Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 16, 2009 17:40:16 GMT -4
I do know from my experience some years ago in transporting ministers and diplomats at busy meetings that travel time is valuable. Those being chauffeured frequently spent it conferring on issues just discussed or about to be discussed. From a practice standpoint, limos are moving meeting rooms for busy people where four can comfortable confer in privacy. So if they're in an SUV or a van they can't actually talk with each other?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 16, 2009 17:46:31 GMT -4
How is a SUV or a van any better than a limo?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 16, 2009 17:59:23 GMT -4
How is a SUV or a van any better than a limo? There are more hybrid SUVs and vans.
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Dec 16, 2009 18:45:24 GMT -4
Actually, I probably would have mocked them for not taking bicycles (which I know from experience is really a nice way to get around Europe). However it's a merely hypothetical situation, since they did act hypocritically. I believe this statement. I didn't really think your complaint had anything to do with what kind of limos they took. I don't think CO2 is going to doom us all, no, but I don't mind having less of it in the air either. Pollution control is generally a good thing, as long as it doesn't provide more cost than its benefit. It definitely has a cost. If it doesn't cause climate change, what is the benefit? I'm unclear on your position on this. You don't seem to believe CO 2 is a problem because of climate change, but you do refer to it as a pollutant. What are its other polluting effects? Yes, if they are willing to use underhanded methods to acheive their goals. I cannot disagree with this more. Either what people are doing in Copenhagen is a good idea, or it isn't. Whether it is a good idea depends on its costs and its benefits, not on whether the people pushing the different sides are nice people or nasty people, nor on whether they use honest tactics or dishonest tactics to get their way. To cite an example at this board from earlier times, there was someone who advocated bringing charges of murder against people who advocate non-vaccination of children. (As an aside, if that becomes an established legal principle, I would be asking that that same person be brought up on charges of genocide, because of earlier advocacy of some policies that lower living standards in the third world. But that's not relevant for our purposes right now.) As I recall, you did not support the idea of murder charges against people who campaign against vaccination. (I don't support it either.) Does the use of unsavory tactics, like advocating murder charges for speech, somehow undermine the merits of vaccination? Or am I supposed to say, "I used to think vaccinating children was a good idea, but now there are some really nasty people using unsavory tactics to get more people vaccinated, so now I think vaccinating children is a bad idea."? I call Cap-and-Trade artificial because it is not a natural outgrowth of the market, but something imposed before its necessity is clear. Items a-d of your example all arose out of necessity and the desires of the economic market, and so might be called "natural". Do I understand you correctly then: you oppose one tactic for reducing the amount of CO 2 in the atmosphere on the grounds that there is not sufficient evidence that this gas is causing damage, but you support research and development on the grounds that - well, on what grounds? I'm not sure. I agree. If it's not really going to destroy the world, then Cap-and-Trade must be termed artificial. I would change "destroy" to "damage" - it's not an all-or-nothing binary thing. But if a pricing scheme (cap-and-trade, or carbon tax, which differ in their initial allocation of ownership rights) places a price on carbon dioxide that is not roughly equal to the damage it is causing, then the scheme is artificial. Actually what I had in mind is tax breaks and the cash currently used in government grants for climate change research being moved to alternative energy. Why? What is the problem to be solved by government funding of alternative energy? If you feel carbon dioxide is causing environmental problems, then there is a problem to be solved, and it is a question of tactics. If you don't think that, then why do anything at all? The companies will do it because they are incentivized by the prospect of future profits and the desire to not fall behind their competition. So then you support research and development into alternative energy the same way I support research and development into new cat toys - if some firm wants to do it, they can. Except, in the previous statement above, you wanted tax breaks and to move government grant money over to alternate energy. So you do support government sponsorship of alternate energy research after all? Or not?
