NationStates Jolt Archive

:D:)
Halleluah Brothers and Sisters!
This is what the world was waiting for! Hopefully Obama will put big bucks behind it!

What better way to fight the recession than with US dollars in the fight against global warming. Okay, you argue, but it's bucks that the US doesn't necessarily have.
Well, hey! The neo-cons that cried poor on fighting global warming did such a great djob with the economy, didn't they?

Unless countries take their lead from the US it ain't gonna happen.

Obama begins teardown of Bush climate policy
Stephen Collinson
January 27, 2009 - 2:09PM
President Barack Obama began to shred Bush administration climate policies, signing measures to encourage production of fuel-efficient cars and vowing to lead the fight against global warming.

In another sign of change, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton picked a veteran of the Kyoto Protocol talks as her envoy for climate change, as world leaders target a historic global warming pact this year.

"We will make it clear to the world that America is ready to lead," Obama said, in an apparent swipe at former president George W. Bush's reluctance to take control of international efforts to combat climate change.

"To protect our climate and our collective security, we must call together a truly global coalition," the president said at a White House ceremony.

The climate moves followed Obama's moves last week to engineer a sharp change of direction in US several key national security, foreign and social policies, following his inauguration a week ago.

Obama signed memoranda aimed to prod the struggling US auto industry to design new fuel-efficient vehicles to lessen US dependence on energy sources which he said bankroll dictators, and to spur the US economy.

"The days of Washington dragging its heels are over," Obama said.

"My administration will not deny facts -- we will be guided by them," Obama said, in an apparent dig at Bush aides accused of subverting science for ideological reasons.

Obama required the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider whether to grant California a waiver to regulate car emissions blamed for contributing to global warming.

The Bush administration had blocked efforts by the vast western state and a dozen others to impose their own limits on carbon dioxide gas emissions.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reacted with delight.

"With this announcement from President Obama less than a week into his administration, it is clear that California and the environment now have a strong ally in the White House," he said in a statement.

Obama ordered the Transportation Department to produce guidelines to require US cars to reach average fuel efficiency of 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

There was a generally positive reaction from the "Big Three" auto giants, several of which are dependent on government cash to survive.

General Motors said it was "working aggressively on the products and the advance technologies that match the nation's and consumers' priorities to save energy and reduce emissions," and was ready to work with Obama and Congress.

The 11 member Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which includes Ford and Chrysler said it was also ready to work with the administration.

While promising action at home, Obama also made clear he would ask for action from giant developing economies to do more to limit greenhouse gases.

"I've made it clear that we will act, but so too must the world."

"That's how we will deny leverage to dictators and US dollars to terrorists, and that's how we will ensure that nations like China and India are doing their part, just as we are now willing to do ours."

Environmentalists praised Obama, after years battling the White House on climate change issues.

"It's a terrific beginning," David Yarnold, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund told AFP.

"It fires the starting gun for millions of new jobs, and amplifying the stimulus package and welding it to environmental benefits -- and it highlights how those issues are inseparable."

Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope welcomed the California move.

"This action deserves the loudest applause, President Obama is making good on campaign promises and sending yet another signal that global warming and clean energy are top priorities for his administration."

In another sharp break from Bush, Clinton picked Todd Stern as her envoy for climate change, a State Department official said.

Stern is a former Clinton White House official with experience at Kyoto and Buenos Aires climate change negotiations.

Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 dealing a blow to global climate change efforts, warning it would deal damage the US economy.

The Clinton administration agreed the Protocol but the pact was never ratified by the Senate.

© 2009 AFP

Source: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/obama-begins-teardown-of-bush-climate-policy-20090127-7qm5.html

You got my hopes up. I thought we were dismissing all of that silly nonsense.

Excellent.

Everyone who likes decent cars better buy them up now, it won't be long till we're all driving shit boxes.

Oh noez! It's clearly a devious plot by Sauron to bring sunshine and clean air to Mordor and the rest of Middle Earth!!!

Maybe the next step could be to let go of the marketing slogan?

Does that mean I have to stop using the copy of Kyoto Clinton signed as a floor mat ???
Dang I really liked that gift from Bush.

You know, some talking head on CNN recently referred to Obama's Inauguration as 'Woodstock without the mud'. Now I know why I wasn't invited. :(

You know, some talking head on CNN recently referred to Obama's Inauguration as 'Woodstock without the mud'. Now I know why I wasn't invited. :(

you need mud ?

you need mud ?

Mud to him is like air to us. Right now he's soaking his feet in a tub of mud.

Everyone who likes decent cars better buy them up now, it won't be long till we're all driving shit boxes.

There are decent cars in the USA ?

There are decent cars in the USA ?Non-domestic ones. :p

Oh God...

If there's anything that's going to help California dig out of its near $50 billion deficit, it's higher emission restrictions from CARB.

I also want to know why the Big 3 are suddenly warm to the idea that they'll have to increase average gas mileage on their autos so drastically in a decade after spending decades lobbying against the same restriction.

