind of mixed metaphor. Get the tribe some money for that pipeline.
They actually DO bely up to the trough. My friend up in BC Canada is on his tribal council and told me that the band offices all got together and voted to approve of the Keystone Pipeline.
A month later, all these white cunt hippies showed up from Vancouver and started offering native people free beer to come march with them for photo ops.
Repeat: the tribal councils from all of the bands involved APPROVED the pipeline so that they could finally make some money to help their own people live a better life and the hippies showed up to ruin it.
China doesn't have, nor will it achieve, economic and military hegemony because of their willingness to use fossil fuels - they might, repeat...MIGHT, achieve it for no other reason than so many people in the West (re rapacious globalists/hyper-capitalists) gave it to them.
I think you are underestimating their actual productive effort. A lengthy war with the Chinese would expose the hollowness the Western industrial base. They also have seized monopoly share on some commodities by making the costs prohibitive to compete in the West, think rare earths. Their web of clients in Asia and Africa restrict supply to the West if we do not play ball with them.
All of this activity is powered with fossil fuels, primarily coal.
The Nazis had a similar view of the US in 1941. Makers of razor blades and records or some such.
That "whoosh" you heard over your head was you missing the point. So, for the benefit of those in the nose bleed/cheap seats....
China is "powerful" because "we" made them that way. That is all.
China is powerful because the most powerful among us made them that way. And on the way to making China powerful, those most powerful among us got richer than hell.
I think we didn't fight it at the point when it could have been hindered, but their execution of their economic plan was all them. Late 90s was the turning point, and what was done then will look like 1930s appeasement does today.
Lengthy war with the Chinese? Any war between the U.S. or any other Western nation will last all of 10 minutes.
that's war between the Chinese, U.S. or any other western nation.
In practice that is not how it is going to go. The military disagrees also, and while they are not oracles about how combat goes, they do usually have a good idea of the timeframe of conflict. If anything, they'd tend to underestimate the length of conflicts, and they seem to have arrived on the 3-6 month figure.
At the outer edge of that, all prewar stocks are essentially fired off and you're relying on your industrial base to replenish.
By 10 minutes, I was referring to a nuclear exchange. The military war games every imaginable scenario. But do you really think that the U.S. (and allies?) and China would, or could, fight a protracted, conventional war? Without it escalating into a nuclear exchange? what I hear it's cyberwar time anyway. Guns are passe and obsolete for the big boys. All that shit---tanks, F-16s, ships, subs, etc.---those are just toys we get in exchange from the defense contractor welfare queens for keeping them on the dole.
That's not what Larry WIlkerson (and I don't have reasons to doubt him on this) says. Every war game proceeds to nuclear pretty rapidly.
Cheap energy is cheap until it isn't.
It's cheap to the burner unless they take into account externalities which cannot be accurately predicted, so it's just cheap at that point.
Here is what "cheap energy is cheap until it isn't" means. The "externalities" of fossil fuel consumption are already well known and have been as long as we've been burning fossil fuels. Not only can these externalities be accurately predicted, they are accurately predicted.
And not only are they accurately predicted (forecast), the costs of these externalities can---and are--- accurately measured, assessed, and calculated.
Externality: "....a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved."
We know damn well what the side effects and consequences of burning fossil fuels are. They are just not "reflected in the cost" of burning them. But when the final bill comes due.....
If we can't predict the co2 effect on climate, which we can't, and 50 years of failed predictions bear me out on this, the externality remains unknown.
Who said anything about the "Co2 effect on climate?" Of course we can predict the "Co2 effect on climate." Why are you introducing a completely different subject that has no bearing on our last exchange? Of course we can predict the effect of Co2 on climate. We just can't predict all the effects from Co2 on climate. Not accurately all the time, but we do know that these effects are not good effects.
What specific Co2 effects on climate are you offering up for discussion? There are lots of'em, and none to pleasant I'm afraid. There are myriad "externalities," to use your phrase, attached to fossil fuel use. Dozens, if not hundreds. Briefly, and most obviously, the deletrious effects it has on human health, the environment, and the air we breathe. Break each of those categories down, and they each contain countless "externalities. Ever hear of an oil spill? Those, I'm told are whoppers of externalities. The 8 million people a year that die from pollution linked to fossil fuel-produced particulates and smog? That's a big externality, especially for those 8 million. Use your imagination, kid---or better yet, do a little research before entering the comment portion of our programming here at TK.
We know that increasing amounts of Co2 greatly affect the atmosphere, and we know how those effects affect us. What we don't know is what the effects on the atmosphere in the future will look like, because, yes, it's the future.
And how about presenting a nice little sample basket of your "50 years of failed predictions," whatever the hell that means. Must be a lot of "em. And predictions of what, exactly? You need to spell this out. UFO sightings? I'm beginning to think you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Bear yourself out boy, bear yourself out. You certainly don't know what an externality is, and that's what got this whole damn discussion going.
