|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:12 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| Let's pretend for a second that you are correct. |
Of course he's correct. Oil isn't infinite. |
I haven't disputed this for a second. It doesn't logically follow that oil will ever run out, though. |
Yes it does follow. Unless a cleaner energy source is discovered/implemented - which is a possibility, not an inevitability - or we cut back, it will run out. If we assume (against all logic) that oil 'might not run out', it's still senseless and greedy to consume it at breakneck speed. |
At present, the incentive simply isn't there to develop and implement one of the myriad alternatives that already exist. Oil is cheap and abundant. The alternatives are not. When the price of oil goes up, this will act as a signal for firms to implement one of the alternatives. It may be a stressful change over, or it may integrate seamlessly. We don't really know.
The fact we don't know, is kind of the point. No one knows the answer, therefore it is absurd for the govt to step in and give one. Because we don't know if the govt knows what the best answer is.
Are we really "consuming oil at break neck speed"? Perhaps we are. I'm not so sure. We certainly consume a lot. But what is a lot? As I have already said, we aren't likely to consume every last drop. When it becomes expensive to burn in our cars, an alternative, cheaper form of transport will be a real money maker for the market. That is generally, all the incentive people need. Once this happens, oil will only be used for its most efficient purposes.
I guess the moral of my story is, the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone.
| Quote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| We *are* all going to die, environmental apocalypse or not. Every human who has ever existed has faced that problem, and all have come up with different answers, but no wise human has ever concluded that the solution is to forget about it and 'just party'. |
The difference is we don't know exactly when we are going to die, naturally. If the environmentalists are correct, our fiery doom is impending. Like, RIGHT NOW!!!! If not now, it will affect our children, "Oh won't somebody PLEEEEAASE! think of the children!", they haven't quite decided yet. |
You'll have to explain it another way, because as it is I don't see any difference. Death has always been unforseeable yet impending, and throughout history one of the most popular solutions has been to think of the children. The cases are exactly parallel. The difference is that now people don't or won't see beyond themselves. |
I don't see it. Although, more natural events are occurring, less and less people are being killed by them. I don't see any reason for alarm.
| Quote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| Advocating nebulous junk like "self sufficiency", sustainability and etc, only distracts from finding a real solution. A solution which doesn't involve living in grass huts, or as the enviros would have it, returning the Earth to some pre-man state. These "solutions" aren't serious. Thankfully real people are starting to get the message. |
I'd have thought that independent choices made by far-sighted individuals is exactly the type of solution a libertarian would support. What do you think would be better? Anyway, it's strange that you advocate a real solution when supposedly you don't believe a problem exists. |
Of course the diminishing supply of oil will present problems. Before that it was whale oil for fuel, before that is was food etc. Central planning solved none of these problems. I don't believe it will solve the oil issue, either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| Advocating nebulous junk like "self sufficiency", sustainability and etc, only distracts from finding a real solution. A solution which doesn't involve living in grass huts, or as the enviros would have it, returning the Earth to some pre-man state. These "solutions" aren't serious. Thankfully real people are starting to get the message. |
I'd have thought that independent choices made by far-sighted individuals is exactly the type of solution a libertarian would support. What do you think would be better? Anyway, it's strange that you advocate a real solution when supposedly you don't believe a problem exists. |
The common libertarian attitudes towards climate change are exquisitely annoying.
First, deny the science and the initial premise. |
Refuting and denying are completely different things. It is obvious that the Earth is warming. However, the entire edifice that this is human caused and will be a problem was completely compromised at the beginning of this year. The IPCC, the entire justification for the thing, has been almost entirely discredited.
| Quote: |
| If that doesn't work, employ some catchphrase. My favorite is: watermelon, green on the outside, red on the inside. This is a great way to combine denialism while smearing the intentions of those who advocate collective action for a problem that pretty much necessitates collective action. |
This is basically a fact. Many of the leftist thinkers whose reasons to exist were dissipated when the Soviet empire disintegrated, became environmentalists.