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Dec 16, 2009 18:51:43 GMT -4
You don't think they already have that idea? Well, they probably do. I'm not obsessing - this is merely the topic of the day, and a chance for me to take a poke at people I consider in need of one. This comment was not specifically addressed at you, although you did start it . . . Tomorrow, or even later today, I'm sure some even sillier story illustrating how increasingly ridiculous the global warming believers are will come to my attention. As per my comments in the other post, I've got to disagree strongly with the tack you are taking here. If their policies make sense, then driving gasoline-powered limousines doesn't invalidate them, and if their policies don't make sense, driving vegetable oil-powered limousines wouldn't endow them with sense. I would focus on the substance of their policies, not on the kind of cars they're driving.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 16, 2009 19:28:35 GMT -4
It definitely has a cost. If it doesn't cause climate change, what is the benefit? I'm unclear on your position on this. You don't seem to believe CO 2 is a problem because of climate change, but you do refer to it as a pollutant. What are its other polluting effects? Well, it can be toxic if there is too much of it in the air. By saying "pollution control is good if it's cost doesn't outweight its benefit" I wasn't referring specifically to CO 2. Okay. It's a bad idea, and any hope of getting any good out of it is kind of lost when we see the dishonest tactics of those trying to sell it, indicating that even if the goal of the conference were worthwhile, they are not serious about acheiving them. It's a case of a bad idea with bad people tyring to sell it as a good idea. Several. The most important problem is that our reliance on foreign oil is funding some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet, and forcing us to deal with them as business partners. Internal combustion engines produce more exhaust than just CO 2, and a cleaner, more efficient engine would of course be better. Utah suffers smog quite often in the winter because of car exhaust and atmospheric inversions - where the cold air in the valleys has a warm layer over it and the exhaust starts to build up rather than blowing off into the desert. It can get to be rather unpleasant. And finally, oil reserves will eventually be depleted, though advances in technology keep pushing that date back, so we will eventually need something else. In fact, saving our oil for plastics and other petroleum products rather than burning it would be nice too.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Dec 17, 2009 1:23:58 GMT -4
Here is little story that will make all of us envious. Don't worry about all the carbon emissions from those limos and jets in Copenhagen. It looks like the Chinese have a plan that will compensate for it. This must be a proud time for environmentalists and politicians: Can China Get By Without Coal?
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 17, 2009 1:30:04 GMT -4
I'm actually interested in Jason's position on the limo issue here. A couple of thoughts come to mind - what are the actual benefits of hybrids, and what is the availability of hybrids in Europe? www.physorg.com/news165387006.htmlThe "CO2 champion of luxury cars," as Mercedes bills it, nonetheless cranks out 186-189 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre, remaining one of the biggest polluters on the road, well above the European average of around 160 grams.
A comparable S model with a normal engine can spew out as much as 234 grams, Daimler counters.American hybrid owners have reported less-than-advertised MPG results. So what's the actual advantage, here? God's Honest Fact (tm) is that Otto-cycle internal combustion engines are excellent at converting fuel to motion, but terrible at doing it efficiently. The expanding gasses from the combustion press the piston toward the crank, but the piston absolutely cannot be allowed to decelerate. Look at the still-burning gasses flaming out from the exhaust pipes of drag racing cars. The most horsepower requires the least efficiency. The rest of the combustion energy is thrown away. In theory, hybrids could use perfectly tuned engines running at optimum RPM only, but I don't think any of them have managed to do this correctly. And even then, you're still tossing heat out the tail pipe. Catalytic converters may be great for burning off residue in the exhaust stream, but they put a tremendous resistance in the exhaust stream that has to be PUSHED by the combustion of the cylinders. So what good would it do to drive the delegates around in hybrid limos anyway? Meanwhile, you have hundreds? thousands? (I'm having trouble finding the number) of delegates flying from home to Denmark, eating restaurant meals, staying in hotels and using towels and sheets, (or flopping in people's houses and eating sandwiches - the Ugandan delegates have low budgets for the trip) and having to travel back and forth from the conference every day. What's the carbon footprint increase of one delegate in Denmark vs. that same human staying home? Similarly, in the news I've seen references to "candle-light vigils" by citizens concerned by global warming. What's the carbon footprint of one concerned citizen driving from their 'burb to the town center instead of staying home with the hubby/wife/kids and watching tv? What's the carbon footprint of one white wax candle, from petroleum source to combustion and eventual disposal in the nearest trashcan? Do these people think about it? No. This is the environmentalist equivalent of prayer - a way to do nothing but feel good about it. So in the end I share (some of) Jason's feelings about the limos-in-Copenhagen issue for absolutely different reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 17, 2009 1:41:47 GMT -4
