________________________________
From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2014 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>>>I am certainly in favor of energy efficiency, only a fool would not be, but
>>>it is not the solution to our energy problem because when a commodity like
>>>energy becomes cheaper people simply use more of it. If somebody invented a
>>>gadget that doubled the fuel efficiency of jetliners it would not cut in
>>>half the amount of fuel that airlines use because people would fly more
>>>often and airplanes would hold fewer people due to their larger more
>>>comfortable seats.
>
>
>> That is a failure of the markets.
>>The free market is only good at supplying people with the things they want,
>>it has no opinion about what people should want. If there is a failure at all
>>it is a failure in human nature; the first concern of the people of 1914 was
>>not our well being and they would not have impoverished themselves to help
>>us; likewise I say let the people of 2114 fight their own battles.
Yeah I have heard that dogma -- again and again -- as if repeating it makes it
become true. There is no such thing as a free market to begin with -- that is a
silly Libertarian illusion - -a required notion -- for this ideology. But like
all faith based ideologies -- it has no corresponding exemplar in the real
world -- and the example you gave of the black market is truly laughable -- go
try to compete with a drug gang and you will rapidly discover just how un-free
the black market is. I fully expected you to champion the selfish self centered
me now position -- it is consistent with your beliefs after all. But it remains
what it is -- a short sighted cop out and abdication of your responsibility as
a sentient being.
> Energy and all other non-renewable and critical resources should be taxed and
> taxed heavily
>> So you think it likely that people will not voluntarily use less energy but
>> will vote for politicians who force then to do so. I don't.
Most people WILL voluntarily use less energy -- it is the minority of A-holes
who think only of themselves that necessitates measures to prevent these self
centered A-holes from becoming all out resource pigs.
> Take phosphate for example -- the world is running out
>>Yeah yeah yeah, people are always screaming that the world is running out of
>>X, but they forget that as technology improves new and better ways to produce
>>X are found and so are substitutes for X. In 1980 pessimistic economist Paul
>>Ehrlich (author of "The Population Bomb" ) made a bet with optimistic
>>economist Julian Simon. Ehrlich thought we were about to run out of chromium,
>>copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten so the price would skyrocket. On paper on
>>September 29 1980 they bought $200 worth of each metal. If the
>>inflation-adjusted prices of the 5 metals rose in the next 10 years Simon
>>would pay Ehrlich the combined difference. If the prices
fell, Ehrlich would pay Simon. Ehrlich lost the bet, after 10 years every one
of the 5 metals was cheaper after 10 years and on September 29 1990 Ehrlich
gave Simon a check for $576.07.
Yadda Yadda Yadda -- So what -- bad predictions were made in the past by some
people. Fact remains that global liquid fuel production has peaked -- sometime
in the last decade. The fact remains that recoverable reserves of coal, natural
gas, uranium and all other fossil supplies are not increasing; in spite of the
happy PR spin put out by the Gas sector lobbyist groups.
>>You should also read a book by William Stanley Jevons called "The Coal
>>Question", here are some quotations from it:
You should read a book called "Limits to growth" published in the 1970s. We are
on course to hit those limits -- in spite of all the Libertarian hot air - -the
only "resource" that seems to be in infinite supply.
"Are we wise in allowing the commerce of this country to rise beyond the point
at which we can long maintain it?"
"I must point out the painful fact that such a rate of growth will before long
render our consumption of coal comparable with the total supply.
In the increasing depth and difficulty of coal mining we shall meet that vague,
but inevitable boundary that will stop our progress. Our progress is to be
checked within half a century, yet by that
time our consumption will probably be three or four times what it is now"
The interesting thing is that this book was written in 1865.
>>By the way, have you noticed that politicians are always urging us to
>>conserve energy but they don't seem to find it necessary to command us to
>>conserve angular momentum?
>
> Is there any real point here; or is this a political rant freebie?
>>It's a serious physics question and it has an answer. Both are equally valid
>>laws of nature so why do you think politicians beg us to conserve energy but
>>not angular momentum?
Energy efficiency has a practical real world meaning -- that may elude you, but
is well understood by the vast majority of folks. You are merely engaging in a
gratuitous polemic attitude.
Chris
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