Oh God...

If there's anything that's going to help California dig out of its near $50 billion deficit, it's higher emission restrictions from CARB.

I also want to know why the Big 3 are suddenly warm to the idea that they'll have to increase average gas mileage on their autos so drastically in a decade after spending decades lobbying against the same restriction.

Because they are willing to jump through hoops to make sure the govt keeps bailing them out.

Because they are willing to jump through hoops to make sure the govt keeps bailing them out.

True... though I did feel they would put a bit of a fight in relation to these restrictions.

But I guess it's whatever it takes to keep the word of dissent out of the press and in the ears of consumers, eh?

There are decent cars in the USA ?

Yep, Plenty. I love my Chevy.

There are decent cars in the USA ?

Indeed. The 80's mess in the US auto world is behind us now. American autos have been improving considerably since the mid-90's. Ford and Chevy have compared favorably with the best from Japan and Germany in similar product categories for the last few years.

Indeed. The 80's mess in the US auto world is behind us now. American autos have been improving considerably since the mid-90's. Ford and Chevy have compared favorably with the best from Japan and Germany in similar product categories for the last few years.

Hell yeah, I owned a Civic SI for about a year, loved it. Great car. BUT

I am happy to say, my 08 Impala SS is built just as well, its great on gas for what it is, even handles decently ( not as good as my Honda did ). Leather interior, power everything, 100,000 mile power train warranty, whats not to love?

They still suck though. Since 1960s, American cars were "leather interior, power everything, accommodate people with BMI over 60", and forget everything that actually makes a vehicle a car.

As much as I am for cleaner cars, I actually agreed with the argument that it was a bad idea to let individual states come up with their own standards beyond the scope of what they actually do. It's one thing to have to build to different standards for different countries, but 50 different standards in one country is a bit much. I know the idea is that they'll just build to the most stringent standard, especially if that one is set by the biggest car consuming state, but still.

We'll see. Road & Track just tested the Tesla to a perceived range of 143 miles knocking it about a bit. Encouraging. Now, if one of you will lend me $100,000...

We'll see. Road & Track just tested the Tesla to a perceived range of 143 miles knocking it about a bit. Encouraging. Now, if one of you will lend me $100,000...

Were they able to sort out the issue they were having with their 2 spd. gearbox or did they have to resort to using the lower speed?

As for individual standardization, this would make it incredibly difficult for auto manufacturers to sell their cars in differing states, as they would need to produce specialized models for each state (a practice already seen in California, as per emissions mandates) and interstate auto trade would essentially be killed off.

Everyone who likes decent cars better buy them up now, it won't be long till we're all driving shit boxes.

Right, because the days where American built cars don't crumple like tin foil in a collision are soon to be over. :rolleyes:

Right, because the days where American built cars don't crumple like tin foil in a collision are soon to be over. :rolleyes:

You realize American cars are some of the safest on the road right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsPDGJ3HeBA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuveANl4mVY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2pNBiUuNcA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT-VBO4O55A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9ObQVf-VNs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lc3obI0sFk&feature=related

I can go on, in every single test, in every car the passenger compartment always holds. Interesting fact that in the 80s and early 90s, alot of Japanese cars had to be modified to be sold in the US because they could not meet crash standards. ( they mostly just added I-beams to the doors and bumpers )

Modern American cars have amazing safety, I was once in a head on collision in a 2005 Ford Taurus with a late model Celica. He slammed into us at about 50mph, he had to be ambulanced away in bad condition, we just opened the doors and got out, no problems.

In the past few years, American car makers have REALLY stepped it up. They're great cars nowadays.

Don't quote youtube videos aka anecdotal evidence, quote NCAP.

Were they able to sort out the issue they were having with their 2 spd. gearbox or did they have to resort to using the lower speed?


Single gear reduction drive. Sacrificed some top speed for weight and ease, apparently.
This, let's emphasize, is with a single-gear reduction drive (unlike the initial concept's 2-speed gearbox). The latter proved pesky in development; indeed, none of our Tesla drives ever involved a fully operational 2-speed. On the other hand, the primary reason for it was to extend top end, and Tesla finally decided the game wasn't worth the candle: A top speed exuberantly beyond anything legal is quite sufficient. Plus, weight and complexity were saved

As an air-cooled VW owner, I likey simplicity. (I got the range wrong, it's 132 thinking that in Max Range mode they might actually see the 231/224 ranges. This was my biggest thing for the Tesla, when it was announced and they were saying "250 mile range" I was on the 'bullshit' side even though I wanted it to work. Stoked that they they're close, since I was going to be surprised if they maxed close to 100.)

Modern American cars have amazing safety, I was once in a head on collision in a 2005 Ford Taurus with a late model Celica. He slammed into us at about 50mph, he had to be ambulanced away in bad condition, we just opened the doors and got out, no problems.

In the past few years, American car makers have REALLY stepped it up. They're great cars nowadays.

