Never underestimate the looniness of many in this country.
Education is not a high priority here. Freedom to say and do whatever we want, to whomever we want, as long as we protect our own interests, is the priority of this country.
Well, maybe just the Fox News crowd. The rest of us have some humility and still believe that the rest of world is made up of people just like us who are trying to survive.
"How are you going to convince me that the carbon footprint is less by developing the oil in Iraq . . . and shipping it to the coast and refining it there?" he said. (Of course it's said by a Canadian politician who will benefit from the oil sands).
Still. If China will use them anyway we're going to get the green house emissions and no economic benefits. Wonderful.
These comment boxes aren't big enough for a full debate but I'll try and summarise the summary...
There are ways to overcome all of the criticisms you list for alternative sources (e.g. geographically distributed wind/solar; it is often calm/cloudy somewhere but rarely everywhere. Similarly CCS for coal etc).
You are also right about the dangers of nuclear but like any good trader know that it is a case of balancing the risks. It's not possible to reject nuclear without acknowledging the impacts of CO2. It may be the lesser of two evils, although I don't know enough about it to claim that it is.
The real problem however is the money invested, and owed, in the current energy infrastructure. If we ditch that and rapidly develop a carbon-free alternative then a lot of loans aren't going to get repaid and we all (after the GFC) know exactly where that leads.
Most importantly I encourage everybody to ditch the day-job and to trade from home (i.e. provide 'easy'liquidity!) to save on the commuting carbon.
L&W (Struggling to type with hands full of splinters after a Saturday of tree-hugging).
9 comments:
Never underestimate the looniness of many in this country.
Education is not a high priority here. Freedom to say and do whatever we want, to whomever we want, as long as we protect our own interests, is the priority of this country.
Well, maybe just the Fox News crowd. The rest of us have some humility and still believe that the rest of world is made up of people just like us who are trying to survive.
(sorry. a little soapbox-ish)
(i'm not even sure it's on topic!)
This is why i liked Boone Pickens comments so much.
You can have all the environmental complaints you want but the question still remains, what are you going to replace it with?
As Boones said if you don't have an answer for that then the only alternative is "park it and walk".
Finally, a chance to disprove that we are actually the same person! L&W, in contrast to Solfest, is a tree-hugger.
Of all my achievements this week, that one is right up there :-)
I love trees, critters, and things.
I await your alternative fuel source.
Ethanol?
Everyone in the world starves and apparently it uses more carbon than it saves.
Coal?
Dirty as "dirty" oil.
Wind?
Sounds good until it stops blowing.
Solar?
Sounds good until it gets cloudy.
Nuclear?
Currently the only real alternative that would make a real carbon difference.
Although there is that nasty by product that remains radioactive for a million years. And then there is that whole Chernobyl thing.
There's always park it and walk, sit in the cold, and of course sit in the dark.
Hey it worked 200 years ago.
Of course not everyone would have to walk and sit in the cold and dark. Just some people, the ones without armies.
Have a great weekend LW.
LOL
"How are you going to convince me that the carbon footprint is less by developing the oil in Iraq . . . and shipping it to the coast and refining it there?" he said. (Of course it's said by a Canadian politician who will benefit from the oil sands).
Still. If China will use them anyway we're going to get the green house emissions and no economic benefits. Wonderful.
These comment boxes aren't big enough for a full debate but I'll try and summarise the summary...
There are ways to overcome all of the criticisms you list for alternative sources (e.g. geographically distributed wind/solar; it is often calm/cloudy somewhere but rarely everywhere. Similarly CCS for coal etc).
You are also right about the dangers of nuclear but like any good trader know that it is a case of balancing the risks. It's not possible to reject nuclear without acknowledging the impacts of CO2. It may be the lesser of two evils, although I don't know enough about it to claim that it is.
The real problem however is the money invested, and owed, in the current energy infrastructure. If we ditch that and rapidly develop a carbon-free alternative then a lot of loans aren't going to get repaid and we all (after the GFC) know exactly where that leads.
Most importantly I encourage everybody to ditch the day-job and to trade from home (i.e. provide 'easy'liquidity!) to save on the commuting carbon.
L&W (Struggling to type with hands full of splinters after a Saturday of tree-hugging).
Well you are British, so therefore right.
Long and Right.
This is the internet... you are meant to respond by swearing, hurling insults AND WRITING IN CAPITALS.
I can't do that LW, I'm Canadian.
Post a Comment