' The truth - We will go extinct, very soon.' by reaverfan

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I wasn't laughing at the underlying concept. More at you and the harpies. You 3 make up the dumbest sh*t about other posters. "Wish says she wants to kill millions! OMG, wha!!!!"

Actually, that is EXACTLY what she posted, more than once. She one posted that she would be willing to kill "... millions! billions!" ... "down to the last hundred" in order to make her worldview come true. She has since deleted those parts of her posts (seeing that they looked crazed) but I'm not the only one who read them.

Quote:

Jack, I anyway appreciate this expanded glimpse into your view of the world. So I hope in the future you continue to expound on your thoughts like this. But I suspect that, sadly, anyone who doesn't feel they are in their tribe will simp.- KIKI

Riiiight, 'cuz Jack is so reticent with his opinions.

Did you enjoy having your goolies juggled, Jack?

There you go again, GSTRING! Perfectly gratutitous personal attacks, your usual MO!

I have no doubt at all about your capability of having a clean discussion. Or your ability to monitor your own behavior. Take that as you will.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 16, 2019 12:32 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

dbl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 16, 2019 12:33 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SIX, I agree with you on the "encouraging savings" part of your ideas. I would extend it to saying that the government should tax debt (in general) as opposed to making debt a deductible item. Not just mortgage debt but also credit card debt, business debt, financial debt, public debt, student debt, and trade deficit. That would make debt more expensive (effectively raising the interest rate) and ecourage every entity to "live within its means". That would definitely reduce short-term consumption.

But part of that would have to include relief for the bottom 90%. It's not fair to ask people who have very little to have even less. I agree that people REALLY need to adjust their thinking ... they need to make a distinction between "needs" and "wants" ... I once saw one of our caregivers buy her daughters expensive leather jackets that I know for a fact she couldn't afford. That kind of shit has to go. ... but people need to get to that point over time. Say, five years to allow them to adjust their finances. So I think it should be instituted in stages, to give people and institutions time to adjust their thinking.

The great thing about it is, you wouldn't have to rely on banks to implement this push to encourage savings. The groups that would fight you tooth and nail on this would be the banks (Because they make money on loans) and all of the businesses that are currently using loans for speculation. It would change the calculations on leveraged buyouts, stock buybacks and hedge funds considerably! A lot of non-productive use of money might disappear.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 16, 2019 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Voting, at least when it comes to this issue, is meaningless.

Quote:
Bullshit. Obama got us into the Paris Accord and Trump the Luddite, took us out - case closed. Voting for more progressive, Climate Aware candidates (no matter the party, but who we kiddin'?) is one of the top 3 ways to change the planet.

You tell me one thing that the Paris Accord actually did. Not what it claimed to do, or that it was going to do. What did it do. And at what cost?

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Does it matter to me? Sure. I guess. I'm likely not going to be here. I've talked about the issue before with my brother. I'm hoping that everything is still going along smoothly for my niece's entire life. But honestly, beyond that, no... I guess I'm not really all that concerned.

Quote:
Selfish - totally human.

Exactly.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Overall, I don't think that humanity in general really has earned the right to continue its existence in perpetuity. If the climate change doesn't get us, nuclear and/or biological war or enslavement via AI eventually will.

Quote:
Just dumb and overly dramatic. Life isn't a stupid tv show. Get real.

No it's not. We're apes. There are too many of us. We protect the weakest and the dumbest and allow them to thrive. You're the one here arguing about us needing to make changes or the climate change will do us in. I'm just saying that if it doesn't, either something else will or we'll willingly enslave ourselves to technology if we're lucky enough to survive that long.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
We're not far removed from being a bunch of apes, but the technology we have on the other hand is staggering. A bunch of morons walking around with technology that we could put down at any second but are drawn to like a meth head to a pipe. Enslavement via AI would be the happiest of the outcome. There would be no Terminator type end of the human race in the end. The AI would win with billions of willing participants. If we somehow manage to survive climate change, extinction level war, and some random asteroid putting a football stadium sized hole in the planet at the speed of sound, I envision a future future for humanity that is more a cross between Ready Player One and The Matrix, with a lot of Blade Runner sexbots on the front lines.

Quote:
Again, Get real, life isn't a stupid movie.

It's already happening, brother. All of the events that I've laid out here are making progress. Which one happens first is the only real question.

Sure, I might not care because it won't effect me, other than hoping that it all happens at least until my niece dies of old age, but at least I'm not burying my head in the sand about any of it.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
In the mean time, I sleep just fine at night. I recycle. Letters from the power company always show that my usage is "Great" and less than my "most efficient neighbors". I hardly ever buy anything new unless it is absolutely necessary to. Every piece of tech I have in my house is either over a decade old or was a hand me down from somebody else. Outside of underwear, socks and shoes, all of my current wardrobe is either over a decade old or was bought at Goodwill, and most of those clothes have about 5 different "stages" before they finally find their final resting place in the trash. I don't have any kids that will exponentially increase my carbon footprint throughout their lives.

Quote:
Sounds great - that's about all anyone can do. I work at home, so I buy gas once a month if that.

Great. But no matter what you or I do we are still a negative output. We're also far from the norm among billions of people.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
That's possible. But my point is that most of the people who partake in this type of activity are doing so to score the dopamine hit that comes with virtue signalling, and they do so while otherwise living a life of unbridled consumerism with no thought at all into how and where these products are made and under what conditions. No thoughts to all of the excessively needless packaging, particularly plastics, that come with every new item you buy. No thoughts at all of changing their own bad behavior to make the situation any better.

Quote:
You have no idea - that's your negative absolutism BS again. Plenty of people make comments about packaging, but by themselves they can't make the change. History is full of grass roots movement making a difference, though. MADD comes to mind.

Not enough to matter. I've worked on and off in retail all of my life. Packaging for products, not just as they sit on the shelves for consumption, but for how they are shipped is just as bad today as it was in the mid 90's. The only difference is how much more of it there is now.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Most charity is a tax break. We can eliminate any billionaires giving anything as being a "good deed" right there. It's in their best interests, and in this case the good of others just happens to coincide with something that works for them.

