Let's face it: none of our environmental fixes WORK! - Page 2

I was referring to your obsession with Rand in general and how it clashes with your alleged Christian beliefs. See, I'm not using Christianity to prove any points. I'm simply saying that you cannot claim to be both a Randian and a Christer. They are mutually exclusive. You've done nothing to counter the idea that Rand's ideology is so diametrically opposed to what you allegedly believe Jesus stood for.

You believe in Rand? You're not a fucking Christian.

I don't think that you have made a case here. I have not read any Ayn Rand and I have a hard time believing that reading and agreeing with a political piece of fictional literature precludes one from being a Christian. Care to give a specific example of this preclusion? I am thinking that I might need to read these books just so I can actually know what all the hubbub is about...

From the wikipedia entry for Objectivism.


I believe the Christ mythology says otherwise.

In fact, here's something from the Ayn Rand Institute's website:


http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ...stianity_locke

The true objectivists themselves think Christianity is incompatible.

I've got very little time at the moment to be here and found your earlier post confusing and couldn't spend an adequate amount of time to respond. So, yes there should be concerns what liberties are at stake, what rights are at stake and how those rules are imposed, and they very much deserve our attention. But also deserving of our attention is GW, drilling in the Arctic etc etc. Just to try and say "all environmentalist are commies trying to rule everybody and take over the world" is bringing down the discourse to a level that just ceates conflict, not better understanding.

The fact is too that as the economies of the world grow, so does the output through advances in technology and lower prices of technologies like solar, tidal etc. It positively scares me that after the Gulf spill etc, that many people want to focus on more drilling etc when there are technologies that not only cause a tiny fraction of the pollution they mitigate the effects of GW.

Alex Salmond in Scotkand has just been re-elected with a historic majority. His powers to achieve a 100% renewable electrical energy supply by 2020 are now much greater than they were as he will gain far more control over the running of Scotland. The fwct is that we in Scotland may have large flat screen tv's because we're powering them with clean renewable energy whilst people in the US have to watch everything on their iPads because coal is causing lots of pollution and CO2. Think about it.

Also imagine when products say on the box "this product was made using 100% renewable energy". That's a good selling point, indeed some retailers and lawmakers may wish to prohibit the number of goods sold that are made from non-renewable energy. The capitalist commercial edge will be green. And whilst those energy supplies are typically more expensive per watt right now to produce, that's changing. The bigger the focus is to produce renewables the cheaper per watt energy will become. Indeed clean energy, even withought subsidies and costs for co2 output will become cheaper than coal, oil and gas.

Not necessarily true.



Well, it seemed that a couple of your comments and KingOfSomewhereHot's comments were unqualified leaving the implication that, categorically (neither of you offered any qualifiers or exceptions), it cannot be done and thus the reason for the bans. I simply pointed out that it can be done under the right circumstances (which are actually the most common circumstances desired by back yard chicken advocates.) So I don't think I'm arguing against a caricature as much as I'm arguing against the, thus far (with the very recent exception by KingOfSomewhereHot) unqualified claims that chickens are messy/dirty, destroy things and an unsuitable for city or suburban situations.

Tens of thousands of people keep chickens in London. The rule is that you can keep less than 50 chickens before you need a permit. I'm sure most people will keep there chickens from interfering with neighbouring gardens/yards and whilst dogs can very occassionally attack chickens, maybe even cats, though I've never heard of that before, most city dogs aren't like farm dogs which are often trained to kill certain things like rabbits. I personally have only seen chickens lost to foxez, and penned up at night the foxes won't often get the hens.

And produce the same amount of energy at the same cost?



Hmmm. What are we to think about here? Some bizarre claim that isn't true?



You claim this is a selling point but then note that some lawmakers (retailers can chose to do sell or not sell what they want) "may wish to prohibit the number of goods sold that are made from non-renewable energy." If it's a selling point why would they need to. It seems the market would already be moving in that direction without the need for force and it will do it for the products where it makes most sense and can actually be done, but not for those where it can't or it is impractical.



Yes, this is the claim...this is the dream. Someday maybe we'll get there. But we're not there yet and we do need to live in reality.

Double post.

Yes, some businesses will capitalize on the selling points of green energy products well before the government bans products for not being made enough with green energy, if that even ever happens, though I guess it's pretty likily more with some products than others.

Renewable energy is getting much more efficient and much cheaper. I posted a link in another thread how wind energy is almost on a par in some places per watt with nuclear power. Nuclear also has many other very expensive costs when the plants are decommissioned and massive capital to build in the first place. Sheep graze around the biggest wind turbines in the world near me. Given these advances it would be foolish to not look ahead and see how these technologies will become the cheapest forms of energy before long.

But why should any products be banned for this reason at all?



I'm sure it probably is. And when the benefits exceed the costs it will sell itself.



Again, we probably disagree about the timelines and your bubbling optimism. I think we'll see that things are going the way you claim when someone other than government entities starts using these technologies in large ways. As it stands right now it is only government (or government-subsidized) entities that I see using this technology in large ways.

No, no. Businesses already use renewable electricity from the grid. No need to mention what percent of Scottish businesses will be getting renewable electricity by 2020 again.