I find that those that relate the relative "ease" that it takes to crumple an American car to its safety do not know what constitutes a "safe" car in the first place and, furthermore, why crumple zones are so damn useful in driver injury protection.

I just love the title for the thread - "US takes lead on climate change"

Shouldn't it say "US finally wakes up to what the rest of the world has being doing for years" or something similar

It may be hard to take the lead when you are so far behind in the race, but good luck, honestly

you need mud ?

SOmetimes my very presence at parties causes mud. *nod*

Don't quote youtube videos aka anecdotal evidence, quote NCAP.

How the fuck is NCAP going to help me? I don't live in Europe.

So what's it going to be: cars powered by hydrogen cells and with silicon solar collectors as bodies?

So what's it going to be: cars powered by hydrogen cells and with silicon solar collectors as bodies?

Depends... how long until overproduction of batteries produce a sizeable amount of toxic materials and waste?

Also, the Feds are looking to change their means of Highway Transportation Fund fundraiser by eliminating the tax on gas and, instead, taxing each person by mileage. Should be interesting to see how that goes...

a modest step in the right direction. a major step away from the wrong one.
now if he could just make the banks EARN their bailout too.

probably as much as the american public is ready for at one time.
i can think of moar. this is good though. really good.

what we really need are cleaner trains and busses and a LOT more of them.
'ice-tea' with cream and sugar.
(THAT will create jobs, help the environment, AND boost the economy)

now i feel even more then hope. one more step of vindication for it.

Also, the Feds are looking to change their means of Highway Transportation Fund fundraiser by eliminating the tax on gas and, instead, taxing each person by mileage. Should be interesting to see how that goes...
Suckers, my odometer has never worked!!! Muhah-hmmm...probably thought of that, I'm guessing...

Suckers, my odometer has never worked!!! Muhah-hmmm...probably thought of that, I'm guessing...

XD

Honestly, I have no idea... considering there will always be a contingent of people insistant on driving cars from before the now-extinct (at least in California) smog exemption rollback period, myself included, they'll probably just eventually roll back the tax into oblivion.

You realize American cars are some of the safest on the road right?
..
..
In the past few years, American car makers have REALLY stepped it up. They're great cars nowadays.
According to YouTube Smart wins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s


:tongue:

edit:
I just love the title for the thread - "US takes lead on climate change"

Shouldn't it say "US finally wakes up to what the rest of the world has being doing for years" or something similar

It may be hard to take the lead when you are so far behind in the race, but good luck, honestly

Let's not apply global perspective to US point of view...it only creates confusion. :)

edit 2:
I actually saw a bit of Obama's press - or whatnot - conference on BBC World live and was completely taken by surprise seeing how competent and efficient he appeared while speaking.

I'm also 95% sure he won't get another term in office because, let's face it, he's going to step on too many toes and doesn't mention God and Country often enough.

Ooh! What a smart, smart car! Clever Poms who designed it too!
You can tell it's the UK in the You Tube segment because it's raining during the test.

I hope they build smart cars!

You don't take the lead if you have just figured this out, many years behind most Western countries.

A centralized, top-down response to climate change is a horrifically bad idea.

Climate change is only bad to the extent that it negatively impacts human activities.

The focus should be on the most efficient (in terms of benefits gained for resources used) means of countering the negative effects of climate change on human activity. Perhaps this means stopping it beforehand--but it could conceivably also be the case that the most efficient means is to reactively respond to the consequences after the fact, especially since it's possible that climate change could have positive effects that could compensate for at least some of its negative effects.

No single, monolithic entity can ever possess the information or information-processing capability to reliably untangle this web. There's just too much to deal with, and the relationships are too complex.

The free market, being the single most reliable distributed information-gathering and information-processing mechanism ever devised by man, is the only institution that has the capability to deal with climate change in the most efficient way possible.

I just love the title for the thread - "US takes lead on climate change"

Shouldn't it say "US finally wakes up to what the rest of the world has being doing for years" or something similar

It may be hard to take the lead when you are so far behind in the race, but good luck, honestly

if we cant take the lead we are not doing it. that's the American way.

A centralized, top-down response to climate change is a horrifically bad idea.

Climate change is only bad to the extent that it negatively impacts human activities.

The focus should be on the most efficient (in terms of benefits gained for resources used) means of countering the negative effects of climate change on human activity. Perhaps this means stopping it beforehand--but it could conceivably also be the case that the most efficient means is to reactively respond to the consequences after the fact, especially since it's possible that climate change could have positive effects that could compensate for at least some of its negative effects.

No single, monolithic entity can ever possess the information or information-processing capability to reliably untangle this web. There's just too much to deal with, and the relationships are too complex.

The free market, being the single most reliable distributed information-gathering and information-processing mechanism ever devised by man, is the only institution that has the capability to deal with climate change in the most efficient way possible.

Yeah, NO. I'm all for a free market, but you're basically making religious affirmations with 'free market' substituted for 'our lord.'