Quote:
That's BS. Plenty of people give small amounts that build into quite a large number and any tax break they might get is miniscule. It makes them feel good to help. And billionaires giving? Why can't it be BOTH? Bill Gates is trying to bring water to Africa. Sure, he gets to write off some of it, but Africa gets water - where's the problem exactly?

Why is he giving it to Africa, and not giving it to African Americans who are living in some of the most dangerous places in the world in our inner-cities? Why didn't he fix the water problem in Flint, MI? That could have been taken care of overnight by Gates.

Why do people donate $25 here or there instead of donating their time? Because it's cheap, it's easy, and it gives them the same hit of dopamine that getting likes for virtue signalling on Twitter does without having to get their hands dirty.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
And as for the sentence you underlined, laugh it up all you want. That is the ONLY way you're going to solve the problem, since this is a question of overpopulation of the planet and nothing else.

I'm not ever going to suggest who should live and die, or who should and shouldn't procreate. I'm just simply stating the fact that unless this were to happen than there is no reversing the damage that just grows exponentially as the underlying cause continues to grow exponentially.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
No. Wish actually does say that. Quite often, and in quite a few different ways.

Quote:
And you also think T is misspelling Oops when he spells it Opps. You're way too serious.

Yup. My calling out a historical trend of atrocious spelling and grammar is on par with calls to violence, calls for assassination, and letting everyone know who would live and die if they were in power. She also said that Mexicans are annoying. That was kind of hilarious, actually.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I realize that with the very limited pool of people here that post anymore these days that one might be tempted to form alliances with people who they would never do so in their real lives, but you need to take a step back and call out bad actors when they see them. When you don't, it comes off as if you condone the behavior or the ideas they present. Not at all because you said anything like that or even quoted them and agreeing with the posts... but simply because of the unmistakable alliances that we have made in the RWED over the years.

Despite all of my problems with T, he is the only person here who I've ever seen do that besides me. He took issue with stuff that Second said not once, but twice... and I'm very glad that he did because what he was saying was absolutely insane.

Quote:
I spend way less time here than you or the harpies and it's still tooo much time. So yeah, I pick my posting time carefully. If we had to post about everything we liked or didn't like... you get the idea. It's presumptuous and just plain goofy to assume just because I haven't typed, "I don't think people should eat baby seals" that I think it's ok.

That's not my point. Whether or not I think you think it's okay is irrelevant. It's whether or not THEY think you think it's okay that is. That is a point I've been trying to make about the Democrat party in general for quite a while now.

It's not as if the people I'm talking about and their behavior is a once in a blue moon thing that you might have missed because you don't post here as often as some of us do. You're here every day... maybe every other day. You've seen exactly what I'm talking about, and you've seen it quite often.

The difference between you and I here is that I'll step in and tell Rappy or JSF to tone down the (harmless) insults in the cinema thread because I think they misunderstood where somebody was coming from. You'll see absolute lunacy and violent rhetoric here in the RWED and just pretend that it wasn't said, rather than calling them out on it.

The point is. They're not going to listen to me. But they'd listen to you.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Sure. But one of the problems about that right now is that more than 50% of the population here in the states are living paycheck to paycheck and couldn't even afford to cover a $1,000 emergency. It's been that way for two decades now. Where is the money going to come from? This should have been happening back in the 90's and early 2000's when things were going a lot better for nearly everyone.

Quote:
Individuals are not the answer. Start with the greatest polluters, likely businesses, fossil fuel, etc.

And who do all of those costs get passed down to?

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I've suggested something that is never going to happen before, on more than one occassion. And yes, just like the billionaires who give charitably, it's something that is personally in my best interest but would also be good for everyone else.

Stop giving tax incentives and tax breaks to people for pumping out more kids. Stop taxing single people more than married people. Cut the "education" expenses of property taxes out for people who don't have kids and make the people who do have kids pay more.

Incentivize saving over rampant consumerism. This could be done by eliminating the Property Tax altogether and replacing it with a Mortgage Tax. You own your house free and clear without a loan from a financial institution? Congratulations! You don't have to pay tax on it anymore.

This would also double as a huge boon to seniors who live on a fixed income, especially those of the aging generations who might not get much Social Security when it's time to retire.

Quote:
Those are awesome ideas! Really - just great. Call your rep and get the ball rolling. Hold meetings at your local library, get the word out.

Regardless of your likely sarcasm here, I know they're great ideas.

Even JO agrees with them.

But JO is never going to be a politician, let alone President. And we're never going to have leaders from either party that ultimately do anything to solve the problem of climate change either.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
But it's always instantly gratifying to post about feels on social media and call it a day.

Quote:
You never know. History is full of people saying, "I once read someone say.... and it got me thinking."

Yup. I heard that's how Elon Musk saved California with his underground roadway (that is impossible to build and maintain in real life and was actually patented decades ago by somebody else not named Elon Musk).

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 16, 2019 1:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
She one posted that she would be willing to kill "... millions! billions!" ... "down to the last hundred" in order to make her worldview come true. She has since deleted those parts of her posts (seeing that they looked crazed) but I'm not the only one who read them.

And yet fascists are still dumber and more dangerous to the planet than me...go fig. At least I left a hundred people, they would not be happy with leaving a hundred people alone

For the record I DID NOT DELETE SHIT, I changed my taglines. I can't help it if your accounts no longer work correctly, maybe you should leave if you don't like it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 16, 2019 1:59 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Jack

People believe what they're taught to believe. Why did the Aztecs live in a society that willingly sacrificed thousands - maybe tens of thousands - of people each year? Why did large numbers of people drudge away at building pyramids for others, and die early deaths from their body-destroying work? Why did the Spartans kill imperfect infants and set their boy children to live out in the wild among packs of other boy children at the age of 5, to live or die on their own?

It's not because people woke up every morning and thought 'This feels like luxury!'. But in some way it must feel good, because doing that gives them a place in the great order of humanity.

