Skip to main content

View Diary: Will climate change saints save the Earth? (151 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I do not have a guarantee... (0+ / 0-)

    I have the scientists, engineers, and the guy who ran the Electrofuels Program, saying it looks really good.

    And there are four distinct approaches being pursued, each on a path to compete with petroleum.

    We're good at engineering.

    •  "It looks really good" (6+ / 0-)

      is a long way from "it can replace 89 million bbls./day of crude oil and an equal carbon-equivalent of coal while making the oil and coal so relatively expensive that people will abandon them without a second thought and while taking CO2 out of the atmosphere at a rate sufficient to avert climate change catastrophe."

      Your problem is not your promotion of technology, but your implied analysis (rather, your lack thereof) of capitalism.  Nobody here has a problem with alternative energy -- the problem is with the assumption that alternative energy itself will save us from a problem created by capitalism.

      "We could run the grid on unicorn farts, but if consumption levels remain the same, Gaia will still lose the ability to support many species, including hominids." --Michael Donnelly

      by Cassiodorus on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 04:40:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And I would reply... (0+ / 0-)

        Your problem is that you think your pastime is going to matter to the world...

        •  In other words -- (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BruceMcF

          when you don't have anything, point the finger at the other guy.  

          Thanks for the admission.

          "We could run the grid on unicorn farts, but if consumption levels remain the same, Gaia will still lose the ability to support many species, including hominids." --Michael Donnelly

          by Cassiodorus on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 06:08:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Or, in other words, ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cassiodorus, Bob Guyer

          ... you don't have a response with respect to the argument. "Your problem" meaning "the problem with the argument you present" and "Your problem" as used in:

          Your problem is that you think your pastime is going to matter to the world.
          ... involves a shift from argument on the merits to argument ad hominem.

          Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

          by BruceMcF on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 07:08:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh the hurt fee fees (0+ / 0-)

            Cass has been aggressively abusive of me since our first exchange months or years ago.

            Hmmm, about the ad hom... Better re-try...

            The problem with the argument you present is that it appears to have been written with the intent of being taken seriously...

            Any better?

            And the quality of the fiction you post about me has not gotten better, Cass...

            "it can replace 89 million bbls./day of crude oil and an equal carbon-equivalent of coal
            Well I never said that. I think it can replace a greatly reduced amount after activists demand conservation and lower the amount the economy uses. How about that, technology and activism, dealing with the same problem! I know, not pure enough...
            while making the oil and coal so relatively expensive that people will abandon them without a second thought
            I'm not sure we talked about it today, but yes, a carbon tax would accelerate the changeover. Now tell me why a carbon tax sucks if socialism is not the end result.
            Nobody here has a problem with alternative energy -- the problem is with the assumption that alternative energy itself will save us from a problem created by capitalism.
            Yeah, you do. When alternative energy is brought up, you reject the entire discussion if a rejection of capitalism is not included upfront. In the real world, that is rejecting alternative energy.
            problem created by capitalism
            And there's a problem... Us stooopid scientists think the problem was caused by burning too much fossil fuel.
            •  . (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW
              Cass has been aggressively abusive of me since our first exchange months or years ago.
              First off, you are a guest in my diaries, so if you don't like what I have to say, write your own diaries.

              Secondly, you have been making a number of absurd overstatements which are intended to invalidate what I have to say in my diaries.  I objected.  These are my diaries.  You don't like it, too bad.

