Donald Trump and US politics
|
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
Trump´s little journey has already made clear, America cannot act responsible and lead these days. This is just consequent. Arming Saudis, visit NATO and G7 doing nothing except showing bad manners and make an end to the Paris agreement. You must be so proud. Meanwhile I feel embarrassed when I read his supporters comments. President Bad Joke. I see you´re still making up things in the simplest way, Xav, a pity it´s not good enough to be a paid troll(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades). Last edited by Schmodderhengst#7293 on Jun 1, 2017, 9:27:42 PM
|
|
"That's all it's about though: money. You'd need to be naive to honestly believe the Paris Accord would have been effective at combatting climate change. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
|
|
The point is that Trump pulling out of the Paris agreement has virtually zero consequences for the climate. Gas and renewables are the new shit and they're here to stay, no matter what Trump does. The market always wins.
GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
|
|
" |
|
" CNN is at least presenting facts instead of fabricated propaganda. They're not saying that the president is secretly muslim, not a citizen, that there was widespread voter fraud, that there are conspiracies to harm white people, or other random garbage with no factual basis. They're not implying that Trump caused those things. That's insane to even suggest. They're just reminding people that all of these things are happening or are projected to happen because of climate change and he is pulling out of the agreement despite it. It's probably also worth noting that the agreement was not really enforceable and just a good faith gesture for countries to try to do their part in minimizing green house emissions. Backing out of it is just greedy and short sighted. Yes, the headline is terrible too. |
|
" Sorry if that came off as being negative about the agreement. I meant to emphasize that there was no good reason to back out of it. |
|
"Roughly equivalent to trusting MSNBC. I'm not saying climate change isn't a real concern, but I am saying that it is presented as a politicized false dichotomy with heavy dual-narrative propaganda. There are billions of dollars to be made by corporations in evading their duty to leave public property as clean as they found it; there are also billions of dollars to be made pulling government subsidies for fake green energy research. Not only is their corruption on both sides of this issue, but a single Big Energy corporation is more than happy to play both ends simultaneously, polluting with conventional energy in one division and drawing government grants for fake inventions in another. Here's the thing though; climate change denial only lets Big Energy evade the stick of regulation, while climate change alarmism is where the carrot is at. You can't go below zero punishment, but you can go infinite on unearned reward. Well, until the host is sucked dry, anyway. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Jun 1, 2017, 10:21:16 PM
|
|
" we are past the point of laughing. It's more /facepalm than anything else right now Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun |
|
|
If governments and corporations wanted to be serious about emissions they'd target planned obsolescence and force everyone to build things to last generations, to be easily repairable, with any upgraded features delivered via modular components. Long-term emissions reductions by reducing the need to produce, work, travel.
How? Heavy penalties to firms that produce things that end up in the garbage and/or have deliberate obsolescence and/or are designed to be difficult to repair (something that consumer protection groups should already be targeting, if there wasn't so much regulatory capture). I'd like to see mandatory 10++ year warranties (fuck it, 100+ year on homes). Perhaps force producers to pay for waste directly (rather than billing the consumer, who hardly has any choice - I try to buy things that last but even if you pay a price premium it's still garbage). Unfortunately, all of the government Ponzi schemes like pension and other debt obligations or various investment paradigms require continuous economic growth or they'll collapse. So first a fundamental restructuring of our economic model is needed, where governments and corporations can function long-term without growth or with decline (which I presume would be largely incompatible with debt spending and inflation). I fear we will keep current models but perform a reset in the worst way possible: via mass population kill-off (war/disaster/epidemic). It's just kicking the ball ahead for future people to worry about. Meanwhile we have all these countries and corporations dumping junk in the oceans or destroying soil for generations with mounds and mounds of trash. Everything, including newly built homes, is getting cheaper and cheaper. Appliances that last a few months then get thrown away. Teaching planned obsolescence in engineering courses, building deliberate failure mechanisms in, i.e. sticking two metals with dissimilar electrode potentials next to each other to force corrosion at a predictable rate, or using certain plastics in essential parts - volatile organic compounds evaporate at a predictable rate (with known variation based on polymerization process, other material properties, environmental conditions), allowing obsolescence to be tailored to a desired lifetime before the component becomes brittle. Simplistic and ineffective measures like the Paris Accord will change little. In reality they're largely wealth transfer schemes. In many cases asymmetric emissions standards and carbon pricing creates perverse incentives where net pollution increases. For example, since we're not costing garbage creation appropriately companies that use a more robust manufacturing process to produce goods that last a long time (or create less solid/liquid waste) end up being penalized in the carbon market compared to fast/easy throw-away goods production. Shifting to a sustainability focus is a long-term strategy. It will increase emissions in the short-term, but drastically reduce emissions in the future. But no, lets put an urgent and asymmetric price on carbon now so countries with better waste, water, and air quality regulations get penalized for producing things, and end up outsourcing production to somewhere much worse environmentally. It's similar with mining/extracting resources (and that's not even costing the additional waste related to transport). Add corruption and incompetence, and we're going to see vastly dissimilar measuring, reporting, and verification compliance. Without fail, carbon pricing will end up biasing production/mining away from the least corrupt and most environmentally friendly places, ultimately making things worse. You might be able to mitigate that by not having free trade but good luck getting the global free trade train to stop. It's all a fucking joke. Some of the perverse shit we're going to see emerge from the carbon economy makes me want to grow a villain mustache and twirl it. We're going to see inane business models emerge, focused on qualifying for maximum carbon allocations from the government and being paid for carbon offsets, while producing nothing (literally, 'my factory creates ash, please give carbon allocation, ty. now I will not create ash and sell carbon allocation'). The government is so incompetent with this stuff, they're going to create scenarios similar to what they've done with solar power in Canada (if you locked in the early rates you could set up a solar farm, charge it with UV lights using hydro/gas/coal power, then sell the solar power back to the government and make a profit. Cops are going to bust in a basement one day looking for a grow op and see lamps targeted at solar panels instead). From a completely selfish perspective I don't know why Trudeau is so gung ho over free trade and carbon. We should sit on our vast resources until overpopulation brings everyone else to desperation, then cash in (or keep hoarding while everyone implodes). Heck, ally with Russia and start burning coal like crazy. Warm up our frozen north to increase productivity, improve crop yield, create more habitable land, etc. Seems good. We'll probably need to build a wall of nuclear power plants or bad singers like justin bieber and celine dion to protect our southern border. Never underestimate what the mod community can do for PoE if you sell an offline client.
|
|
" I guess it's getting kind of late and I'm pretty distracted by other things. |
|