Signy's posted it more than once and I'll be dipped if I can remember the title, but there was an extended movie that explained how the federal government intentionally turned people from hard workers / savers into consumers - because they thought that that was the only way to avoid another Great Depression. (I'll try to remember it and repost it.) The movie was full of quotes, names, dates, official records, and references - it wasn't just some 'conspiracy theory'.

Anyway - without all the context and detail, basically it said that previous to that propaganda, people believed that life was about hard work, saving, and raising the next generation. But after that propaganda - well, we are what you see.

Signy's also made the point many times that if it were human nature to be the way we are, tptb wouldn't need to KEEP lying us into war.

I'll extend that and say if it were human nature to be a compulsive consumer and nothing else, nobody would EVER need to advertise to us, either. But they do feel the need to advertise to us, to get us to do what they want. I know they do because we have this: "If folks from the marketing firm Yankelovich, Inc. are right, the average modern person is exposed to around 5,000 ads per day."

I used to never make arguments about human nature, because there have been, are, and (if we're long-term lucky) will be too many societies that contradict whatever theme one might wish to promote.

But I've come to the conclusion that we - our species - way back in the past and through today - needs to live in groups to survive. (Some of the information I support this with comes from the series 'Why We Hate', where I noticed that even bonobo chimps - that evolved in a rich enough environment that moms with babies could survive individually - live in groups. And so, this group-living behavior comes from further back than the split between regular chimps and bonobos. But it's evident that even today human moms+babies need larger groups to survive, so it's not just some evolutionary left-over like it seems to be with bonobos.)

Through language we are taught what reality is. Through language we are taught what makes us 'us' - what to believe, what to notice, what to do. We believe / accept / perform what we are taught, even if it flies in the face of observable reality, even if it kills us and our family members (Aztecs / Egyptians / Spartans). And we see our survival not in terms of problems to be solved, but in terms of struggle with 'them', the 'not us'.

I think we can be taught differently than we're taught today. So people could be taught that life isn't about consumerism.

But of course you and I aren't in charge of what people are taught.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 16, 2019 2:10 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 16, 2019 2:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:

She one posted that she would be willing to kill "... millions! billions!" ... "down to the last hundred" in order to make her worldview come true. She has since deleted those parts of her posts (seeing that they looked crazed) but I'm not the only one who read them. - SIGNY

And yet fascists are still dumber and more dangerous to the planet than me...go fig. At least I left a hundred people, they would not be happy with leaving a hundred people alone - WISHY

WHO is the fascist around here, WISHY? The one who wants to "eradicate" people? Or me?

Quote:
For the record I DID NOT DELETE SHIT , I changed my taglines. I can't help it if your accounts no longer work correctly, maybe you should leave if you don't like it?

LIAR

So let's unpack your weasely deflection, shall we?

I didn't say that you deleted "posts". It's impossible to entirely delete a post because it will always remain, even if just a blank box with your avatar and tag lines. And even if you changed your tag line the rest of the post would remain. I said that you deleted THOSE PARTS of your posts. I can still see the rest of the post.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 16, 2019 2:49 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Here's the quote. It was there, then WISHI erased it from the content of her post (not from her sig line, as she lied), but then it looks like it got restored. PLEASE NOTE: only WISHI or Haken could restore it, no one else has access to the content of WISHI's posts.

"I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule."

I have the link.

ETA: WISHI, you seem so desperate to be right all the time, you can't admit that somebody knows something different from what you know.

Perhaps you could - yanno - learn to understand the value of normal discussion, where you tell other people what you know, and other people tell you what they know, and everybody benefits.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 16, 2019 10:21 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Here's the quote. It was there, then WISHI erased it from the content of her post (not from her sig line, as she lied), but then it looks like it got restored. PLEASE NOTE: only WISHI or Haken could restore it, no one else has access to the content of WISHI's posts.

"I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule."

I have the link.

ETA: WISHI, you seem so desperate to be right all the time, you can't admit that somebody knows something different from what you know.

Perhaps you could - yanno - learn to understand the value of normal discussion, where you tell other people what you know, and other people tell you what they know, and everybody benefits.

But of course WISHY's fan base could never POSSIBLY acknowledge that one of "their tribe" is an apparently bloodthirsty narcissist who would be more dangerous than Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin combined, should she ever get her hands on the levers of power.

Like CC, they will plead ignorance or ignore her crazed rantings in the hopes that no one will notice what a fascist nut-case she is, and where the resolution of her extremist (or indeed ANY extremist) ideology lays.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 17, 2019 12:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
should she ever get her hands on the levers of power.

You people are so looney. I never have and never will see crazier people than you two.

I'm just a housewife with a half dozen health problems. I have no chance of ruling the anything...let alone the world, but if I did??

The first thing I'd do is put all the fascists and Nazi lovers on a leaky barge cruise to nowhere.

I'm not really a fan of "making things better" but getting rid of "people" who just wanna exploit humanity? WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN WINNING, YEAH!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 17, 2019 12:40 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by WHIZZY:
I have no chance of ruling the anything...let alone the world, but if I did??

The first thing I'd do is put all the fascists and Nazi lovers on a leaky barge cruise to nowhere.

I'm not really a fan of "making things better" but getting rid of "people" who just wanna exploit humanity? WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN WINNING, YEAH!

No WHIZZY, you're loonier than that. You'd, in your own words, kill over 7 billion people - "to the last 100 people on Earth" - in order to 'save' them.

Flies shit.

And there's no way you can spin it or paper it over to make you look less abhorrent than you are.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 17, 2019 12:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
No WHIZZY, you're loonier than that. You'd, in your own words, kill over 7 billion people - "to the last 100 people on Earth" - in order to 'save' them.

Savin' the planet from fascists and prudes? Totally worth it

PS, I changed my tagline again....guess you'll accuse me of deleting shit again...
Hope y'all like it anyhow

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 17, 2019 1:23 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by WHIZZY:
I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule.

Quote:
Originally posted by WHIZZY:
Totally worth it

AND WHIZYY doubles-down - for the umpteenth time!

You can't make this kind of crazy up.

Flies shit.