Here is little story that will make all of us envious. Don't worry about all the carbon emissions from those limos and jets in Copenhagen. It looks like the Chinese have a plan that will compensate for it. This must be a proud time for environmentalists and politicians: Can China Get By Without Coal?So what? A little less SOx and NOx? Cracking heat out of cellulose is still carbon combustion. Yeah, it's not million-year-old carbon being re-introduced to the atmosphere, but it's not really the answer. How much extra CO2 will be created by trucks moving low-energy-density fuel around? It's like people throwing away perfectly-good twinkie light strings (or recycling them, rarely) and buying LED Christmas lights. What's the carbon footprint of one LED? Did they need to replace the string yet, or could they have gotten one more season of use out of them? Does that outweigh the energy savings of use? What's the ACTUAL life cycle of the LED lights - I've been astounded by the actual replacement cycle of LED traffic lights. I use a couple of LED tail-lights in my trailer's 12v interior lighting sockets. They burn out faster than you might think.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 17, 2009 10:26:23 GMT -4
How is a SUV or a van any better than a limo? There are more hybrid SUVs and vans. There are certainly more limo's with privacy glass and rear facing seats available in Europe compared to similarly equipped hybrid vehicles. While this and my previous statement about functionally are not exactly facts, they are both likely true. It would be more than symbolically meaningful for the delegates to take the first step in enduring the inconveniences they wish to inflict on us. on the grounds that they know best. But what are the odds of the U.S. Congress, or any other legislative body requiring its members to live by the laws it proposes to pass so they can first experience the effects of the proposals on the lives of their constituents. I'd say near zero. Sure some members of Congress need the security and convenience of a chauffeured limo. But so do some other citizens, and they need to be able to make those arrangements without the requirement that have government approval.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 17, 2009 12:10:09 GMT -4
Here is little story that will make all of us envious. Don't worry about all the carbon emissions from those limos and jets in Copenhagen. It looks like the Chinese have a plan that will compensate for it. Welcome to the new Great Leap Forward.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 17, 2009 12:12:44 GMT -4
No. This is the environmentalist equivalent of prayer - a way to do nothing but feel good about it. So in the end I share (some of) Jason's feelings about the limos-in-Copenhagen issue for absolutely different reasons. Actually, if you've read the whole thread you would see that my feelings on the matter are pretty close to your own. The Coppenhagen delegates are hypocrites of the false religion of climate change, because they don't even bother to say their prayers. I am not railing on them because I believe hybrid vehicles would have done any actual good, but because they fail to obey their own standards.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Dec 17, 2009 13:38:48 GMT -4
So what? So what? This is what all those well-meaning young folks are campaigning for in the streets of Copenhagen. (Well, that and more money from their parents.) The campaign is not for the climate, but for more Mr.Zhaos. If left to themselves, those villagers would heat themselves through the bitter winter cold with coal. It takes a Mr.Zhao to take that coal away from them. Huang Qiufen has a vested interest in alternative energy. Her biggest threat: "the giant new coal-fired power station at the end of the road, which is supplying her former customers with electricity so they no longer need to tend their own hearths." Modern environmentalism and politics is about seeing that doesn't happen. Abundant electricity is to be seen as sinful; tending hearths of smoldering corn stalks, noble. The Wall Street Journal today reports that "Corus, Europe's second-largest steel producer, is shuttering a giant U.K. steelmaking plant at Redcar, cutting 1,700 jobs." Because of the emissions trading scheme in place, Corus stands to make a $375 million windfall. As the article notes: "Corus is essentially being paid to lay off British workers." Whatever that is, it is certainly not about making life better. Modern environmentalism and politics have created a dangerous sanity inversion. We are now rewarding companies to shut down, put workers out of work, and produce less goods and services.--all so Mr. Zhao can be boss of the village, and, be jetted and chauffeured around the world. Cap and Trade in Practice
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 17, 2009 22:32:21 GMT -4
This is a classic example of the dangerous difference between science and the "real" world. Science is about control and results. The world does not operate efficiently under strict control. The kind of controls that climate change politicians would have us impose will result in the concentration of economic power in fewer hands, vast rent seeking opportunities and wealth destruction. From the Reason blog on the Copenhagen summit. Undoubtedly so, because they will be government supported or mandated jobs. Unfortunately they will also be jobs that will produce less wealth than private sector jobs and thus be reliant on government mandates to be protected. Any belief that jobs manufacturing wind turbines or solar panels will be maintained in the US and not farmed out overseas is folly. I see little reason to subsidized green jobs in China. Nor is there any reason that people who buy these things should pay additional taxes so the products can be made in the US.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 18, 2009 2:11:58 GMT -4
Watching the footage from Copenhagen, few of the "limos" are of the stretched variety, they are just the standard high powered salons that are considered limos ( like this one I used in New York), so no rear facing seats or room for a moving boardroom. All they provide is a status symbol and likely a slightly more luxuious ride. They could have just as easily shaded the windows in a Prius and used that.
|
|