Trusting in the free market (which, uh, doesn't exist by the way, at least not in the US) is ethically similar to trusting in natural selection and weeding out the weak. Sure, maybe it produces results, but the cost is too high - morally speaking, of course.

I'm one of those free market advocates who realizes that free enterprise isn't going to provide certain things that only a government agency can provide. Things like uh, national defense and foreign policy, among many others. It is unrealistic and a little insulting to be told essentially that free-market ideals that not even Republicans really hold, let alone practice will solve the global climate change problems. Somehow.

if we cant take the lead we are not doing it. that's the American way.

You make a good point G and D. That was the newspaper headline. I guess the media see Obama's joining the fight against global warming as the US taking the lead because the US is still the dominant power.....as well as being the world's biggest polluter.
America has always had a great deal of clout. Under Bush, climate change denial was encouraged and he did all he can to block America joining the fight

We're going to change tacks on the environment so quickly that the world's collective head will spin.

Then we will harness that spinning to power our cars and industries. :)

It is unrealistic and a little insulting to be told essentially that free-market ideals will solve the global climate change problems. Somehow.

Did you bother to read and comprehend my full argument, or did you just see "free market" and knee-jerk?

Did you bother to read and comprehend my full argument

Yes, as indicated by my thorough rebuttal of it.

, or did you just see "free market" and knee-jerk?

Right, it's only a coincidence that my response appears to be a response to yours. In reality it's some completely unrelated anti-free-market rant that I'm so infamous for blurting out at every opportunity. :rolleyes:

Of course, it seems that Obama is looking at non-oil based fuels.

One hopes he is not so moronic to use corn-type flavours...

Maybe the next step could be to let go of the marketing slogan?

Only in America can a politician use the slogan of a children's cartoon character and be taken seriously.

...I still say the creators of Bob the Builder should sue.

In the real world we call global warming Summer and it lasts only a few months out of the year, frankly we could use a little global warming in my part of the world.

In the real world we call global warming Summer and it lasts only a few months out of the year, frankly we could use a little global warming in my part of the world.

Were you being facetious when you said "real world," or am I just being optimistic?

Were you being facetious when you said "real world," or am I just being optimistic?

I guess he doesn't live in Florida or on any coast really. Maybe he's one of those Arizona beachfront guys?

Ooh! What a smart, smart car! Clever Poms who designed it too!
You can tell it's the UK in the You Tube segment because it's raining during the test.

I hope they build smart cars!

I'm pretty sure the Germans designed it and they do build them. I saw them 10 years ago in Switzerland and France and have seen them all over Europe since. In fact, I even saw one here in Michigan the other day. I wanted to buy one when I was in Germany in 2002 but they didn't make them in US specs yet.

Of course, it seems that Obama is looking at non-oil based fuels.

One hopes he is not so moronic to use corn-type flavours...
If I recall I've heard him speak in favor of both corn based fuels and 'clean' coal, unfortunately. Fortunately, however, he seems to be someone who reacts to new information so if the enviromental community can press on him how corn based ethanol is one step forward and two back he might actually respond with something other than "Why do you hate America?"
I'm pretty sure the Germans designed it and they do build them. I saw them 10 years ago in Switzerland and France and have seen them all over Europe since. In fact, I even saw one here in Michigan the other day. I wanted to buy one when I was in Germany in 2002 but they didn't make them in US specs yet.
They're all over San Francisco now. The coolest thing I've seen is a Smart and an old Fiat 500 sharing a single parking space on the side of the road.

You make a good point G and D. That was the newspaper headline. I guess the media see Obama's joining the fight against global warming as the US taking the lead because the US is still the dominant power.....as well as being the world's biggest polluter.
America has always had a great deal of clout. Under Bush, climate change denial was encouraged and he did all he can to block America joining the fight

I was just thinking more along the lines that we are the types to demand to take charge of something or completely ignore it.

Were you being facetious when you said "real world," or am I just being optimistic?

You're being horribly optimistic.

Edit: Although he's using the wrong argument for the present time. What he was supposed to say was "Global warming? Guess what, libs. It's cold outside. http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm199/God_of_the_Bloody_Tongue/emotes/emot-smug.gif"

I just love the title for the thread - "US takes lead on climate change"

Shouldn't it say "US finally wakes up to what the rest of the world has being doing for years" or something similar

It may be hard to take the lead when you are so far behind in the race, but good luck, honestly
That's kinda how I see it too...

Mileage based, huh? hmmm...so we're going to penalize agriculture, people who live where they can afford to live and travel to where there's work.

Great.

They can't force us all to live in human hives any other way, so now they're going to try destroying the economic lives of anyone who doesn't live in a city centre, and isn't independently wealthy.

Mileage based, huh? hmmm...so we're going to penalize agriculture, people who live where they can afford to live and travel to where there's work.

Great.

They can't force us all to live in human hives any other way, so now they're going to try destroying the economic lives of anyone who doesn't live in a city centre, and isn't independently wealthy.