THUGGER, SLOPPY, MUSHY ... anything to say about your team member?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 17, 2019 5:50 AM

I don't see how nuking billions of people, or even putting people on a leaky barge that will pollute the ocean when it sinks is good for the environment.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 17, 2019 9:45 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

^Your best post eva.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 17, 2019 9:56 AM

THG

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Quote:
Originally posted by WHIZZY:
I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule.
Quote:
Originally posted by WHIZZY:
Totally worth it

AND WHIZYY doubles-down - for the umpteenth time!

You can't make this kind of crazy up.

Flies shit.

THUGGER, SLOPPY, MUSHY ... anything to say about your team member?

You belong to a team. It's why facts don't mean anything to you, only winning. I post facts. Fact, estimates are 72 million people died during a fascist attempt to conquer the world during world war two.

I'd add that unless you argue facts you can't win. You can only make noise. You kiki only make noise.

T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 17, 2019 10:57 AM

This thread is about climate change. Not Wishy's various mental illnesses.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 17, 2019 11:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 17, 2019 11:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 17, 2019 11:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:

I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule.

Quote:
Originally posted by WHIZZY:
Totally worth it - WISHY

AND WHIZYY doubles-down - for the umpteenth time!
You can't make this kind of crazy up.
THUGGER, SLOPPY, MUSHY ... anything to say about your team member?- KIKI

You belong to a team. It's why facts don't mean anything to you, only winning. I post facts. Fact, estimates are 72 million people died during a fascist attempt to conquer the world during world war two.- THUGR

About 20 million RUSSIANS died fighting the Nazis. And that's a fact!

Quote:
I'd add that unless you argue facts you can't win. - THUGR

So since then when this about "winning" and "losing"? Isn't this supposed to be a DISCUSSION?

And where does that put GSTRING's constant lies and WISHY's lunatic rantings? THOSE certianly aren't "facts", are they? Or are you disavowing them as any sort of "team member" of yours, because that's what it sounds like to me: You're distaning yourself from them.

*****

Anyway THUGR I agree with you, we should discuss facts. If we all did that I think we'd be a lot farther ahead.

Back to our original topic.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 17, 2019 11:35 AM

THG

Yep, twenty million Russians were killed in WW11. Less than the number of Russians Stalin' killed, but nonetheless true. Funny how my number reflects the worlds losses and sig's is only concerned with Russia's.

Dos ve donya comrade

T

Deep state describes dedicated, educated professionals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 17, 2019 11:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
. Funny how my number reflects the worlds losses and sig's is only concerned with Russia's.

Yeah, but some of those losses weren't the "right colors" for her to care about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 17, 2019 12:39 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This thread is about climate change. Not Wishy's various mental illnesses.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Indeed. Sorry for the sideways direction.

I think the thread is also about other ecosystem-threatening progressions: habitat loss, resource consumption, invasive species and other extinction promoting processes.

It's all related to overpopulation, but overpopulation isn't the ONLY problem: The United States only represents about 4% of the world's population but about 17% of the world's energy consumption. And considering that we've offshored our manufacturing, the energy consumption related to production FOR AMERICAN CONSUMPTION is probably higher ... possibly bringing the total into the realm of 20-25%.

Considering that so many people in the USA have such poor living standards ... worse than Cuba ... we must be terribly wasteful with everything: food, transporation, heating and cooling, electronics etc.

I come back to the one area where we're vastly different from every other nation in the whole world, and that's our military spending. It takes a lot of energy to steam our ships around the world, and fly our military jets all over. The USA military has been tagged as the SINGLE LARGEST user of energy in the entire world. If we could reduce our mulitary footprint to a tenth of what it currently is ... yanno, enough to credibly defend our borders ... just think of all of that evergy savings.

Quote:
The United States Department of Defense is one of the largest single consumers of energy in the world, responsible for 93% of all US government fuel consumption in 2007 (Air Force: 52%; Navy: 33%; Army: 7%. Other DoD: 1%).[1] In FY 2006, the DoD used almost 30,000 gigawatt hours (GWH) of electricity, at a cost of almost $2.2 billion. The DoD's electricity use would supply enough electricity to power more than 2.6 million average American homes. ... The Department of Defense uses 4,600,000,000 US gallons (1.7×1010 L) of fuel annually

... enough to fuel approximately 42 MILLION cars each year*.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_States_mili
tary

Not only that, but think of the energy consumed in producing all of those ships, planes, missiles, tanks, vehicles etc etc etc. that could be saved, or re-purposed into building infrastructure.
BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO AGAINST THE MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL/DEEP STATE COMPLEX IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THIS.

I think the other "big ticket" item would be a CARBON TAX, and a hefty one at that, something that would raise the effective price of oil to about $100/bbl and doubling the price of fuel. Thinking about all of the things that would positively effect: Our economic, energy, land-use and environmental policies. One of the areas where the USA wastes a lot of fuel is transportation, not just peple driving from home to work but also goods moving from China (or elsewhere) across the ocean to our ports and then across the USA and food being shipped from Argentina (or CA) across the oceans. Fuel and transportation are so cheap that it is cost effective to make a part here, ship it to China for chrome plating, and ship it back. How is that even possible?

If the cost of transportation was significantly higher that would make distributed manufacturing (engine from Spain, transmission from China, seats from Mexico) less cost-effective. It would make exurban living and ginormous vehicles too expensive. Arguments about CAFE standards would go poof! Electricty (beyond a baseline) would be more expensive. Energy-intensive agriculture/ factory farming would have to take a step back. Even plastics would be more costly to produce, because petroleum is the feedstock for plastics manufacturing.

It's such a brain-dead, simple approach to reducing energy consumption that it should have been MANDATED in the Paris Climate Accord, but nobody will touch it with a ten-foot pole and you will find no discussion of it in the M$M because it touches the rich and powerful oil and coal sectors. (Gas not so much because gas has more hydrogen in it than either oil or coal, so you wind up burning twice as much hydogen as carbon, producing twice as much water as carbon dioxide). There is also a very well-thought-out proposal of making methanol out of water and carbon dioxide (Towards a Methanol Economy) which actually converts carbon dioxide ... the problem ... into fuel. BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO CROSS THE PETROLEUM AND COAL SECTORS IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THIS.