Name one problem that "collective action" ever solved. Maybe landing on the moon, but I would hardly call that a problem. Collectivism causes far, far more problems than it solves.
| Quote: |
| Lastly, assert the market, or a magic bullet provided by the market, will fix the problem. This last step you'll see even among libertarians who concede the science. But there is no magic bullet. |
You're absolutely correct. There is no magic bullet. There are thousands of non magic solutions. Of which, central planning is not amongst that group of solutions.
| Quote: |
What's required is a comprehensive public-private response, from direct mitigation measures to carbon-consumption taxes to implementation of international accords to dual public-private investment in diversified green tech to reducing energy consumption. The United States is right on time to revamp its infrastructure, so why not go green? Just because something is green and sustainable doesn't necessarily make it more costly. |
"There is no magic bullet" but here is my magic bullet. Good grief.
Experience has shown that "going green" is more expensive and less sustainable than the current track. Green jobs cost hundreds of thousands in subsidies PER JOB, and destroy real jobs in the real economy. Spain learned this lesson the hard way.
http://www.google.co.nz/#hl=en&source=hp&q=spain+green+jobs+failure&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=spain+green+&gs_rfai=&fp=de0258f51c0f5fc7 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
Also, while we were arguing about something that does not exist, we all neglected the much less sexy task of ensuring that we don't lose the Gulf of Mexico for a few thousand years. We all should have kept our eye on much less sexy tasks.
|
It's the same people doing their best to obstruct with regards to both fronts. The same people in our government who are casually shrugging off any possibility of AGW are saying that the problem with our oil industry is that it suffers from too much government regulation and apologizing to BP for holding it financially accountable. |
Govt regulation failed to stop the spill. The EPA was about to give BP an environmental award before this happened!
Perhaps if BP had focused on its core business instead of pumping hundreds of millions into appeasing enviro types, this wouldn't have happened.
On a lighter (maybe) note; how can this not be considered too much regulation?
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/06/not-from-the-onion-epa-classifies-milk-as-oil.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
Govt regulation failed to stop the spill. The EPA was about to give BP an environmental award before this happened!
|
Lack of governmental regulation failed to stop the spill. Let's be clear about this: the regulations were not being effectively enforced in this situation. The fact that corrupt regulators were put into place by politicians with a vested interest in regulatory failure is the result of poor citizen choice in voting. That doesn't mean regulation failed, it means the individuals responsible for regulating failed to regulate.
| Senior wrote: |
| Perhaps if BP had focused on its core business instead of pumping hundreds of millions into appeasing enviro types, this wouldn't have happened. |
Strange how often the business-is-always-right crowd makes arguments that begin with "perhaps" or "possibly" or "maybe", isn't it? "Maybe if we have totally free markets, someone will come up with something to fix all our problems." "Maybe if we didn't pester big business with our petty concern for the environment, they wouldn't destroy the livelihoods of thousands by drilling without a plan for what to do if things went wrong." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
]
| Senior wrote: |
Govt regulation failed to stop the spill. The EPA was about to give BP an environmental award before this happened!
|
Lack of governmental regulation failed to stop the spill. Let's be clear about this: the regulations were not being effectively enforced in this situation. The fact that corrupt regulators were put into place by politicians with a vested interest in regulatory failure is the result of poor citizen choice in voting. That doesn't mean regulation failed, it means the individuals responsible for regulating failed to regulate. |
You already know my stance on this. Regulation is unnecessary. All that needs to happen is, if you spill millions of barrels of oil into the ocean, you will be paying to clean it up, and you will be paying for any run-on costs, down the line. This should be more than enough incentive not to cause colossal foul ups.
| Quote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| Perhaps if BP had focused on its core business instead of pumping hundreds of millions into appeasing enviro types, this wouldn't have happened. |
Strange how often the business-is-always-right crowd makes arguments that begin with "perhaps" or "possibly" or "maybe", isn't it? "Maybe if we have totally free markets, someone will come up with something to fix all our problems." "Maybe if we didn't pester big business with our petty concern for the environment, they wouldn't destroy the livelihoods of thousands by drilling without a plan for what to do if things went wrong." |
Let me be more specific. BP is totally at fault here. However, there are a million and one other factors at play as well.