I wonder if Warren Buffet pays the protestors more than minimum wage, do they have employer paid insurance, taxes withheld, railroad workers pensions, etc. Maybe the IRS and OSHA should look in on these activities.
Do you have any actual evidence that Buffet paid these protesters? Besides. I thought George Soros was the universal boogeyman for this sort of thing. Is he on summer holiday?
I didn't say he was paying anyone anything, I said I wonder if he is; but he strikes me as enough of a lowlife to do so. I am quite certain there is a 50% chance he is in someway involved.
There could be plural universal boogeymen. Can you name them?
Didn't one of the Koch brothers pass away recently? Also, Sheldon Adelson?
"Can you name them?"
Don't have to - I'm not the one making the claim.
Just say "Trump". Guaranteed truth. No evidence required.
Good point. Buffet invested in trains knowing the safer, more efficient pipelines would be protested. Sharp.
What trains? The U.S. has zero high speed rail. Uzbekistan has more than that. Besides, if we are going to have to rely on billionaire investor/philanthropists to have nice things, what kind of country is this?
The statement meant oil is being transported by rail instead of pipeline. People give Warren Buffet a hard time because he owns many shares in railways. I doubt the claim Warren is behind cancelling Keystone, but folks always need something to gossip about.
Ah ok. I get your point.
I suspect you have as much evidence to support your conclusion as I have to support mine, correct? As for him owning shares in railroad, I couldn't care less, but he strikes me as greedy enough to at least attempt to manipulate situations to enhance his portfolio.
While he has obviously gotten rich, it isn't because he is creative, it's because he manipulates. He takes over companies created by others, and at least several times has run them into the ground, causing people to lose jobs and savings. Consider the recent history of Russell Corporation.
But good ol' Warren really, really does want the government to make him pay more in taxes......
Now that I was informed he has stakes in rail and that rail is used to transit oil, hey, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he was helping to fund activities that might enhance his own portfolio and hurt competing ones.
Yeah and what you've described is basically how vulture private equity firms operate. Take over a functioning, even thriving, company, gut them by laying people off in order to increase short term shareholder value, kill off the R&D division, do a round or two of stock buybacks and then cash out leaving the company to rot. American capitalism at work, baby!
Buffet is a monopoly prospector. He sniffs out mid-range, back-alley, under-the-radar businesses with firm balance sheets that dominate their particular market.
Hahaha, that's funny
There is something you might want to look into Mr. Tabbi. Remember when they had the Standing Rock Pipeline protests? There was a lot of shady actions from federal authorities from the little I could find out about it. Then there was the Bundy Standoff. If you ever read the Judge's affidavit about why she threw the case out with prejudice, you will find out how little the "official" story met reality. I would be interested in someone digging deeper into the use of federal lands and how federal officials abuse their power in conjunction with media support to get their way time and again.
The Bundy affiliated wildlife sanctuary protesters were also acquitted by a federal jury in Portland.
"Activists say the development violates treaties and will have serious environmental consequences, and the Biden administration has been conspicuously silent about it."
When has the United States government or the banking/energy/war-making profiteers that own it ever had any qualms about violating treaties?
Besides: The US Is Not Agreement Capable Because It Is Ungovernable. The presidents and the administrations are not in charge. The permanent regime (whose representatives I mentioned above) is.
https://anti-empire.com/the-us-is-not-agreement-capable-because-it-is-ungovernable/
I apologize for the following comment.
Tribal elders say, "Casinos...destroy lives...bring much wampum to tribe. Casinos good.
Pipeline...keeps country running...brings no wampum to tribe. Pipeline bad."
You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming. Please don't forget to pick up your Great Spirit coaster set on your way out.
Pipeline protests exist to protect the railroad oil shipment business
Warren Buffet is probably financing the protests.
The day of two paths is about ripe. When treaties are broken, they are no longer valid. Each party then takes the actions that they see fit, according to intuition and discernment. Sometimes, those are not popular or politically "correct", but they are right in the eyes of your spirit. So, choose. As children of the earth, it is our responsibility to protect her, or perish as fools. There is no differentiation between banks, governments, and corporations. Black Rock, Bill Gates, Amazon, are but a few among the giants who are land grabbing; staking a claim in the end game they call the Great Reset. Strategic survival of the elites through collapse. The creation of covert covid weapons of mass destruction, lead the masses to take their "medicine" to get the carrot; the freedoms taken from you, with your consent. Ivermectin suppression, censorship of professors and wise elders. The ancestors knew, nobody owns a planet! As if they created it themselves! Ha! The light laughs from beyond the veil. Indigenous law will surely rise through the ashes of our humiliation. Communities that feed themselves carry the ability to free themselves. Everything is energy. It's all a game. Who represents your interests? What do you value? Be your own guru! Peace, peace, peace.
That was a refreshing break from the inescapable TK pablum.