And to cut down on wasteful consumption (and also wasteful speculation) I like SIX's idea of taxing debt. It would generate a whole new line of revenue for the government, helping reduce debt, and promote savings. Again, YOU WOULD HAVE TO FIGHT THE BANK CARTELS AND SPECULATORS IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THIS and they are ALSO extremely rich and powerful, but if you want real change you gotta go with something big.

A lot of the proposals from the candidates are ineffective virtue-signalling,

*****

As far as overpopulation is concerned, the USA should just stop accepting immigrants. We're at capacity right now. so why add to the problem? Other nations need to deal with their own problems and not offload them here.

The real problem is of course with the "underdeveloped" nations. Here again, I would propose that we follow a path of nonintervention, because our "intervnetions" have typically been on the side of the elite, who (of course) are rich BECAUSE their population is poor, and poverty, ignorance, and the poor status of women drive population growth.

So that would be my Big Four:

Reduce military spending drastically
Institute a carbon tax that would double the price of fuel
Tax debt
Non-intervention abroad

do you think these would be, in theory, the most effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

*****

Yes, I know .... it's unlikely that any of this will happen. But it gives me a yardstick by which I can measure a candidate's sincerity on the topic, versus how bought off by/enmeshed they are with the rich and powerful. Because banning drinking straws and promoting electric vehicles is nice, but it's not going to solve what ails us.

*assuming 10,000 miles driven annually at 30 mpg.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 17, 2019 1:53 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

TULSI FOR PRESIDENT!!!

At least she's got the right idea about reducing the military to a more sane size.

As you know, I have 2 priorities. Imo, in order of time-pressing importance, they're 1) that we don't blow ourselves up and 2) that we don't burn ourselves up. And I've been following the democratic debates pretty closely.

It's extremely unclear to me if any of them have seriously thought about what it would take to actually address climate change, and then rejected the various options as totally politically inexpedient (given tptb that actually run things), or if they're so blinded by 'the way things have always been' that the ideas just never came up in the first place.

As for House democrats, they're too enmeshed with the coup; and Senate democrats are trying to be invisible.

Anyway - yes, we need to get rid of our overseas military presence, and strip it down to a home-soil defense-only force.

It's extremely difficult to get figure for the number of cars on the road in the US - the figures I find are for cars, motorcycles, trucks, busses etc, collectively called 'vehicles'. WIKI says that 'most' of the registered vehicles are passenger vehicles, and puts the number at 263.6M in 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States , STATISTA puts the number of passenger vehicles at 111M in 2017. BIG DIFFERENCE! https://www.statista.com/statistics/192998/registered-passenger-cars-i
n-the-united-states-since-1975/

Going with STATISTA's numbers, reducing the US's military fuel use would be like removing a third of the cars on US roads today.

Per capita energy usage

There's no indication as to whether or not the US figures include the military (though I've been told that generally they don't).

The largest per capita users are generally countries that are really large, or really cold, or really rich, or some combination.

I've read elsewhere that one of the reasons Australia is such a high energy user is simply transport across the very large country. Canada and Russia are of course very large and also very cold. The US is at least as large as Canada, though not as cold - theoretically we shouldn't be using quite as much per capita. Off the top of my head, I would think we should be more like Australia's ~55 koeg v the US's ~70 koeg in 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_
per_capita

Anyway - simply having a very large country seems like one factor in high energy consumption.

Perhaps one of the ways to mitigate that would be to have internal regions that are more self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing and over-all production (like food), to reduce transport costs.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 17, 2019 9:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
TULSI FOR PRESIDENT!!!

Yeah, we know...Russians for Tulsi already...

Even Hillary knows that one...

It's not gonna work a second time. No one here, INCLUDING THE RETHUGS NOW!!! wants anything to do with a Russian backed player.

Not that she had a chance in hell to begin with.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 17, 2019 9:54 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

She NEVER did, you dolt.

Flies shit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 18, 2019 3:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:

Anyway - yes, we need to get rid of our overseas military presence, and strip it down to a home-soil defense-only force.

It's extremely difficult to get figure for the number of cars on the road in the US - the figures I find are for cars, motorcycles, trucks, busses etc, collectively called 'vehicles'. WIKI says that 'most' of the registered vehicles are passenger vehicles, and puts the number at 263.6M in 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States , STATISTA puts the number of passenger vehicles at 111M in 2017. BIG DIFFERENCE! https://www.statista.com/statistics/192998/registered-passenger-cars-i
n-the-united-states-since-1975/

Going with STATISTA's numbers, reducing the US's military fuel use would be like removing a third of the cars on US roads today.

Per capita energy usage

There's no indication as to whether or not the US figures include the military (though I've been told that generally they don't).

The largest per capita users are generally countries that are really large, or really cold, or really rich, or some combination.

I've read elsewhere that one of the reasons Australia is such a high energy user is simply transport across the very large country. Canada and Russia are of course very large and also very cold. The US is at least as large as Canada, though not as cold - theoretically we shouldn't be using quite as much per capita. Off the top of my head, I would think we should be more like Australia's ~55 koeg v the US's ~70 koeg in 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_
per_capita

Anyway - simply having a very large country seems like one factor in high energy consumption.

I would appreciate more "granularity" ... a LOT more! Why, for instance, should the per-capita energy consumption in the EU vary from country to country?

If the USA was broken up into smaller "countries", would the per capita energy usage decrease, even tho the distance traveled is the same?

Quote:
Perhaps one of the ways to mitigate that would be to have internal regions that are more self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing and over-all production (like food), to reduce transport costs.

It seems that way to me. Although breaking up food production (and manufacturing) into more self-sufficient pieces would require replication of equipment, which might be less energy-efficient in the short run since you would need to make extra items.

