Global Warming

So is it illegal to pursue green technologies now? Am I now required to dump my motor oil in the river? How did the US tackle environmental issues pre 2015?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

Convince me, how no longer paying someone to grow less food would result in mass starvation. Im somewhat familiar with the general premise.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

My point.



Your head.

That or you're purposefully obfuscating. Which doesn't surprise me.

Not at all. It's also not illegal to pursue Death Star technology. Expecting the private sector to shit one any day now.

 

So leaving this agreement doesn't really change anything? Thanks for the help.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

Oh, it's changed things, Mr. Smarmy pants.

The US is abdicating world leadership to the thunderous applause of Trump's ever shrinking base.

 

For the record, I'm pro clean environment and generally support those efforts by the EPA. They lose me when the move outside their core mission. I'm all for clean energy as well but have a hard time understanding the big push for solar at a time when nuclear is substantially cheaper and can generate more energy in less space.

Don't give in to the hate man. It'll consume you.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

I'm not anti nuclear at all. I'm anti fossil fuels. As for solar, it's free energy. Use it.

 

Oh. And hate is what drives me.

 

If you are familiar with the premise already and remain unconvinced, I'll save the time.

 

I feel I need clarify my fossil fuel stance.

Saying I'm completely anti fossil fuels is not accurate. I'm ok with using the abundant natural gas we are producing donestically. It's still not "clean" or renewable. It is "cleaner". I'm even ok with using domestically produced oil for a bit longer. There is a caveat to those positions. I'm ok with using them as a bridge energy source to get us to 100% renewables and complete energy independence. I'm not ok with them being solutions.

Energy independence is the best quickest way to ensure our national security. Period. If oil doesn't have a role in our society, we can bring our guys home getting out of countries that hate us as well as stop producing more terrorists with every civilian that accidentally gets killed in the necessary defense of our troops. The only reason we care about the Middle East, well maybe not only but I feel safe in saying 75% of the reason, is oil. Full stop. O. I. L.

If oil isn't a desired commodity, that region loses its power over us and the rest of the world. Sure, I want clean air for my kids to breathe & clean waters to fish. Those are great bonuses to energy independence via renewables, but it's very much about national security to me. Having said that, that's why I support our govt supporting policies and other nations along with subsidizing these new domestically produced energies. In this light, it's 100% justified to have govt funding these efforts as the Constitution expressly places the security of the country under its jurisdiction.


Not all mega renewables supporters are wool sock & Birkenstock wearing tree huggers.

 

I should say I have a vague awareness of the premise, open to learning more about it. But if that's how strongly you feel on the subject, then cool.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

Try to find somewhere to build a nuclear plant. Try to find somewhere to store it's waste material. Try to find a way to cost-effectively mold a flat output to an oscillating demand. Most every nuclear power plant runs at a flat 80 to 90 % capacity, which is great. They make great baseload suppliers. They do not make great peak demand suppliers because they are too expensive to not be running at near capacity most of the time. meanwhile, solar tends to be available during much of the time of higher power demand and is by its nature only available during the day.

The notion that nuclear energy or coal are being shackled and that is why they aren't taking over just isn't accurate. Renewables have passed the point of being completely dependent on subsidies in most markets.

 

That makes you a Sith Lord. I'm just a Russian bot, so maybe we're more the same than we realize

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

It would create more sustainable and spread out localized food centers. Which would be better for the environment and "food deserts".

Why would it necessary create famines?

 

I'm more like Master Windu. I just dabble in the dark side. It doesn't take me over.

It's a fine line to walk.

 

Screw the government.

Signed, Me.

 

Et tu, Beechte?

 

Clinton's, Trump's, Obama's, Bush's you can have all of em. And the local cats to boot.

I 'll manage.

 

This may be a much larger topic than it appears. Let's go back to pre-dust bowl times.

Before WWI, there were no price controls on grains/crops. Mind you, that is exactly what paying farmers not to farm is: a price control. Hopefully it will become clear how/why by the time I finish. Anyway, if you were an American homesteader, you had your 40 acres and you would try to grow as much wheat or whatever grain as you possibly could, as more product would equal more money. The problem was, everyone wanted/needed more money. Thus, supply would increase relative to demand and prices would plummet. This would further increase pressure on farmers to produce more output, to the point of farming on marginal land, increasing the use of fertilizer thus decreasing water quality, etc. During these swings in prices, many farms would fail and be sold of to their neighbors. Farms that were more self-sustaining could weather these down years and then enjoy more favorable market condtions when there was less competition in the years preceding a price crash.

Enter WWI. Suddenly, there is a practically unfillable demand for grain. Much of continental western Europe is not producing, and armies, horses, etc need food. The American government needs grain as well. The previous relationship of an ebb and tide of price is gone. At the same time, limitations due to labor are mitigated with the rise of technology like the mechanized plow and tracker. Farming and output booms, as demand remains high. Farms function by taking out loans each year for equipment, seed, and cost, then paying back with funds from the harvest, as they did prior to WWI. But then WWI ends. Foreign demand decreases, thus prices fall. In order to maintain a profitable margin, there is yet more pressure to expand and increase output. Eventually, things come to a head. Through the combination of a relatively severe drought (but we've had worse since) and tremendous agricultural pressure, the Dust Bowl occurs. Feet of topsoil blow off hundreds of square miles, radically changing the soil conditions, ecology, and population of a large swath of the middle of the country to this day. The effects are felt from coast to coast and prompt action by congress to begin the national soil conservation service, which helps prevent this sort of event from occurring again through various methods, including taking marginal to terrible land out of production and also paying people to not grow "balls to the wall" as we know there are limits that lead to catastrophic failures.

How does overgrowing in one farm affect another, you may ask? Wind erosion includes a process called saltation. Once soil or dust particles become mobile, they are bouncing along the surface with the wind. When they hit other fragments of material, they can jar them loose or knocked them into the air. Thus, you get a chain reaction of moving material which leads to dust storms and the loss of soil. keep in mind it takes hundreds of years for an inch of soil to develop, and there just aren't any natural processes that mimic plowing agriculture. Soil depletion is what made many ancient civilizations vulnerable to collapse. Ever wonder what happened to the Forests of Lebanon? They lost their soil through agriculture-related erosion over thousands of years.

On top of this, with a global economy the price fluctuations here that are relatively trivial can create market forces that price people in the horn of Africa right out of the market. Back before WWI, it was India who would be the ones who would get priced out during high points, and lead to famines under British rule. The free market is too quick and unforgiving for farmers around the globe to be able to respond to without shortfalls of affordable crops. Volatility in price is often what contributes to modern famines, and the American systems of price regulation have ripple effects globally. By not allowing for price crashes due to jumps in supply, we are allowing more regional and local supply to develop in places like Africa and southern Asia, which increases global stability. A policy of "****it, #MAGA!" would no doubt look great on the front end at home, but would lead to a return of volatile prices that would finish off the private citizen farmer for good at home and ultimately lead to a lot of misery abroad, while simultaneously diminishing the quality of the environment (and thus future growing capacity) here.

I can go on, but there is an outline with a little bit of context. Americans complain when the cost of corn or milk goes up by a dollar. Third world people already spend over half their income on food and they can die when that happens. This is also another reason why corn-based ethanol isn't good.

Just an overview here, I can go on if you want.

 

In your example if everyone is growing wheat and supply and demand dictates that the price of wheat drops as to not be profitable, why would a farmer then not switch to another crop that is? As I understand it while farmers are currently being paid not to grow crop x they are still growing something on their land to sell.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk