Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » Cars and Starvation (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Cars and Starvation
boriquajake
Member
Member # 5248

 - posted      Profile for boriquajake   Email boriquajake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I love Uncle Orson but he is a little bit up in the night on parts of this. Normally I believe that it is best to err to the side of the free market but I think there are some good policy reasons to be protectionist with the food supply. For reasons that the OC was kind enough to mention, it is not that big a deal if problems in Taiwan or Bangladesh cause DVDs or HDTVs to go up in price, but it is another thing all together if unrest Honduras were to make my Wendy's combo meal number two (biggie-sized, of course) go from $6 to $12. Not that there aren't a million and one reforms that should be pushed through the U.S. agriculture status quot, there are, it is just that it is in our best interest to not completely open up something as important as the twinkie supply to world markets. If you think we are quick on the trigger when tin-horn dictators mess with our oil supply, what do you think would happen if some little wanna-be Sadam started jerking with the Wonder Bread? Corn for my high-fructose syrup is simply too important to leave in the hands of local politicians in Argentina or Brazil. Can you even imagine the crap storm that would ensue if instead of oil, Hugo Chaves or the Russians were able to play with the cost of pizza crust? Honestly, until other countries get their **** together I am not willing to let them drive the combine. I don't know if this is right or wrong but I am willing to let the Duranguense corn farmers twist in the wind if it means that I can feed my family no matter what way the political winds blow in Mexico City. It is all well and good to worry about the plight of the south Asian leek farmer, but if we did completely open up our food markets would we suddenly be responsible for the stability of every tract of arable land on the planet the same way we are for the oil producing parts?

Second, I haven't studied this at all, (I mean really, I am posting on an Internet forum, how smart could I possibly be, right?) but in my mind the only way for our food surpluses to drive the entire world's farmers out of business would be for the surpluses to be reliable enough for foreign consumers and governments to rely upon them. If they are reliable and regular they are not an occasional accidents to be dealt with by "dumping" the extra into foreign markets the way OC seems to say, they are in fact, part of the U.S. farmers' business plans, and business plans are subject to change. Look, everyone knows that protectionist subsidies make industries less efficient, not more efficient. If the staggering mess that is our farm system is still capable of producing food more cheaply than can be done in the developing world than I don't know what to say about the world's farmers. Might it not be that there are others factors at work besides our agricultural trade policy that make people in rural Argentina less and less willing to slave away their lives on subsistence farms?

And now that we are talking about it, isn't it maybe a good thing that all these unnaturally low food prices (if they are, in fact, unnatural in they way OC says) become more naturally priced? Won't high corn prices in the Philippines get more people to grow corn eventually. Once local agriculture becomes economically valuable won't other countries be a little more resistant to these nefarious Iowa corn farmers and their price warring ways? I know OC seems to think that every available plot of land in the developing world has had shanty towns and coal fired power plants built on it, but I hear there are still some acres
available in Kenya.

Anyway, I know I am glib and uninformed but I really think it is a little more complicated than "it is our fault because we don't let Brazilian sugar and soy beans in without tarrifs".

Ooh ooh, one thing I forgot. I come from a railroad town and my dad worked on the railroad all the live long day. I can tell you that it wasn't as simple as the freeways put the railroads out of business, it was at least as much that the railroads were run obscenely inefficiently due to incestuous unions, complacency, and greed. I would say (again with no actual research or empirical evidence of any kind beyond impressions from growing up in Pocatello, Idaho) that the freeways were born out off frustration with the railroad monopoly and its lazy sense of entitlement. There is no rational reason for it to be cheaper to ship so many goods over trucks but it is. Trains are orders of magnitude more efficient than trucks but every jerk-off in the yard is making $28/hour and you can't fire him when he shows up drunk. Dude, I freaking hate the railroad. We should completely dismantle it, fire half the people and phase the other half out over a decade or so.

p.s. Ethanol is nothing but a bad joke

p.p.s. Hydrogen is ridiculous

p.p.p.s Nuclear is so obviously the way to go it offends me that I even have to think about it.

p.p.p.p.s If you read my entire post your are an idiot. I have no idea what I am talking about.

Posts: 5 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except for his little rant about Gore he's on the money on this one. Do the research.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've already proposed a government run, for profit renewable energy system. We have the postal system and the interstate highway system. The same rationale applies in Constitutionally justifying a renewable energy department, namely national security.

And I'm talking about with absolutely no new technology whatsoever. No cold fusion. Nothing fancy. Just solar paneling death valley, using the power of eminent domain to set up wind farms across the plains and prairies of America (and compensating the farmers fairly of course). Government workers would maintain the equipment. Talk about jobs... they are right there. All government buildings would get their energy from our own plants, saving tax dollars. Any extra would be sold and any profit could be used to reduce taxes or help fund programs.

We would use every combination of renewable energy everywhere it was feasible, environmentally, technologically, and financially.

Of course, being the government, there would be plenty of waste, fraud, and abuse. The system wouldn't be perfect. The private sector could do it more profitably, given time. Time that we don't have. The government could get this done if we all wanted it done, like the crash course for the lunar landing, or the Manhattan Project. But for renewable energy instead.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eowyn
Member
Member # 4220

 - posted      Profile for Eowyn   Email Eowyn       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, an OSC column that I can actually apply my education to! (I'm not claiming expertise, but I'm on firmer ground here than on a lot of political issues)

First of all, boriquajake, in case no one's offered it yet: Welcome to Ornery, you're only half wrong ^_~

We do need to protect our food supply, and I don't think OSC was calling for complete abandonment of farm subsidies. On the other hand, the low grain prices we're able to provide in foreign countries are a direct result of governmental aid--the government buys grain from the farmers at artificially high prices and sells it at artificially low prices in third-world countries (cheap food is good, right?). I'm pretty sure that's how it eventually works out, feel free to correct me if you know better. It's taken awhile for people to realize that this is not the win-win situation they thought it was.

And while it is a good idea to *slowly* raise food prices in developing countries so that they can get an agricultural industry going, as mentioned in the article, it's catastrophic if it happens all at once. In fact, I think we were working on fixing the low food price problem slowly, before this ethanol thing accelerated it. (I'm not entirely sure who I mean by 'we' in that sentence, I know several major charities were working to turn things around, and ag economists have been pushing for a correction, but I don't know how much the government had done)

Don't despair on the nuclear situation either :-p There are lots of plants in either the building or planning stages, it'll just take awhile to get them going.

Darn, out of time :-p maybe I can provide numbers on the nuclear thing later.

Posts: 77 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was reading up on Cuba the other day - interesting stuff, indeed, but very likely made possible by the type of government and heavy-handed control they have down there. Nevertheless, the article I read claimed that Havana is self-supporting with their veggie intake from all the little green plots and micro farms within the city limits - very cool.

I also take issue with his derision of "the free market". What we have not is not a free market - it's an authoritarian corptocracy of some sort or another. The government protects big business which then pays for and supports the big government. That’s why we have these asinine farm policies he's talking about, as well as why we’re staring down our own downfall and doing little to nothing about it. The entire system is sick, not just our agriculture policies and practices. Ron Paul had a good speech a few weeks ago - I'll see if I can dig it up.

IMO, a real free market, with legitimate levels of control, of course, is workable and people will demand change. The whole problem is much larger than US farm policy.

Here's the Cuba article: Cuba: An Island in Time

[ April 29, 2008, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Colin JM0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Random User Name Here
Member
Member # 4002

 - posted      Profile for Random User Name Here   Email Random User Name Here       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, an OSC opinion that I can agree with mostly, refreshing! Couple thoughts though.

First, no link on this one, but my understanding is that the impact of using food for fuel purposes only contributes a small portion to rising costs of food prices(10-15% is what I've heard...again, no source for it, sorry)

Second, lots of support for nuclear, but here's an article that talks about power supply, with an interesting sidebar on nuclear. Couple years old, but the arguments may still be pertinent

http://harvardmagazine.com/2006/05/fueling-our-future.html

Posts: 8 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
abm3
Member
Member # 2139

 - posted      Profile for abm3   Email abm3   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For any of you who are seriously interested in the ideas Mr. Card is talking about in this essay (like food security and agriculture) I suggest you read the book, Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations, by David R. Montgomery, published in 2007.

I have never read anything that more cogently explained how our agriculture practices are the most environmentally devastating of ALL the ways modern Western society harms our planet.

This is from the reviews available on Amazon:
Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
Montgomery (King of Fish), a geomorphologist who studies how landscapes change through time, argues persuasively that soil is humanity's most essential natural resource and essentially linked to modern civilization's survival. He traces the history of agriculture, showing that when humans exhausted the soil in the past, their societies collapsed, or they moved on. But moving on is not an option for future generations, he warns: there isn't enough land. In the U.S., mechanized agriculture has eroded an alarming amount of agricultural land, and in the developing world, degraded soil is a principal cause of poverty. We are running out of soil, and agriculture will soon be unable to support the world's growing population. Chemical fertilizers, which are made with lots of cheap oil, are not the solution. Nor are genetically modified seeds, which have not produced larger harvests or reduced the need for pesticides. Montgomery proposes an agricultural revolution based on soil conservation. Instead of tilling the land and making it vulnerable to erosion, we should put organic matter back into the ground, simulating natural conditions. His book, though sometimes redundant, makes a convincing case for the need to respect and conserve the world's limited supply of soil. Illus. not seen by PW. (May)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Posts: 20 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hope OSC does an article on how to survive the oil crash next.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bori... whatever the rest is..

Fun points! I will read Orson now, due to your introduction.

Comment one: You are correct on the subsidies and ridiculous actions our gov't is taking with our produce. But is the problem the government? Not really. It is the bank. Banks don't like foreign currencies and will tell the farmer stupid enough to want to make money by selling more produce that they ought to go to the ...wait for it.... government to get it done, rather than make the transaction happen right there at their own little trading desk.

Comment two: Nuclear is about the dumbest thought McCain ever had. One small flight through a cooling tower, one giant step for irradiation of the great satan.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stevarooni
Member
Member # 6053

 - posted      Profile for Stevarooni   Email Stevarooni   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munga:
Comment two: Nuclear is about the dumbest thought McCain ever had. One small flight through a cooling tower, one giant step for irradiation of the great satan.

Yeah, but...no. Even the old-style nuclear reactors had multiple redundancies in the safety systems, such that when a cooling tower goes, either there is sufficient cooling in other towers to continue operating, or there is emergency cooling available immediately near the reactor for shutdown. How many people died because of the Three Mile Island Explosion? Hint: It wasn't an explosion, and if you count above zero, you're wrong.
Posts: 536 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, the key distinction between your and mujnga's scenario is: no explosion in Three Mile.

Chernobyl: explosion.

Chernobyl

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stevarooni
Member
Member # 6053

 - posted      Profile for Stevarooni   Email Stevarooni   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
Well, the key distinction between your and mujnga's scenario is: no explosion in Three Mile.

Chernobyl: explosion.

No, actually the key difference is that in TMI, the engineers didn't override safety device after safety device; TMI might have experienced a steam explosion, had the operators tied shut safety valves, turned off important alarms, and otherwise prevented the plant from shutting itself down. Chernobyl was a badly-designed plant, as well as being poorly maintained and disastrously operated. They are, of course, contemporaries of one another in terms of when they were designed, and any modern reactor would benefit from the lessons learned from those accidents as well as more scientific development in reactor technology in general.

Of course, some scenarios are entirely possible in which educated terrorists are able to overcome security and safety systems in-place, and cause a reactor to have a steam explosion, sending radioactive material everywhere! Cheaper, easier and more likely, though, would probably be sabotaging a factory or repair shop for medical devices with radioactive materials, of which there are many more, with significantly less security.

Posts: 536 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Still an explosion, dude. I think we can place as much emphasis on planes filled with explosive fluids crashing at high speeds into a nuke plant as we can on munga's specific reference to a cooling tower.

The basic concept she's addressing is nuclear energy's unique vulnerability, in public health terms, to sabotage using large ad hoc missiles.

Perhaps *she* aimed her imaginary airplanes at the wrong target; but I suspect that saboteurs capable of implementing a plan would have their target wisely chosen for maximum radiation release effect.

Now this is NOT to say that planes crashing into nuke plants could do such a thing. I *assume* they could, but for all I know the lethal elements in a nuke plant are massively bunkered.

Perhaps you might give us some detail on this?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KE,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Vulnerability_of_plants_to_attack

quote:
In addition, supporters point to large studies carried out by the US Electric Power Research Institute that tested the robustness of both reactor and waste fuel storage, and found that they should be able to sustain a terrorist attack comparable to the September 11 terrorist attacks in the USA.
Spend Nuclear Fuel Shipping Casks
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bull****. One conversation with DHS will disabuse you of all the security you feel.
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why?
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why would they tell you, why would you ask, why would you feel insecure, why are they actually vulnerable, why are you asking why? What is your question? Why would we have to threaten them to get them to put their concerns about our national power systems in writing and why would they have to tie that letter to us with legalese so that we can't share it? WHY are you feeling secure, again?
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm attempting to get you to support your argument. How the heck would I have a conversation with DHS?

Munga. You have been here a few months, and I've been keeping up with the threads pretty well. You have demonstrated a consistent habit of providing tantalizing little hints of secret knowledge that you possess. Sometimes they involve some name dropping, sometimes not. What they usually don't include is anything that anybody else can understand or verify.

I'll probably start skipping your posts if you keep it up. It's nothing personal. But you can't make an argument from hints and clues and __________ (sorry classified).

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
scifi.

This is where I go crazy with Ornery people. They want to have all the private and classified information but won't put any effort into getting it for themselves. The joy of posting here is cathartic for me because at least here I can scream about people who deserve to be in prisons but instead are our enlightened politicians.

I can't do all things. No, I can't divulge conversations that were hard to get in the first place. DHS has public comment lines, but they aren't the ones I have. If you want to pursue the line of thought, though, I'd start at the NIPP and ask questions.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/NIPP_Plan.pdf

then match it to the FERC/NERC docs:

http://www.nerc.com/about/

You can learn a lot just by questioning "redundancy" issues.

Of course they are going to put you off. They will provide you with links and documents and contact parties. You have no leverage, unless you make it and bring it with you, and why shouldn't you do that? But go ahead and ask a dumb one like, "What would we do to stabilize our energy transmission prices and energy generation prices, if any terrorist thought of just throwing grenades down coal chutes?"

So. Verify. Go for it.

[ May 01, 2008, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nuclear plants are tricky things to discuss. Discussions about their safety tend to polarize into fear on one side and arrogance on another.

Good old-fashioned hydroelectric dams are giant linear water bombs waiting to happen:

quote:
The canyon walls allow for a large dam near Auburn only within the Bear Mountain fault zone. Before construction was started in the 1970s, this fault was thought to be inactive. The Oroville earthquake revealed otherwise. The redesigned dam could be moved only a short distance off a fault strand, though, leaving the dam in danger.

The Department of Defense identified the Folsom Dam as a top potential terrorist target among U.S. dams because of the large urban population in its flood path, therefore leading the Bureau of Reclamation to close the Folsom Dam Road to limit access by terrorists.

An Auburn Dam would hold more than twice the volume of the Folsom reservoir, which would add to the flood, so a terrorist attack or earthquake could release a much greater torrent on Sacramento. Donald C. Rose, a member of the Association of Engineering Geologists Seismic Hazards Committee, wrote a letter on March 22, 1976, to the chairman of that committee, saying: “If Auburn Dam should fail and release some or all of its 2.3 million acre-feet reservoir downstream into Folsom Dam’s smaller reservoir, the Folsom Dam’s earthfill flanks could then be overtopped. All told, several million acre-feet of water would then be released into the American River and head toward Sacramento in a wave about 100 feet high.”

Even a partial failure of an Auburn Dam would rupture the Folsom Dam, causing a lesser flood that still would be so severe that Folsom Dam Road would be closed.

A Bureau of Reclamation study in 1980 confirmed this scenario, predicting that a failure of an Auburn Dam, when full, would send a nightmare wave surging across the Sacramento metropolitan area, topping the Folsom Dam within five minutes, then sweeping 70 feet over the Nimbus Dam. It would hit the federal building on Cottage Way in one hour and 40 minutes, peaking at 46-feet deep. The flood would hit the Capitol building in two hours and six minutes, peaking at 40 feet. Such deep and turbulent flood waters likely would overtop and destroy many houses, lowering chances of rooftop survival.

Except for a few areas of high ground in North Highlands, Citrus Heights and Carmichael, the flood would extend from Roseville and Verona in the north, to the Yolo bypass in the west (including all of West Sacramento), to Walnut Grove and Elk Grove in the south, and Mather Air Force Base and Folsom in the east.

The hurricane evacuations of New Orleans and the coastal regions of Texas and Louisiana took days. Can you imagine trying to escape from a metropolitan area of 900,000 people in less than two hours?