As near as I can tell from this post, you don't actually know what the word "mileage" means.

What better way to fight the recession than with US dollars in the fight against global warming.

Fail. Epic fail. "Oh no, we're in a recession! Hey, I know what to do, let's throw fuckloads of money at invisible CO2! That'll save us!"

Yes, as indicated by my thorough rebuttal of it.
You made no such rebuttal. You basically said "not!" without actually explaining why each of my points were bad (as regards complexity, trade-offs, etc.)

You made no such rebuttal. You basically said "not!" without actually explaining why each of my points were bad (as regards complexity, trade-offs, etc.)

rebuttals are against the first principles of the universe.

There are decent cars in the USA ?

Non-domestic ones. :p

Lies.

My car is an 8 year old Saturn and it runs fine.

This is good news!

I hope the car industry can create efficient cars that actually look like cars.

Make Ford Mustangs that get 50+ mpg!

You made no such rebuttal.

No. I did. And I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly just because you feel like playing a game of "noyadint!" when its RIGHT THERE.

You basically said "not!" without actually explaining why each of my points were bad (as regards complexity, trade-offs, etc.)

You didn't explain why your so-called points were good. There were a lot of "shoulds" and bald assertions with absolutely nothing to back them up. I didn't see the need to go into detail. My points remain, and I'm rather flattered that apparently they were so successful that you can't even bear to acknowledge them, let alone read and respond. I didn't "basically say, 'not!'" but if that's what you need to believe then don't let me interfere with what looks like a touching romance between yourself and your healthy imagination.

I was just thinking more along the lines that we are the types to demand to take charge of something or completely ignore it.

The proof of that pudding is when the Republicans pulled the plug on poor old Woodrow Wilson and let the League of Natioons wither on the vine.

Thanks to Truman (The buck stops here!) that never happened to the U.N.

A centralized, top-down response to climate change is a horrifically bad idea.

Climate change is only bad to the extent that it negatively impacts human activities.

The focus should be on the most efficient (in terms of benefits gained for resources used) means of countering the negative effects of climate change on human activity. Perhaps this means stopping it beforehand--but it could conceivably also be the case that the most efficient means is to reactively respond to the consequences after the fact, especially since it's possible that climate change could have positive effects that could compensate for at least some of its negative effects.

No single, monolithic entity can ever possess the information or information-processing capability to reliably untangle this web. There's just too much to deal with, and the relationships are too complex.

The free market, being the single most reliable distributed information-gathering and information-processing mechanism ever devised by man, is the only institution that has the capability to deal with climate change in the most efficient way possible.
The Free Market doesn't work with climate change because it only takes into account the factors that influence the price. The price of climate change takes place after the purchase. Therefore we can't sit back and let the market deal. We have to a) make a monetary incentive not to pollute and b) create a means to a sustainable living. Both of these need an outside influence and the government is there to be an outside influence.

We have to a) make a monetary incentive not to pollute

This is where you fail.

There is no reason to think that the best means of dealing with climate change is necessarily to stop it beforehand.

Perhaps it has good effects as well as bad, so that the most beneficial course of action will be to let it go on as it does, and then only take reactionary measures against the less-desirable side effects so that we can enjoy the benefits of the desirable side effects. Only the market has the information-processing capability to weigh those effects against one another.

This is where you fail.

There is no reason to think that the best means of dealing with climate change is necessarily to stop it beforehand.

Perhaps it has good effects as well as bad, so that the most beneficial course of action will be to let it go on as it does, and then only take reactionary measures against the less-desirable side effects so that we can enjoy the benefits of the desirable side effects. Only the market has the information-processing capability to weigh those effects against one another.

ummmm......the fuck?

Only the market has the information-processing capability to weigh those effects against one another.

Epic

This is where you fail.

Erm, are you actually arguing pollution is a good thing?

There is no reason to think that the best means of dealing with climate change is necessarily to stop it beforehand.

Perhaps it has good effects as well as bad, so that the most beneficial course of action will be to let it go on as it does, and then only take reactionary measures against the less-desirable side effects so that we can enjoy the benefits of the desirable side effects.

Oh, so "perhaps" global climate change isn't a bad thing, and "perhaps" pollution is really good.


Only the market has the information-processing capability to weigh those effects against one another.

You just keep repeating this. Is it from a Chick pamphlet or what?

This is where you fail.

There is no reason to think that the best means of dealing with climate change is necessarily to stop it beforehand.

The problem is that if it is, there is not much we can do about it later. Sure, the "free market with climate change world" of 100 years from now may be better than the "non free market world with climate change" would be then - but both will probably be vastly less desireable than the "nice world we can still comfortably live in" future.

Oh, so "perhaps" global climate change isn't a bad thing, and "perhaps" pollution is really good.