Honestly, the government saying "we'll give you some of your own money back if you buy this product or service" makes me very wary and much less likely to buy said product or service.

BR, I don't wish to contribute to the further hijacking of this thread. But if you are at all interested, I encourage you to study the LDS doctrine regarding agency. Then, perhaps, you will understand my interest in the works of Ayn Rand.

Luckily You're in a tiny minority there. Even Ayn Rand would no doubt have taken her say $5,000 rebate on a nice little electric car...so long as it had at least two seats.

Oil etc gets billions. It's had billions in subsidies more than renewables. Hasn't ever put you off has it?

In the UK there's a new scheme coming where the government is going to give £6,000 ($10,000) to each household to spend on solar panels, new boliers, insulatuon etc. It'll make a big difference in just a relatively short period of time.

I'm happy to reclaim my money when it makes sense.

But spending $40,000 on a car to get a few thousand in government subsidies makes no sense in my situation.

Japan PM says no to more nuke plants that had been planned and yes to renewables. The renewables were completely undamaged by the earthquakes and tsunami, including those out at sea.




"TOKYO — Prime Minister Naoto Kan said Tuesday that Japan would abandon plans to build new nuclear reactors, saying his country needed to “start from scratch” in creating a new energy policy.

Mr. Kan’s announcement came as Japan allowed residents of evacuated areas around the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant to briefly revisit their homes for the first time since the devastating earthquake and tsunami in March caused the nuclear accident.

Tuesday’s decision will abandon a plan that the Kan government released last year to build 14 more nuclear reactors by 2030 and increase the share of nuclear power in Japan’s electricity supply to 50 percent. Japan currently has 54 reactors that before the earthquake produced 30 percent of its electricity.

The cancellation of the planned nuclear plants is the second time that Mr. Kan has suddenly announced big changes in Japanese nuclear policy without the usual endless committee meetings and media leaks that characterize the country’s consensus-driven decision making. Mr. Kan appears to be seeking a stronger leadership role after criticism of his government’s sometimes slow and indecisive handling of the Fukushima accident.

Last week, Mr. Kan asked a utility company to suspend operations at the Hamaoka nuclear plant, which sits atop an active earthquake fault line, about 120 miles southwest of Tokyo. After three days of delays, the company, Chubu Electric Power, finally agreed on Monday to shut down the plant until a new wave wall was built and other measures could be taken to strengthen it against earthquakes and tsunamis.

Mr. Kan said Japan would retain nuclear and fossil fuels as energy sources, but vowed to add two new pillars to Japan’s energy policy: renewable energy and conservation. While Japan has been a global leader in energy conservation, it lags behind the United States and Europe in adopting solar and wind power, and other new energy sources.

“We need to start from scratch,” Mr. Kan told reporters. “We need to make nuclear energy safer and do more to promote renewable energy.”"
~ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/wo...n.html?_r=1&hp

Especially given how much of the electrical energy in the US comes from and will continue to come from fossil fuels. I think there are noticeably cheaper electric vehicles coming, but I won't be buying a brand new vehicle ever if I can help it. Nothimg beats getting a $40,000 vehicle for $10,000 when it's still as good as new.

I think we have clarified our positions enough that this need not continue.

Fair enough.

Then is must be that we all agree that keeping a modest (say 6 or fewer) flock of hens for egg laying in a reasonably sized city or suburban backyard is neither impossible to manage nor necessarily a nuisance worthy of categorical ban by city ordinance.

I am not opposed to backyard hens overall. I was actually answering the question of why was it banned. Not making a judgement as to whether it should be banned or not. So I can fully agree with your statement above.

I, on the other hand, continue to support bans in urban areas. It's just one of the reasons I chose to live where I do... If they allowed yard-birds, I wouldn't have bought this house. If someone WANTS to have yard-birds, that's fine, but don't choose to live in THIS neighborhood if that's what you want.

And what if someone successfully undertakes an effort to get the ban repealed in your town?

THEN they can have their mini-farm. But until then, I'll expect them to keep them elsewhere.

You crack me up.

It's always interesting to see what brings out the authoritarian in some folks.

So... when I ask others to live within established law, I'm disrespectful...
and when I'm willing to do the same, I'm authoritarian?

Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

No.

When you send your kids to destroy someone's property you're disrespectful and when you advocate government force to prevent someone from doing something you don't like you're authoritarian.

Got it?

Not if they knew they weren't supposed to have chickens in their yard in the first place. (Rest assured I would talk to them face-to-face first... I guess I should have specified the "disrespectful" behavior as the last resort.)



Why have ANY laws at all??? (I was advocating preventing someone from doing something that was already prohibited by law/regulation/ordinance... and anyone with half a brain would know that before they ever bought a house in that neighborhood.)

I see you subscribe to the "Two Wrongs Make a Right" philosophy. Got it.



Ahhh the famous reductio ad absurdum argument, how I missed thee.

I think it would be fair to say that there's a difference between laws that are designed to protect the basic rights of people and laws that are just about forcing people to do what other people want them to do. Arguably the one we've been talking about fits into the second category.