Hurricane Katrina killed about 1,200 people in the gulf states. The Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004 killed more than 214,000 people in many countries. A 1974 University of California, Los Angeles engineering study estimated that 255,860 people would drown if the Folsom Dam failed. With today’s population, the death toll would be much higher if an Auburn Dam were breached.

We are products of evolved ecologies. We have created our own mechanical ecologies in the space of a short few hundred years.

They present enormous vulnerability. But they make for salable disaster film scripts [Wink]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Three ways to make electricity
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
French reactors
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A little incident
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
China not all bad
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
plants
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is where I go crazy with Ornery people. They want to have all the private and classified information but won't put any effort into getting it for themselves. The joy of posting here is cathartic for me because at least here I can scream about people who deserve to be in prisons but instead are our enlightened politicians.

I can't do all things. No, I can't divulge conversations that were hard to get in the first place. DHS has public comment lines, but they aren't the ones I have. If you want to pursue the line of thought, though, I'd start at the NIPP and ask questions.

I accept that if I want to be truly informed on the security of our energy sources, I will need to do some homework.

What I was pointing out is that you can't expect to be very persuasive or credible with hints and innuendo and claims of secret knowledge. Perhaps you already know that, though.

I'm a bit sorry I brought it up...but at this point I just want to clarify why I did, and let you know that I think I'd get a lot more out of your posts if they were less mysterious.

Sorry about the diversion from the thread topic, everyone.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
scifi-

Secret knowledge? How about damn hard work. I will say this, I would provide some articles but they could only be attachments and would have to be blacked significantly. In other words, I'd have to take out all the good stuff, so I haven't suggested a "attachment feature" to the mod. It would just lead us back around to "show us everything you know! and why are you withholding the proof?" which has been the problem. Mostly, I have thought that the ideas themselves can be reached a priori but maybe I've been quite wrong.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
munga:

You're best, then, not mentioning such things. You are not inspiring us to go look for these mysterious answers by doing so.Rather, the effect is the opposite.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KL- I'm not the one who wanted proof. I was willing to discuss without specific examples. What can I say when the conversation goes:

Here is A.
NO, I think it is B.
Prove it!
Go look it up yourself.

B is rarely on the internet, as people imagine it is. It's why I always try to steer the conversation:

Here is A
No, I think it is B.
Prove it.
Think about it.

(But nobody likes that, they just like the gimme).

Got any suggestions?

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
People expect proof when people make claims. If you make claims without providing substantiation, people are likely to be incredulous. This is good.

Rather than mention all the ways you can't substantiate what you say, and the reasons why, which tend to sound like a bad X-Files plot, mention all the ways you can, period.

We aren't interested in what you can;t do any more than an employer is interested in an employee describing their merits in terms of what they can't do.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'm not the one who wanted proof."

You're the one who claimed knowledge. Scientifically, you've scarcely even described what experiment we should attempt to replicate. So far I've got:

Call WIPP (I think it was) ask them about throwing grenades down a coal chute. I'm pretty sure most of us here don't even know what a coal chute is in the context you're referencing. Would this be a main supply delivery coal chute for a coal-fired electricity plant?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
na. I said call DHS. They will put you onto the NIPP...

The question was, "how do you know our energy systems are unsafe?" and the only answer I can give is that we've dug under some fingernails at the DHS level in order to get them to admit the problems because we are proposing solutions. But part of DHS's solution to the energy security issues is to pretend that they are secure. So, if you call them and ask questions, they will provide you with stock materials. You just have to keep digging and possibly state your solutions to problems you imagine because admitting problems is not in DHS's ability... and then you get somewhere.

It's all face, propaganda and denial.

So I have predicted you will find and be directed to materials that support that our energy sources and nuclear in particular are secure, but that if you dig, you will find they are in la-la land. You might get some honest answers out of Bill Cummins 202-282-9234 if you are careful and proactive.

[ May 01, 2008, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh. Well here in Spokane, Washington, 100-ish miles downwind of Hanford, the paucity of security has been well known for decades. I knew of it back in '80, ten years before moving here, when I was looking stuff up in Chicago Public Libraries.

We thought you were talking a bout secret stuff.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks munga. That's a lot easier to understand.

(And IMO a long way from "one conversation with DHS.")

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The only thing that is secret is that they do NOT tell anyone about our non-security. So, in working with us and others like us they bind up the materials so that there is no way that any discussion of real non-security could be published.