The govt is at least partially at fault for (among numerous reasons) mandating where drillers can drill. The incentives align to make it more economical to drill in these wacky places. Ultimately, the govt owns the property where this foul up took place. It would surprise me if any business would, intentionally or otherwise, do this on land that they owned. Especially if there were to be massive consequences from fouling there own land PLUS their neighbors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
Also, while we were arguing about something that does not exist, we all neglected the much less sexy task of ensuring that we don't lose the Gulf of Mexico for a few thousand years. We all should have kept our eye on much less sexy tasks.
|
It's the same people doing their best to obstruct with regards to both fronts. The same people in our government who are casually shrugging off any possibility of AGW are saying that the problem with our oil industry is that it suffers from too much government regulation and apologizing to BP for holding it financially accountable. |
No. I shrug off any possibility of AGW. If it did exist I'd welcome it. I believe BP should be nationalized, assets sold off and the proceeds use to pay for the cleanup. You have a strawman wandering around in your mind.
We are an interesting species. We have huge problems. Real problems that we can see. Poverty, wars, the lost Gulf, broke as a joke, etc etc and yet there are calls from the people to direct capital at an imaginary problem, in a manner that will just so happen to enrich the bankster oligopoly.
Last edited by mises on Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| Let's pretend for a second that you are correct. |
Of course he's correct. Oil isn't infinite. |
I haven't disputed this for a second. It doesn't logically follow that oil will ever run out, though. |
 Another pearl of wisdom from The Wise one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| and yet there are calls from the people to direct capital at an imaginary problem. |
Still going to Exxon's "Fossil fuels are good for the environment" meetings I take it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
Also, while we were arguing about something that does not exist, we all neglected the much less sexy task of ensuring that we don't lose the Gulf of Mexico for a few thousand years. We all should have kept our eye on much less sexy tasks. |
Whatever. Its not like the government can't multi-task. The US should be able to cure regulatory problems in the Executive while the Legislative crafts solutions to other problems. |
It should be able to. We have limited capital. We also have serious problems now. IF agw is true, we have ample time to adapt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| and yet there are calls from the people to direct capital at an imaginary problem. |
Still going to Exxon's "Fossil fuels are good for the environment" meetings I take it? |
Only as often as you're going to Goldman's "cap and trade is good for the economy" meetings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| Let's pretend for a second that you are correct. |
Of course he's correct. Oil isn't infinite. |
I haven't disputed this for a second. It doesn't logically follow that oil will ever run out, though. |
Another pearl of wisdom from The Wise one. |
Dispute the claim or stfu.
The oil in the ground is finite, but so are many other things. We still extract 100s of tonnes of gold, silver and other finite resources every year.
Besides this, it is actually possible to manufacture petroleum from other materials. Coal, algae, bio mass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
The oil in the ground is finite, but so are many other things. We still extract 100s of tonnes of gold, silver and other finite resources every year. |
What does "finite" mean to you? If not something that is of limited quantity which is non-renewable.
| Quote: |
| Besides this, it is actually possible to manufacture petroleum from other materials. Coal, algae, bio mass. |
Great, pump more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Biofuels? ..would better be called "ecocide-fuels" considering rich countries pay poor countries millions to clear their natural forests to make way for sterile moncultural palm oil plantations.
The word "resources" immediately makes you think of coal and oil.To me it means the things that sustain life on the planet. Water, air, forests, ice caps, ecosystems. Stuff that enables life on the planet to continue.
| Mises wrote: |
| Only as often as you're going to Goldman's "cap and trade is good for the economy" meetings. |
Who cares about the economy? Let it crash..repeatedly.. until humans eventually realise it is built on unsustainable policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
The oil in the ground is finite, but so are many other things. We still extract 100s of tonnes of gold, silver and other finite resources every year. |
What does "finite" mean to you? If not something that is of limited quantity which is non-renewable. |
Fortunately, the real world is a little more complex than that. It isn't likely we will ever extract all the oil, because it so damn hard to get to in many cases. As it becomes more expensive, it will only be used where it is most efficient to do so. Where it is not efficient, price signals will indicate where to invest in alternatives.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Besides this, it is actually possible to manufacture petroleum from other materials. Coal, algae, bio mass. |
Great, pump more CO2 into the atmosphere. |
Be my guest.
| Quote: |
| Biofuels? ..would better be called "ecocide-fuels" considering rich countries pay poor countries millions to clear their natural forests to make way for sterile moncultural palm oil plantations. |
I agree to a certain extent. Bio-fuels can only, presently, survive through subsidies. Perhaps in the future they will be economical.
| Quote: |
| The word "resources" immediately makes you think of coal and oil.To me it means the things that sustain life on the planet. Water, air, forests, ice caps, ecosystems. Stuff that enables life on the planet to continue. |
Certainly.