The argument appears to make as much sense as "perhaps shooting you in the face would do GOOD things for you, so instead of trying to stop me shooting you in the face, we should let me shoot you in the face, and then fix whatever bad things happened as a result of me...you know...shooting you in the face"

The argument appears to make as much sense as "perhaps shooting you in the face would do GOOD things for you, so instead of trying to stop me shooting you in the face, we should let me shoot you in the face, and then let the free market fix whatever bad things happened as a result of me...you know...shooting you in the face"

Fixed. You didnt pay homage to the libertarian diety.

Fixed. You didnt pay homage to the libertarian diety.

I should familiarize myself with her writings.

This is where you fail.

There is no reason to think that the best means of dealing with climate change is necessarily to stop it beforehand.

Perhaps it has good effects as well as bad, so that the most beneficial course of action will be to let it go on as it does, and then only take reactionary measures against the less-desirable side effects so that we can enjoy the benefits of the desirable side effects. Only the market has the information-processing capability to weigh those effects against one another.

There are free market actions involved here, however. A growing mass of people have begun to add value to an inherently consumable resource - the environment/their surroundings - and as such the market is beginning to shift.

Although I don't feel that we've reached the point where the intrinsic value of nature and people's surroundings has reached a point where they alone can dynamically alter the market without sufficient government subsidies and intervention, surely there must be something said about it.

There are decent cars in the USA ?

Only if you believe in fairy tales.

This is where you fail.

There is no reason to think that the best means of dealing with climate change is necessarily to stop it beforehand.

Perhaps it has good effects as well as bad, so that the most beneficial course of action will be to let it go on as it does, and then only take reactionary measures against the less-desirable side effects so that we can enjoy the benefits of the desirable side effects. Only the market has the information-processing capability to weigh those effects against one another.

It seems a bit costly to me if all those coastal cities and infrastructure were to be lost:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/3805011/2/istockphoto_3805011_rising_sea_levels_africa_and_europe.jpg

It seems a bit costly to me if all those coastal cities and infrastructure were to be lost

There is no reason to think that the best means of dealing with rising sea levels flooding our cities is necessarily to prevent it beforehand.

Perhaps it has good effects as well as bad, so that the most beneficial course of action will be to let it go on as it does, and then only take reactionary measures against the less-desirable side effects so that we can enjoy the benefits of the desirable side effects. Only eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand has the information-processing capability to weigh those effects against one another.

There is no reason to think that the best means of dealing with rising sea levels flooding our cities is necessarily to prevent it beforehand.

Perhaps it has good effects as well as bad, so that the most beneficial course of action will be to let it go on as it does, and then only take reactionary measures against the less-desirable side effects so that we can enjoy the benefits of the desirable side effects. Only eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand has the information-processing capability to weigh those effects against one another.


You win a series of tubes.

Actually, his point makes perfect sense if by "free market" we're talking post-singularity transhuman universal virtual marketplace.

But that's sort of reading something into it that isn't there.

K Of L, it would by catclysmic if the sea levels rose by say, 10 metres. Think of all the cities that are at 10 meters above the present sea level. Of course it would be relatively gradual but it's the sort of environmental disaster that could really trigger economic collapse. Think of the cities that would be underwater: London, Shanghai, Amsterdam, parts of L.A., N.Y., Miami, New Orleans, Melbourne, Sydney, Glasgow....Chumblywumbly would not have to go far to get his morning kippers.

SOmetimes my very presence at parties causes mud. *nod*
That reminds me of an anecdote from my sister-in-law regarding one of my little dudes' diapers today.
You know these things?
http://discovertechnology.com/Items/wooden%20toy%20shape%20sorter%20cube.jpg

K Of L, it would by catclysmic if the sea levels rose by say, 10 metres. Think of all the cities that are at 10 meters above the present sea level. Of course it would be relatively gradual but it's the sort of environmental disaster that could really trigger economic collapse. Think of the cities that would be underwater: parts of L.A., N.Y., Miami, New Orleans....Chumblywumbly would not have to go far to get his morning kippers.

And nothing of value was lost.

There is no reason to think that the best means of dealing with rising sea levels flooding our cities is necessarily to prevent it beforehand.

That is not what I said. Please don't build ridiculous strawmen.

Perhaps it has good effects as well as bad is what I said.

Rising sea levels would likely be a bad effect.

But perhaps there are good effects of climate change to counter the negative impact of rising sea levels, or are enough to make it worthwhile to let climate change continue and just build massive floodwalls to protect coastal cities.

But perhaps there are good effects of climate change to counter the negative impact of rising sea levels, or are enough to make it worthwhile to let climate change continue and just build massive floodwalls to protect coastal cities.
Y

Awesome idea

RLY



I'm truly amazed, it's the most awesome idea ever.
I mean, not only you get the thrill of betting on when will the wall collapse, but also destroy the very reason these cities were built where they are in the first place.

...Shanghai, Amsterdam, parts of L.A., N.Y., Miami, New Orleans, Glasgow....
And nothing of value was lost.
If it was just these ones, I would have to agree.