It looks to me like energy usage is more directly correlatable to living standards. CHINA is a large nation, and also manufacturing-intensive, but their per-capita is lower.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 18, 2019 5:00 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
I've read elsewhere that one of the reasons Australia is such a high energy user is simply transport across the very large country. Canada and Russia are of course very large and also very cold. The US is at least as large as Canada, though not as cold - theoretically we shouldn't be using quite as much per capita. Off the top of my head, I would think we should be more like Australia's ~55 koeg v the US's ~70 koeg in 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_
per_capita

Anyway - simply having a very large country seems like one factor in high energy consumption.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I would appreciate more "granularity" ... a LOT more! Why, for instance, should the per-capita energy consumption in the EU vary from country to country?

In terms of the data, there were problems getting what I thought were good numbers. I had a fairly difficult time getting global numbers, in order to make comparisons. In this particular set of data, the range of per-capita use on upper end was huge, which might obscure important differences. And finally, the most recent comprehensive numbers I could find were from 2015. I feel like a lot as happened in the interim - countries going off of nuclear power, multiple large nat gas pipeline projects being completed, the birth and slow death of the fracking boom, and so on. So when it comes to trying to interpret these numbers one might need to go back to 2015 and what those countries were like back then.
Some things I felt I could explain - Great Britain now gets most of its wealth from financialism, and not manufacturing, and it's a small country, so its per capita consumption would be lower, compared to Germany, for example. https://www.npr.org/2018/01/03/572901119/how-germany-wins-at-manufactu
ring-for-now When it comes to select countries, I'd read about the huge energy use for AC in a lot of the (wealthy, desert) oil producing nations, and the high energy use in cold countries for heating. I'd also read about the high energy costs in Australia due to transportation. Other things I have no idea - Chile for instance has highish per capita use, but isn't particularly large (though it is long), wealthy, or cold; and it's not a manufacturing hub.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If the USA was broken up into smaller "countries", would the per capita energy usage decrease, even tho the distance traveled is the same?

Quote:
Perhaps one of the ways to mitigate that would be to have internal regions that are more self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing and over-all production (like food), to reduce transport costs.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It seems that way to me. Although breaking up food production (and manufacturing) into more self-sufficient pieces would require replication of equipment, which might be less energy-efficient in the short run since you would need to make extra items.

It looks to me like energy usage is more directly correlatable to living standards. CHINA is a large nation, and also manufacturing-intensive, but their per-capita is lower.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

As for living standards being a major (only?) predictor of per capita energy consumption, I think Russia, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan might be large exceptions that need explaining (though their inclusion in top-tier consumption might also be due to that huge span of that particular range).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 18, 2019 8:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
TULSI FOR PRESIDENT!!!

Yeah, we know...Russians for Tulsi already...

Even Hillary knows that one...

It's not gonna work a second time. No one here, INCLUDING THE RETHUGS NOW!!! wants anything to do with a Russian backed player.

Not that she had a chance in hell to begin with.

Unfortunately, none of the other Dems on the debate stage agree with Hillary's assessment, and she was called out even by CNN on her bullshit there.

But please, do tell us what evidence you have that Tulsi is a Russian asset. We'd all love to hear about the dirt you've dug up on her.

DISCLAIMER: I'd never vote for her in the first place because she's almost as far left as some of the other goons up there. I like her stance on war and American intervention as well as reforming the prison system, but other than that she's a looney toon.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 18, 2019 2:12 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, we all know WISHY is kind of a loony toon herself. It's hard to take much of what she posts seriously.

*****

Back to the topic of energy efficiency.

I watched a long video of Cuba's response to its own energy crisis. The backstory is that when the Soviet Union fell apart, Cuba suddnely lost almost all of its oil imports. How it adapted to the sudden and almost total loss of energy of ALL kinds ... gasoline, diesel, and oil-sourced electricity ... might be a window into how any other economy might adapt to serious energy reductions.

As I recall, energy was devoted to the most critical aspects, including food production and medical services. Transportation took an immediate hit: Cubans cobbled together a "mass transit" system that included using trucks, vans and buses to help people get around. Air conditioning and elevator service disappeared, so anyone who lived more than five flights up had a long climb! And apartment buildings that weren't designed to let the sea breeze thru got kinda moldy. So ... mass transit, and climate- sensitive and walkup-able buildings.

Food production sank. Pork became scarce to non-existent and rice was expensive. People were encouraged to farm/garden and grow food around their dwellings; vegetables and chickens became more common.

Many things became very localized: farming/gardening, schooling, shopping (neighborhood farmer's markets sprang up) etc. The things that were centralized (cement production for export, sugar production) were serviced by specific mass transit.

IF WE INSTITUTED A CARBON TAX AND DOUBLED THE PRICE OF FUEL, WE MIGHT EXPECT TO SEE THOSE KINDS OF ADJUSTMENTS, although a carbon tax/ fuel proce increase should be implemented in stages (say, 20% per year for 5 years) to allow for smoother adaptation.

I'll see if I can find that video again. It was a lot of positive spin about how the socialist economy of Cuba managed their fuel cutoff, but there might be useful indications of what might, or should, happen in a regimen of "less energy".

BUT SEEING AS HOW YOUTUBE AND GOOGLE ARE BUSY CENSORING EVERYTHING, I'M NOT SURE I CAN FIND IT AGAIN.

Oh btw the video that you were thinking of KIKI is called A CENTURY OF SELF: How Edward Bernays (Freud's nephew) used psychology to mold people into thinking of themselves as "individuals" and "consumers", to profit the mass production companies.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 18, 2019 2:25 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Can't find the original but this references Cuba's "oil shock"

ALSO

this is the first of four parts

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 18, 2019 2:38 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
A CENTURY OF SELF: How Edward Bernays used psychology to mold people into thinking of themselves as "individuals" and "consumers", to profit the mass production companies.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

Oh THANK YOU so much for the name.
Here's the link:

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 18, 2019 3:08 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I watched a long video of Cuba's response to its own energy crisis. The backstory is that when the Soviet Union fell apart, Cuba suddnely lost almost all of its oil imports. How it adapted to the sudden and almost total loss of energy of ALL kinds ... gasoline, diesel, and oil-sourced electricity ... might be a window into how any other economy might adapt to serious energy reductions.