              Well I never said that.
              You implied it in that you said that your Favorite Theoretical Fuel Source was going to drive the fossil fuel producers out of business.  Well, that's what the fossil fuel producers produced last year.  You want to drive them out of business?  Well, there's your production goal, and that's just for the immediate present.  If you don't think you can meet it, you might want to drop your fantastic claim about electrofuels -- or maybe you could just continue the discussion without relying on credibility.
              Now tell me why a carbon tax sucks if socialism is not the end result.
              I've made numerous objections to the idea of a carbon tax already.  If you want to find out what they are, go back and read them.  
              Yeah, you do. When alternative energy is brought up, you reject the entire discussion if a rejection of capitalism is not included upfront. In the real world, that is rejecting alternative energy.
              No, it's not, and your ideas of "reality" are themselves already rendered suspect by your fantastic overselling of your Favorite Theoretical Fuel Source.
              And there's a problem... Us stooopid scientists think the problem was caused by burning too much fossil fuel.
              People don't naturally burn fossil fuel -- they do so as part of their participation in an economic system, capitalism.  Thus "fossil fuel burning" does not count as a primary cause.  Capitalism does, however, because people are obliged to participate in it.

              "We could run the grid on unicorn farts, but if consumption levels remain the same, Gaia will still lose the ability to support many species, including hominids." --Michael Donnelly

              by Cassiodorus on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 09:25:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  More problems (0+ / 0-)
                First off, you are a guest in my diaries, so if you don't like what I have to say, write your own diaries.
                You posting you diaries at Kos's site is an invitation for me to comment. If you don't like what I have to say, open your own website and ban me when I show up.
                Secondly, you have been making a number of absurd overstatements
                Hmmm.... I'll admit upfront that I'm an optimist regarding electrofuels; however none of the scientists or engineers (including those outside of the group of interviewees) that I have discussed this with have accused me of "absurd overstatement." Do you have a PhD in chemical engineering or related science field such that I should rely on your opinion rather than those of the scientists and engineers I've already spoken with?
                which are intended to invalidate what I have to say in my diaries.  I objected.  These are my diaries.  You don't like it, too bad.
                Yes, I think emerging technologies are in the process of invalidating some of what you say, and you objected. And objected again. And never answered my points.  I think a possible alternative to objecting is writing coherent answers to the points I raised.
                I've made numerous objections to the idea of a carbon tax already.  If you want to find out what they are, go back and read them.
                And I've written an awful lot about ARPA-E, and I'm not egomaniacal enough to demand that you find it all and read it. This almost tops your suggestion that I read dozens of essays by some third party to understand your point. If you can't make the point in a sentence or two, made its not really a point. And if you're not willing to make the point in a sentence or two, maybe you should give up blogging.
                People don't naturally burn fossil fuel
                Were you trying for comedy?

                Done for the night. Enjoy your colorful pastime, see you next time.

                •  . (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JesseCW
                  Do you have a PhD in chemical engineering or related science field such that I should rely on your opinion rather than those of the scientists and engineers I've already spoken with?
                  First off, you don't seem to have the slightest idea about the energy requirements of the capitalist world system, or for that matter about how global warming works.  Since these are MY diaries, this is the topic at hand.  You seem to think that all that's required to discuss these topics is knowledge in chemical engineering, and that you can just make up the rest of it off the top of your head.
                  And I've written an awful lot about ARPA-E
                  Feel free to write a diary about it here.
                  Enjoy your colorful pastime, see you next time.
                  Yes, please.  Go away.  And stay away.

                  "We could run the grid on unicorn farts, but if consumption levels remain the same, Gaia will still lose the ability to support many species, including hominids." --Michael Donnelly

                  by Cassiodorus on Sun Dec 01, 2013 at 05:18:37 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Right! You can't Monty Burns the Sun! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cassiodorus, JesseCW

        (or the wind). Which is why they are non-starters as far as in for the duration investment by the United States and our citizens.

        Solar solves it, wind solves it, tidal + geothermal solve it, but they're not monty burnsable.

        They can't really be commoditized and quantified... safely. Simply opening up the market in those fields rattles the foundation of commoditized energy. If renewables were to take Exxon out of the top three it would be 'catastrophic to world oil supplies' or some such nonsense.

        Our energy solutions are stymied by the need for manipulatable, concurrent streams of profit in the energy sector.

        Peace~

        Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

        by k9disc on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 11:51:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site