I'm truly amazed, it's the most awesome idea ever.
I mean, not only you get the thrill of betting on when will the wall collapse, but also destroy the very reason these cities were built where they are in the first place.

Congratulations, you have totally missed the forest for the trees.

But perhaps there are good effects of climate change to counter the negative impact of rising sea levels, or are enough to make it worthwhile to let climate change continue and just build massive floodwalls to protect coastal cities.

Yeah perhaps the free market build massive floodwalls to protect the coastal cities.

And perhaps climate change won't be so bad.

Perhaps flying monkeys will arrive to save flood victims.

Y

Awesome idea

RLY



I'm truly amazed, it's the most awesome idea ever.
I mean, not only you get the thrill of betting on when will the wall collapse, but also destroy the very reason these cities were built where they are in the first place.

I've got an idea. We'll build these sea walls. But, you know, "sea wall" is not a pretty term, sounds sort of like "sea weed". We should think of something prettier to call them.

How about...Levees? Levee sounds like a nice word. It sounds like "levitate", which means to rise. To rise above, to conquer these difficulties.

So we can build these "levees" surrounding cities, that are below sea level, to keep the water out. And once these "levees" are built, they will totally be 100% successful at stopping these cities, which are below sea level, from flooding. We know it will be successful because never in our history have we ever seen an example of levees failing, and cities below sea level getting flooded. Ever, at all.

In time, the citizens of these cities will come to love their silent guardians from the sea, faithfully (and infallably) protecting their cities from the harsh ocean. Perhaps they will even look out to these walls, and utter words of tribute and adoration. "Levee, you're doing a heck of a job"

Yeah perhaps the free market build massive floodwalls to protect the coastal cities.
Perhaps.

Another alternative is that it turns out to be more efficient to abandon those cities altogether. If the positive consequences of climate change outweigh the losses incurred by abandoning these cities (or whatever other means is used to counter the negative consequences of climate change), wouldn't it be worth it?

<sarky snip>
I'd love to see you in court.

Perhaps.

Another alternative is that it turns out to be more efficient to abandon those cities altogether.

I for one see nothing impractical about relocating 2.7 billion people (http://www.allconferences.com/conferences/20080303163505/).

If the positive consequences of climate change outweigh the losses incurred by abandoning these cities (or whatever other means is used to counter the negative consequences of climate change), wouldn't it be worth it?

The "positive consequences" of global climate change again. Would you mind listing what you think these are?

The "positive consequences" of global climate change again. Would you mind listing what you think these are?

Longer growing seasons, less long-term energy use for heating (partly--but not totally--offset by greater use for cooling, especially since cooling isn't the absolute necessity that heating is), etc.

Longer growing seasons,

Doubtful, ince, even though the summers are likely longer, they also will be hotter, and most things don't grow too well in too much heat.

Not to mention the effects dumping that much saltwater on the ground will have on the soil.

etc.

You mention two things, one of which is, probably, wrong, and the other seems to be "we won't spend as much on heat!" which is also probably not QUITE as true, since even though global warming might result in a net increase in temperature annually, fucking with the climate can, and probably will, also result in far more severe weather patterns on both sides of the spectrum.

So you'll have to do a lot better at explaining what that "etc" is.

Fantastic, more money into a political myth

More money for food as we keep twiddling our thumbs on the failed Ethanol ideas.

If the positive consequences of climate change outweigh the losses incurred by abandoning these cities (or whatever other means is used to counter the negative consequences of climate change), wouldn't it be worth it?
And the positive consequences are?

Spending more energy on air conditioning, thus helping the coal industry?

Or improving the agricultural conditions? But the 1st-2nd worlds aren't hungry already... but yes, yes, there are starving peoples. In Africa. That will help them.

Unless countries take their lead from the US it ain't gonna happen.

...

Obama ordered the Transportation Department to produce guidelines to require US cars to reach average fuel efficiency of 35 miles per gallon by 2020.


Meh. I wouldn't say that the US will take the lead by that move.

source: wiki, Volkswagen Polo

Engine: 1400 cc, Diesel
Fuel economy (L/100 km / US mpg) : 1.4 diesel 4.7 / 50.0 (motorway) , 8.5 / 33.2 (urban)
Engine: 1400 cc, petrol
Fuel Economy : 5.3 / 44.4 (motorway) , 9.2 / 25.6 (urban) , 6.9 / 34.1 (combined motorway/urban)
Engine: 1900 cc, turbodiesel 96kW
Fuel economy: 4.3 / 54.7 (motorway) , 6.8 / 34.6 (urban) , 5.2 / 45.2 (combined motorway/urban)


So, basically the US automotive majors think they can achieve by 2020 what Volkswagen already does with its cheapest car.

A step in the right direction, but not enough, I'd say.

Pfft! Obama keeps the White House heated! Obviously it's all a lie! :mad:

So, basically the US automotive majors think they can achieve by 2020 what Volkswagen already does with its cheapest car.