If I wanted to break that, I'd be in a hell of a lot of trouble. But I don't mind calling them liars, and the people STUPID for believing obviously fabricated security reports.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
scifi.

No, it can be done in one conversation but you have to come loaded for bear.

If I could scream one idea out to America, it would be that we are so ****ing vulnerable because all our power production is really single-fuel capable and all our LIVES depend on power. We live such that we have no cushion.

We are so damn vulnerable it keeps me up at night.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoneSnark
Member
Member # 2005

 - posted      Profile for LoneSnark   Email LoneSnark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I used to read World Watch regularly up until a year ago. I just stopped by and sure enough I was immediately reminded why I quit.

Orson, after we have stopped airlifting our TVs from Asia and driving around in 2-ton SUVs, what are we going to do with the 83 million barrels that are flowing out of the ground every day?

That is the problem with unthinking peak oil fanatics; they fail to think their positions through. If we assume that we have reached peak oil, we will still be pumping millions of barrels a day out of the ground a hundred years from now. As such, abandoning oil would be an absurd waste of scarce resources. All we need to do is better allocate the oil we do have, which means the boring things people are already doing in response to high prices: carpooling, scrapping the SUV for a Toyota crossover, and vacationing closer to home. Consumption in the west needs to drop to make room for Asian consumption; it does not need to be eliminated.

The reason people object and deride the market is because it is not implementing their extremist positions. But this is their problem, not the markets. Willy-nilly abandoning infrastructure that took a century to build every time circumstances changed a little bit would result in chaos. To understand why markets operate the way they do requires critical thinking, not name calling, and certainly not disinformation. He proclaims that the "market doesn't do anything -- it just decides how much it will cost." It bears pointing out that "the market" is not some room somewhere filled with bureaucrats allocating societies resources. The market is all of us responding to incentives. If Orson Scott Card does not believe high prices have any effect then he has obviously never lived in a market economy. U.S. oil consumption is already falling 1.1% per year, highway use is dropping, and SUV sales are dismal. None of it required a single act of congress.

And Orson's opinion on agricultural production is even less credible. Orson would attempt to use perverse subsidies to solve a problem created by perverse subsidies? I call bull****: Orson will accomplish nothing more than replacing one set of bad outcomes with another set of bad outcomes. Worse than that, he is actually advocating current policy: so-called 'green' power sources are already subsidized to an absurd level. Not to mention: what these policies are doing is subsidizing energy consumption because electricity will have a lower price than it otherwise would have. As such, while the policies may boost the supply of alternative energies, it also boosts the demand for electricity, potentially resulting in no-net reduction in coal consumption. If the goal is to prevent the use of coal then we should tax it, not subsidize its competitors.

But, to our dismay, Orson suffers from the same blind awe at the power of government. He is no different from the technocrats that brought us the ethanol mess or rendered such a large percentage of the Earth's surface off-limits to oil exploration (all of it in the United States). But bureaucrats cannot plan our way out of a problem created by bureaucratic planning. The price will rise; people will act to save money by changing how they live, work, and play. But, as psychologically shocking as $4 a gallon is, it is still cheap compared to an all-electric vehicle fleet. To reach the same percentage of disposable income as we faced in 1979 gasoline prices would need to double yet again, an unlikely eventuality as such levels of subsidy would bankrupt the Chinese government long before it bankrupted the average American.

[ June 02, 2008, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: LoneSnark ]

Posts: 592 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LoneSnark,

Are you aware of oil and gas financing mechanisms, such as dNPV certifications of reserves?

And I don't support subsidies either. For anyone. Are you aware that the largest subsidies, by far, go to fossils and nuclear?

[ June 02, 2008, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoneSnark
Member
Member # 2005

 - posted      Profile for LoneSnark   Email LoneSnark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes and yes. Hence my assertion that all subsidies result in negative outcomes. If we want to curtail fossil fuel use then tax it; any other behavior will impose externalities upon society.

However, certification of reserves is only a subsidy if the entity being certified is not paying enough for certification to cover costs and insurance.

Posts: 592 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1. How about we just stop subsidizing fossils and nuclear, rather than taxing it.

2. Certification of reserves is a fictious process and is not a subsidy, it is a guess, always to the positive, that supports your idea that there's plenty of what you want under the earth. Certification of reserves has nothing to do with a subsidy.

3. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1