As I recall, energy was devoted to the most critical aspects, including food production and medical services. Transportation took an immediate hit: Cubans cobbled together a "mass transit" system that included using trucks, vans and buses to help people get around. Air conditioning and elevator service disappeared, so anyone who lived more than five flights up had a long climb! And apartment buildings that weren't designed to let the sea breeze thru got kinda moldy. So ... mass transit, and climate- sensitive and walkup-able buildings.

Food production sank. Pork became scarce to non-existent and rice was expensive. People were encouraged to farm/garden and grow food around their dwellings; vegetables and chickens became more common.

Many things became very localized: farming/gardening, schooling, shopping (neighborhood farmer's markets sprang up) etc. The things that were centralized (cement production for export, sugar production) were serviced by specific mass transit.

Thanks. That's a real-life instructive video on how to get by with almost no petroleum and massively reduced energy consumption.

I'm now thinking about what were the SPECIFIC differences between that lifestyle and our high-consumption one.

One of the main differences though is that Cuba has no industry to support. I'd need to think about that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 18, 2019 4:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The reason why I brought up Cuba is because I've seen analyses that day that it's less energy consumptive (per ton) to ship grapes by freighter from Chile than trucking then in to your farmers market 200 miles away.

Also, that the city dweller uses less energy per capita than the exurban or rural dweller who must have items trucked in from many miles away. That's one of the reasons why I would have wanted much higher granularity on the per capita map.

But that's assuming you remain with a system of shipping non-local production around. The suburbs, exurbs and rural areas actually have a higher chance of producing hyper-locally than the cities, at least as far as food is concerned. Pesticides, fertilizer, and GMO would become very expensive.

I too have to think about manufacturing. One can produce some energy off_grid, and simple tools and parts can be fabricated from iron, but complex products like engines, electronics, and pharmaceuticals require concentrated labor. The only way to square that circle is to step back in complexity and step forward on repairability wherever possible. Again, I'll give more thought as to which products can be localized and which can't

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 18, 2019 4:33 PM

WHERE IS MARCOS!??

Impeachment is finally underway.

There is zero chance he wouldn't be here for that.

Which one of you idiots lost the password to your sockpuppet account?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 18, 2019 7:20 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh I'm having a wonderfully wonkish thought experiment with Kiki. Who cares about Marcos?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 18, 2019 8:24 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The reason why I brought up Cuba is because I've seen analyses that day that it's less energy consumptive (per ton) to ship grapes by freighter from Chile than trucking then in to your farmers market 200 miles away.

I'm guessing that's if you ship tons of pallets all at once vs packing a few crates each week on a truck for the local market. ... But then, you still have to break that big shipment down into smaller quantities and ship them to individual stores, so I'm not seeing the energy savings there. Either way, a truck transports small(er) quantities to vendors. That truck may have originated at a warehouse or at a farm, but that part of the distribution chain looks identical.
I just looked it up yesterday (didn't post or save), and there's an estimated 4-7% savings of 'greenhouse gasses' due to FOOD shipping in the form of CO2 due to shipping, from 'buying local' (which is assumed to be within 200 miles). But the total greenhouse gas emission are due to nitrites/nitrates, methane, etc, so it isn't about energy savings per se. Still, buying local seems to save some transport CO2.
The analysis you saw might have been an extreme case analysis.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Also, that the city dweller uses less energy per capita than the exurban or rural dweller who must have items trucked in from many miles away. That's one of the reasons why I would have wanted much higher granularity on the per capita map.

But that's assuming you remain with a system of shipping non-local production around. The suburbs, exurbs and rural areas actually have a higher chance of producing hyper-locally than the cities, at least as far as food is concerned. Pesticides, fertilizer, and GMO would become very expensive.

I too have to think about manufacturing. One can produce some energy off_grid, and simple tools and parts can be fabricated from iron, but complex products like engines, electronics, and pharmaceuticals require concentrated labor. The only way to square that circle is to step back in complexity and step forward on repairability wherever possible. Again, I'll give more thought as to which products can be localized and which can't.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

I wonder if this topic is amenable to spitballing, or if the question is so finely balanced it requires detailed analysis.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/transportation.php
This source indicates 28% of energy use is for transportation, and of that, 54% is for gasoline (it looks like they assume transport energy is pretty much 100% fossil fuels). So when it comes to goods transport, I'd assume all gasoline is passenger, and the rest is commercial.

I'm just putting this out as a marker for later.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 18, 2019 10:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh I'm having a wonderfully wonkish thought experiment with Kiki. Who cares about Marcos?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

I'm just wondering which one of them is Marcos.

It's not Wishy. No point in having a sockpuppet if you're going to behave worse than the sockpuppet does.

My money is on Captain.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 18, 2019 11:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh I'm having a wonderfully wonkish thought experiment with Kiki. Who cares about Marcos?

I'm just wondering which one of them is Marcos.It's not Wishy. No point in having a sockpuppet if you're going to behave worse than the sockpuppet does. -SIX

HA! Too true!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 19, 2019 12:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I wonder if this topic is amenable to spitballing, or if the question is so finely balanced it requires detailed analysis.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/transportation.php
This source indicates 28% of energy use is for transportation, and of that, 54% is for gasoline (it looks like they assume transport energy is pretty much 100% fossil fuels). So when it comes to goods transport, I'd assume all gasoline is passenger, and the rest is commercial.

I'm just putting this out as a marker for later.

I think there are too many variables to calculate, which is why I went to a real world example. Whether or not it happens quickly or slowly, if there's a real energy crunch a lot of the froufrou will be dropped like a hot potato

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 19, 2019 2:42 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
I wonder if this topic is amenable to spitballing, or if the question is so finely balanced it requires detailed analysis.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/transportation.php
This source indicates 28% of energy use is for transportation, and of that, 54% is for gasoline (it looks like they assume transport energy is pretty much 100% fossil fuels). So when it comes to goods transport, I'd assume all gasoline is passenger, and the rest is commercial.

I'm just putting this out as a marker for later.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I think there are too many variables to calculate, which is why I went to a real world example. Whether or not it happens quickly or slowly, if there's a real energy crunch a lot of the froufrou will be dropped like a hot potato.

