Sure, but I'd like to note that all three of those points were perfectly rational and reasonable things to debate against.
A) On a large scale, I would certainly stand behind the claim that solar is not a large scale solution. I mean, even assuming massive gains in solar efficiency, life-span of panels, price, ect. it's gonna be a long, hard fought argument to convince me that the amount of land and management it'd take would be worth it. Now, nuclear, geothermal, and a nice, healthy chunk of coal gasification, that's a whole
'nother ball game.
I agree that solar panels are not a good long term solution, however modern solar power plants do not use Solar Panels, they use arrays of mirrors to heat up fluids. You build them and leave them there to generate energy, requiring very little maintenance. More money needs to be invested in finding efficient renewable resources.
B) Heck, if we want to be most economical, I'd argue that we're better off taking all those juicy non-renewable resources now while we're still comfortably the world's sole hyperpower. Who knows how long that'll lost? I'd also strongly contend that coal and oil are so cheap largely because that's what we're tooled to use and because coal's domestic (and our domestic oil reserves aren't anything to sneeze at either) while surpluses are a secondary factor.
Short term economy, perhaps. We are very much tooled to using oil and coal, since we have been using it for so long. Once you take all that non-renewable resources, then you will have to move on to renewable resources.
If if nothing happens, the oil/coal will run out/become uneconomical to aquire. One way or another the US will be forced to greenify. Most arguments are for gradually doing so now is so the US doesn't get hit in the face with the sudden need to.
I'd always take projections like the sinking of Florida with a grain of salt. Yeah, it's perfectly possible, but how much can we affect it?
Its more like sinking Florida by rising the the ocean leves. Actually that is exactly what it is, no salt metaphor necessary (disclaimer: I don't actually know of the elevation of Florida and if it would even be affected, but that does not invalidate my point).
But your metaphor may be correct if the assumption that the large-scale pollution was nothing more than a "grain of salt" and/or the enviroment could be considered as large as Florida. But this is not the case. The earth exists in a very delicate equilibrium, a few grains of salt is all that is needed to change something until it finds a new equilibrium. This new equilibrium will most likely not end life on earth, but it may make life hard. In sort: You can affect it quite alot.
Reducing people's freedoms?
In what way? If you are referring to restrictions to avoid screwing up the enviroment (eg pollution limitation), than yes. People should not have the freedom to screw up the enviroment affects other people negatively and in a way they have no freedom to prevent.
Most of your arguments are in regards to extreme, sudden "greenification" of the US, instead of the gradual easing that is generally advocated. If the US does nothing, then they will be forced the sudden "greenification" in the future.
Moving onto renewables is an inevidability, this fact is completely unaffected by any state any economy might be in. It will either happen with a responsible gradual transition, a slap-in-the-face spontaneous event, or the deindustrialisation of society.
Yeah, I think that that's about right. Although, I know that I've got lines where I'd draw it. Really, someone who's looking for something to fight for, I guess. But yeah, I'd guess that it makes me a little more willing to argue for violent solutions, even when they're obviously a bad idea, and much more willing to honestly fall on the side of shedding blood.
This is a bad thing. If they are obviously a bad idea, how could argue for them, knowing they are a bad idea? It boggles my brain.
Author
Topic: American Election Megathread - It's Over (Read 716912 times)