I would add human ingenuity to that list. It is the most abundant resource in the universe.
| Quote: |
| Mises wrote: |
| Only as often as you're going to Goldman's "cap and trade is good for the economy" meetings. |
Who cares about the economy? Let it crash..repeatedly.. until humans eventually realise it is built on unsustainable policy. |
I know that you hate humans. I feel kind of sorry for you because of it. The same way I feel about someone who is prejudiced against any group. Ultimately they hold those feeling because of fear and ignorance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
Also, while we were arguing about something that does not exist, we all neglected the much less sexy task of ensuring that we don't lose the Gulf of Mexico for a few thousand years. We all should have kept our eye on much less sexy tasks.
|
It's the same people doing their best to obstruct with regards to both fronts. The same people in our government who are casually shrugging off any possibility of AGW are saying that the problem with our oil industry is that it suffers from too much government regulation and apologizing to BP for holding it financially accountable. |
No. I shrug off any possibility of AGW. If it did exist I'd welcome it. I believe BP should be nationalized, assets sold off and the proceeds use to pay for the cleanup. You have a strawman wandering around in your mind. |
No, I don't have a strawman wandering around my mind. Rather, I'm talking about a specific group of American citizens who are active in our politics (which is why I said "our government") and doing their best to obstruct on both of these fronts. You aren't representative of that group. In fact, you really couldn't be more different than them. General statements don't always apply in specific cases, and when it's general statements about Americans, it even less often applies to specific non-Americans.
I don't disagree with you that the Gulf of Mexico is a clearly more pressing concern than the possibility of AGW (I don't think AGW is a proven fact, but unlike you, I don't dismiss the possibility of it, and I certainly don't welcome it). This isn't an either-or choice, though, and more importantly, the people in our government who are opposing solutions to both issues are opposing them on the same "all that matters is what benefits our corporate masters in the moment" principle. That needs to stop before anything can get better.
| mises wrote: |
| ... direct capital at an imaginary problem, in a manner that will just so happen to enrich the bankster oligopoly. |
Assuming you're talking about cap & trade, I've all ready said I don't think that's a good idea. One can admit to the possibility of AGW while rejecting cap & trade. Whether AGW is actually happening and what solutions would best be utilized in response to it are two totally separate issues that far too often become entangled in the minds of many. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Lastly, assert the market, or a magic bullet provided by the market, will fix the problem. This last step you'll see even among libertarians who concede the science. But there is no magic bullet. |
You're absolutely correct. There is no magic bullet. There are thousands of non magic solutions. Of which, central planning is not amongst that group of solutions.
| Quote: |
What's required is a comprehensive public-private response, from direct mitigation measures to carbon-consumption taxes to implementation of international accords to dual public-private investment in diversified green tech to reducing energy consumption. The United States is right on time to revamp its infrastructure, so why not go green? Just because something is green and sustainable doesn't necessarily make it more costly. |
"There is no magic bullet" but here is my magic bullet. Good grief.
Experience has shown that "going green" is more expensive and less sustainable than the current track. Green jobs cost hundreds of thousands in subsidies PER JOB, and destroy real jobs in the real economy. Spain learned this lesson the hard way.
http://www.google.co.nz/#hl=en&source=hp&q=spain+green+jobs+failure&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=spain+green+&gs_rfai=&fp=de0258f51c0f5fc7 |
You are clearly unfamiliar with the phrase 'magic bullet.'
Anyway, your link addresses green jobs. I'm not talking about re-inventing society with stimulus. I'm talking about re-adjusting it. The government needs to replace roads and sewer systems anyway. The replacements should reflect our current understanding of our relationship with the environment. Obviously, we don't take Spain as a model.
And I am definitely not advocating central planning! But your tactics are EXACTLY WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. Libertarians commonly grab hold of any argument that's pro-environment and assert socialism or communism. Its weak.
| mises wrote: |
there are calls from the people to direct capital at an imaginary problem |
The scientific basis is very evident: kindergarten classes can grasp the fundamental principle of greenhouse gases.
There's a great deal of evidence that global warming may be occurring. I can respect skepticism and dissent, but calling AGW 'imaginary' is all kinds of wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
