Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Paris Climate Disagreement

The Paris Climate Disagreement (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2017, 11:07 PM
 
In America, at our current rate of consumption, we're going to be hitting a shortage wall in another 75-80 years, at our current rate of increased consumption. It'll be worse in other parts of the world, though, because we'll have used all their oil long before that. Essentially, we're making other countries wealthy by buying their oil first; Canada, Venezuela, S. Arabia, etc. but then we're going to get it all back, and a hell of a lot more, later when they're tapped out, because we're going to charge (at least) an order of magnitude more for our crude when that time comes. It's a scheme, and it's been running since before OPEC* and the Saudis and most other major providers are in on it, cashing in their countries' resources for temporary wealth and power. You think there's poverty and war now? This is nothing compared to what it'll be like if we don't change course. It's all seriously ****ed up.


(*Some say it was THE factor in founding OPEC, to guarantee a steady supply to the USA, despite any regional disputes, placing the Saudi royal family in direct control (under US oversight) and making them filthy rich in the process. Don't worry about those fat cats, they'll be moving to the USA before the wells run low in the M.E.. No, this isn't a conspiracy theory, I've talked with some of the people who planned it. There's a reason why we've barely scratched the surface on domestic drilling, and it has nothing to do with "wildlife conservation".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 12:11 AM
 
This theory implies our government can do long-term planning, stick to it, and keep it quiet. NASA's long-term budget and steadily shifted goals argue against such a vision. To name just one institution.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 01:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
in another 75-80 years
Jeebus... we'll have fusion before that.
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 08:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Jeebus... we'll have fusion before that.
Thank god for Fusion. The almost nearly ready free energy source.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 09:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Inflation adjusted price of gas:
What formula did they use for inflation? I hate to go down this route but while inflation averages ~9% long term, it seems inflation is different for every commodity, and oil is a bit unique in ihat it basically trades as a currency and has some control on currency value & inflation rates itself.

Oil is a finite resource with consistently increasing consumption, yet a gallon of gas costs about as much as it did in the 70s.
This happens with almost every raw material. We keep using more and more, but the price drops or remains stable. Note, a stable price in the face of increasing demand is ultimately a price drop.
As we know in the 70's it was overvalued due to governments artificially constricting the supply. This is a commodity where cartelist government U.S. or otherwise has more influence over price than natural market forces of capitalism. OR You could think of it as having 2 glasses; one half empty and one full. You can drink both glasses of water at the same rate regardless off how much is in them, now imagine you could charge by the rate of extraction not by how much is left, that's how oil works... sometimes...

Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
This theory implies our government can do long-term planning, stick to it, and keep it quiet. NASA's long-term budget and steadily shifted goals argue against such a vision. To name just one institution.
1) Decades ago when this was all likely planned our government was a lot more competent than it is now. Now days partisanship bickering distracts us from getting anything done or even voting for competent politicians; unless it's all just a show being put on by masterminds. This is mostly to blame on what would be called liberal extremism by the past. Back in the day we didnt used to have to fight against half the population and government trying to force socialist & communist ideals on us. This is a huge waste of time, it used to be understood that socialism communism were bad. The republican party has no competition in the realm of intelligence which means they no longer need to be intelligent themselves. The only solution I can see to bring intelligence back to politics is to raise the voting age to 25 or more. Push out the uneducated selfish freeloaders from voting. The youth of the nation brought down old China and now they're trying to bring down the US.

2) Nasa isnt big industry or big money.

3) This likely wasn't planned by government alone but entire industries. And of course it's on the fly adaptable if the political climate changes for some reason. It makes sense, companies are buying up oil land like crazy and sitting on it. In the mean time we're flat out stealing oil from Africa. Everyone around where I live laughs about how they engineer pipelines far off shore drilled sideways under Africa so the people cant see them stealing LNG (gas). When you have the tech to get something practically for free it makes sense why the price has stayed so low.

Fusion
I figured fusion would be brought up. Fusion is a pipe dream, again based on the overconfidence of our progress which I mentioned earlier. It's too complicated to be managed by capitalism, which means government will have to manage it, which means it will never work large scale. If by some miracle it does happen it wont be anywhere close to our lifetime. I forget, is there 2 or 3 research facilities in the entire world? We should probably stick to figuring out solar paint, or how to make batteries that dont die in 18 months first.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 10:53 AM
 
You expect to be alive in 80 years?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 12:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
This theory implies our government can do long-term planning, stick to it, and keep it quiet. NASA's long-term budget and steadily shifted goals argue against such a vision. To name just one institution.
You're correct, but it isn't our gov't who planned this, and even though they are complicit, they aren't in charge. Large corporations are tight-lipped and much better organized.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 04:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
Thank god for Fusion. The almost nearly ready free energy source.
It's going to be the primary power source for flying cars.

And Half-Life 3.

And the Winds of Winter.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2017, 09:41 PM
 
Honestly, I think 80 years is the kind of timeline which adequately accounts for fusion's slow pace of development.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:41 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,