In the interest of pedantry you're cherrypicking the numbers you highlighted. What they're referring to is combined mpg, and you've highlighted motorway mpg in several places. Also, they're referring to the average combined mpg of all makes and models, including pickup trucks and SUVs, which will either have to be cut from lineups or something else done to compensate for their drag on the average mpg figure, like making sedans with exceptionally good mileage.

And for comparison's sake the Toyota Camry hybrid gets an average combined mpg of 34, so expecting the average of US vehicles to get a higher mileage than a Japanese hybrid is indeed expecting some serious change.

In the interest of pedantry you're cherrypicking the numbers you highlighted. What they're referring to is combined mpg, and you've highlighted motorway mpg in several places. Also, they're referring to the average combined mpg of all makes and models, including pickup trucks and SUVs, which will either have to be cut from lineups or something else done to compensate for their drag on the average mpg figure, like making sedans with exceptionally good mileage.

And for comparison's sake the Toyota Camry hybrid gets an average combined mpg of 34, so expecting the average of US vehicles to get a higher mileage than a Japanese hybrid is indeed expecting some serious change.

http://www.green-car-guide.com/features/rav4.htm

4x4s with a combined milage better than 35mpg already exist. It's not the major technological leap you make out.

http://www.green-car-guide.com/features/rav4.htm

4x4s with a combined milage better than 35mpg already exist. It's not the major technological leap you make out.

I'm not saying it's a technological leap, it's a technical leap. That SUV you've mentioned is a diesel electric hybrid, not a traditional gas engine. The American automakers (and Japanese automakers operating in the US) are going to have to completely retool their factories and supply chains to make their entire lineups have that sort of fuel economy.

I'm not saying it's a technological leap, it's a technical leap. That SUV you've mentioned is a diesel electric hybrid, not a traditional gas engine. The American automakers (and Japanese automakers operating in the US) are going to have to completely retool their factories and supply chains to make their entire lineups have that sort of fuel economy.

It's not a hybrid, it's a diesel. I don't see why Toyota would have any trouble re-tooling to produce more RAV4s, they make it already.

The days of Washington dragging its heels are over.

Umm... so I get he's new to the office... but really? Doesn't he understand how beauracracies work?

(This isn't so much an insult to Obama [though, I am aware, it is phrased as one, I couldn't think of a better way to be witty while displaying the message] as much as it is an observation of our government, and yea, every beauracracy.)

It's not a hybrid, it's a diesel. I don't see why Toyota would have any trouble re-tooling to produce more RAV4s, they make it already.

Quite right, I thought I saw that it was a hybrid.

It's not just a matter of retooling to produce more RAV4s, it's a matter of retooling to bring their other model lines up to speed as well.

Quite right, I thought I saw that it was a hybrid.

It's not just a matter of retooling to produce more RAV4s, it's a matter of retooling to bring their other model lines up to speed as well.

The US car producers needed to retool anyway. The fact they had to be bailed out by the government shows they needed to overhaul their ranges anyway, this new mpg requirement just forces them to do it in a responsible way.

Also, they're referring to the average combined mpg of all makes and models, including pickup trucks and SUVs,
They are considered trucks in US and are not subject to most environmental regulations.


And for comparison's sake the Toyota Camry hybrid gets an average combined mpg of 34, so expecting the average of US vehicles to get a higher mileage than a Japanese hybrid is indeed expecting some serious change.
Camry is, however, a full-size sedan, with even a pretense for what passes for luxury in Japan.

Most people in Europe drive cars even smaller than compact sedans, like hatchbacks.

There is no reason to think that the best means of dealing with rising sea levels flooding our cities is necessarily to prevent it beforehand.

Perhaps it has good effects as well as bad, so that the most beneficial course of action will be to let it go on as it does, and then only take reactionary measures against the less-desirable side effects so that we can enjoy the benefits of the desirable side effects. Only eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand has the information-processing capability to weigh those effects against one another.

Where have all the Ayn Rand references on the forum come from?

Where have all the Ayn Rand references on the forum come from?

Her ghost, lol

Yeah perhaps the free market build massive floodwalls to protect the coastal cities.

And perhaps climate change won't be so bad.

Perhaps flying monkeys will arrive to save flood victims.

Perhaps falling salinity levels and rising sea temperatures will result in a mass die-off of phytoplankton, removing the primary source of molecular oxygen in - oh wait that's something that could actually happen.*

*Seriously. It's not actually a threat, algal reproduction is fast enough that evolution of strains tolerant to the different temperature and salinity would most likely happen before oxygen levels fell low enough for things to get bad.**

**Industry might take a hit though, I'd have to check to see how much oxygen the works of humans consume.

Fantastic, more money into a political mythPraytell, what political directive *isn't* a myth that invariably sullies itself further with money?

Only eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand has the information-processing capability to weigh those effects against one another.
Too late. Have ta, with Neo Art of course, familiarize yourselves instead with her ghost. She flits around here every now & again.