Yes but ... Cuba was able to accommodate I think for some very specific reasons: they're small, the climate is relatively temperate, they don't have heavy industry to support, or extremely large megalopolises, and they're pre-adapted in terms of not having a society dependent on high energy consumption.

If the US were to face a sudden cut-off or even significant reduction of energy, there goes everything dependent on transport - the commute to work, the goods from everywhere. And there goes the energy-intensive arrangement we have - the high-rises that need fuel and electricity for heating, cooling, and breathing, and so on. Our infrastructure, geographic arrangement, and housing would need to be massively re-shaped, I think.

This started as a discussion about which countries have really high per capita energy consumption, and why. I think there might be issues with how we're structured that would need more than tinkering around the edges to resolve.

The ultimate answer might look like Cuba, but the transition from here to there would be rigorous.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 19, 2019 2:59 AM

This was an interesting read...

13 years ago.

https://web.archive.org/web/20060113055909/https://www.rollingstone.co
m/news/story/_/id/7203633

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 19, 2019 3:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So what I'm thinking about is not "peak oil" but a voluntary, if drastic, increase in fuel prices. (BTW, unless this is a worldwide effort .... the kind of action that COULD have been implemented under the Paris Climate Accord) the USA would have to tariff goods shipped over long distances based on their carbon-transportation and carbon-content costs.

Anyway, at a sustained 10% increase if fuel prices, people would drive less and buy fewer SUVs. Electricity costs would increase, so AC use would go down. Farming costs - which is extremely energy-dependent in the USA - would increase. The only upside to farmers would be that they wouldn't be competing with goods shipped in from afar.

At a sustained 50% increase, real changes would happen. Monopolies dependent on shipping goods here and there would think seriously about their transportation costs, and possibly start sourcing inputs closer to production, and production closer to markets. People would seriously start thinking not only about the vehicles they drive but the number of miles away from work. Suburbs would become less attractive, except areas close to bus or rail lines would become more attractive. Farmers would have to scale back their energy-intensive capital investments, less mechanization and more labor-power. If the cost of fuel was doubled, you would see real interest in solar panels for homes as electricity costs zoomed out of sight. I can't imagine what the changes to production and housing would be. If the costs of energy multiplied by ten, the USA would be unrecognizable, I think.

What this thought-experiment tells me is that no SINGLE nation would voluntarily limit its own energy consumption and torpedo its economy this way, because of the loss of competitive advantage, and for not good purpose if other nations continue to increase fuel-burning. This would be like the Easter Islanders who cut down their last trees in order to place their moai, unleashing an ecological disaster that led to starvation and cannibalism. For some reason they saw an existential problem in refraining from cutting dow their trees and never foresaw the worse consequences of continuing on.

A carbon tax would have to be mandatory, and it would have to be international.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

You idiots have been oppressing the entire sexual spectrum as long as you have existed. I can't wait for the day your kind is dead - WISHIMAY

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 19, 2019 8:28 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Just to address both Jack's link and the Cuban real-world experiment ... if we drastically curtailed energy use, at best we'd look like Cuba, where resources are limited but the distribution is mostly equitable. The other end of the extreme is that we'd look like the Philippines, where resources are limited but distribution is highly skewed. Given our current state and trajectory, I can't imagine we'd look like Cuba.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 19, 2019 9:54 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This was an interesting read...

13 years ago.

https://web.archive.org/web/20060113055909/https://www.rollingstone.co
m/news/story/_/id/7203633

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Rolling Stones, Posted Mar 24, 2005: "A few weeks ago, the price of oil ratcheted above fifty-five dollars a barrel, which is about twenty dollars a barrel more than a year ago. The next day, the oil story was buried on page six of the New York Times business section."

Today West Texas Crude is $56.20 per barrel, which is very close to the price in the Rolling Stones' article. But, if you adjust $56.20 (2019 dollars) for inflation, the price in 2005 dollars is only $42/barrel (2005 dollars). In other words, the inflation adjusted price of oil has dropped over the years.
https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/45

The price of gasoline for my first car was $0.33/gallon(1970). Adjusted for inflation, that price equals $2.19/gallon(2019). I paid $1.90/gallon at my recent fill-up in Baytown, Texas.
www.thestate.com/news/databases/article68603317.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 19, 2019 10:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This was an interesting read...

13 years ago.

https://web.archive.org/web/20060113055909/https://www.rollingstone.co
m/news/story/_/id/7203633

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Rolling Stones, Posted Mar 24, 2005: "A few weeks ago, the price of oil ratcheted above fifty-five dollars a barrel, which is about twenty dollars a barrel more than a year ago. The next day, the oil story was buried on page six of the New York Times business section."

Today West Texas Crude is $56.20 per barrel, which is very close to the price in the Rolling Stones' article. But, if you adjust $56.20 (2019 dollars) for inflation, the price in 2005 dollars is only $42/barrel (2005 dollars). In other words, the inflation adjusted price of oil has dropped over the years.
https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/45

The price of gasoline for my first car was $0.33/gallon(1970). Adjusted for inflation, that price equals $2.19/gallon(2019). I paid $1.90/gallon at my recent fill-up in Baytown, Texas.
www.thestate.com/news/databases/article68603317.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

Yeah. It has if you're looking right now.

I remember it being $4.75 at a local pump during the Obama administration.

That article was written when "Fracking" was Battlestar Galactica's "Gorramit"

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 19, 2019 10:39 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Yeah. It has if you're looking right now.

I remember it being $4.75 at a local pump during the Obama administration.

That article was written when "Fracking" was Battlestar Galactica's "Gorramit"

Do Right, Be Right. :)

$4.75/gallon in California was not Obama's doing: "California’s High Gasoline Prices Are No Accident"
www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2019/10/10/californias-high-gasolin
e-prices-are-no-accident/

If gasoline prices in Texas doubled, matching approximately California prices, Texans would double their efforts to burn less gasoline. But some of them would attempt to overthrow the Governor in Austin. It would be a statewide emergency . . . fuel trucks full of gasoline would be stolen, riots over the gas tax, Martial Law declared, etc. All because the price went up $2/gal. Texans would rather kill than ride-share.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:55 PM