Music Banter

Music Banter (
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (
-   -   What Did President Trump Do Now? (

djchameleon 06-02-2017 06:13 AM


Originally Posted by Anteater (Post 1841937)
4. The advances you are currently seeing in renewable energy research (especially the solar boom) are all because of the deregulation of those industries. As in, government pulling away so that people have more choice in the market. Here in north Texas, for example, there are a mix of regulated / deregulated areas and providers. I happen to live in an area that still hasn't been deregulated, so I don't get to choose to get my power from a more environmentally friendly provider or even install solar without going through fifty mountains of paperwork and hassle.

This is my line of work and I wish that mote states would deregulate the supply side so that people could have choice of who they use for their utilities. I also make solar panel referrals as well. Slowly more and more states have been opening up but I feel like with the current administration being so against green energy jobs and pushing more for coal. It might end up going the other way.

rostasi 06-02-2017 08:24 AM


Anteater 06-02-2017 08:53 AM


Originally Posted by Lisnaholic (Post 1841978)
^ This point is something of a red herring isn't it? The real reason that Trump's decision is significant is this: with approx 2% of the world population, the USA generates approx 20%* of the world's carbon emissions. In terms of pollution per capita, America is one of the dirtiest countries on the planet. That's why America's presence at the Paris Agreement table is significant, and that's why people are calling Trump's decision "immoral." He's leaving the planet to pay the ecological bill so that his prefered industries can have an easy ride.

Considering what I bolded there, why do you disagree with what I said? The U.S. even during our previous administration wasn't really in a position to be the leader of renewable energy. We aren't as bad as India or some of the other developing countries, but we're still sucking at Big Oil's teat. Other countries are far ahead of us. Also, this incident with the Paris Accord has been blown out of proportion since its likely to be reversed in 2020 (or earlier) before any real implementation of a pull-out is achieved. Trump is making a big show about it, but he won't get his way long-term (as usual). Though if you read that Salon there's a real problem to worry about: the fact Trump's opposition here in the U.S. is so disorganized and weak that he could stomp all over them again in three years.


Originally Posted by Lisnaholic (Post 1841978)
^ Thank you for the insight that there are two sides to every story. I don't know why you subjected us to an anonymous rant against a non-existent "Church of Climate Change" in order to make such an elementary point.

If you don't see a problem in the Paris Accord where billions upon billions are spent but there's no accountability to where that money actually goes and what it's used for (like lining Elon Musk's pockets), then start with that and work your way through what I've said before. That anon post illustrates a legitimate concern even if the use of phrases "Church of Climate Change" are juvenile.


Originally Posted by Lisnaholic (Post 1841978)
^ Much of Tim Berners-Lee's work on the internet was done when he worked at CERN - in fact CERN boasts the world's very first web address. CERN is a project of international cooperation established by the governments of many European countries; it's not a private enterprise. Thus you seem to have undermined the point you were trying to make, unless you are taking the difficult-to-defend position that CERN would ever afterwards be content with "massive magnetic tape mainframes in countless warehouses" if private enterprise had not come to their rescue.

That's exactly the position I'm taking because that's reality. CERN was never going to popularize the use of the Internet or develop it into what we have today. That's where the free market came in and companies like PSINet, Compuserve, etc. stepped in to actually turn that technology into something viable for mass consumption. Lee would have never bothered to set up the W3C if that hadn't happened at the start of the '90's.

elphenor 06-02-2017 09:12 AM

They turned this wonderful tech into something godawful honestly

Like the monetization of people's thoughts

What's a computah, eat yself fitter

elphenor 06-02-2017 09:23 AM

I could start another thread about how the Technocrats got a false Utopia with the Internet

It's more like something that keeps even dissenters like myself glued to an entirely corporate controlled world

elphenor 06-02-2017 09:44 AM


Originally Posted by djchameleon (Post 1841981)
This is my line of work and I wish that mote states would deregulate the supply side so that people could have choice of who they use for their utilities.

There's a reason we regulate utilities, you're treading dangerous ground

I agree though the law is tilted against solar power and the like, direct subsidies go to the fossil fuels industries as well

Why not instead we tell Corporations to start switching to green or start ****ing off

Frownland 06-02-2017 09:50 AM

While it's not a great decision and one that will have a clear effect on the climate, it's not the end of all things as we know it just because we're not exactly following the Paris Agreement since there's plenty of room for alternatives in the future and it is not the be all end all of climate policy. It's also plainly obvious that the reasoning behind it is simply an effort to Ctrl+z Obama's presidency. I wholeheartedly disagree with the decision and think it's incredibly foolish, but y'all are like chickens running around with their heads cut off. Leading the way in regards to climate change would be an excellent idea, but it is not the only path towards effectual efforts against climate change and the only real impact here is entirely symbolic. There's a place for hysterical hyperbole and political discourse is not it. Well, ideally.

OccultHawk 06-02-2017 11:16 AM


it is not the only path towards effectual efforts against climate change and the only real impact here is entirely symbolic
It's hard to say what's been lost. Personally, I think it's already game over from an environmental standpoint. We're not going to find an alternative to fossil fuel, we're obviously going to burn it all, then we won't have energy to combat our environmental devastation or just to sustain human life. Paris Accord or not we're ****ed. Or it depends on what you think ****ed is. You could also say we're lucky as ****. With hundreds of millions of years of solar energy fossilized for our ease of consumption we're probably living larger than any human beings ever had and ever will. We're like an NFL running back making 15 million a year who can't imagine he's going to be living on a hundred grand three years down the line. Headed for certain bankruptcy because there's no ****ing way in hell he'll ever adjust. Do we feel sorry for him? Not yet because we're still rolling big time.

What's the significance of the Paris Accord...the world just pretending to agree. Maybe a lot. Maybe it says we can at least visualize working together. Maybe I'm just an apocalyptic **** and there is a path. Maybe multiple realistic paths even. I don't think so but you know I'm just a ****ing troll, right? The Paris Accord was at least some kind of step possibly in the right direction. Maybe it still is for the rest of the world. How big a deal is it to intentionally walk out of step with the international community? Junior High girls don't like to be removed from the clique no matter how rich and pretty they are. People know intuitively you don't want to wander off too far or get isolated from the pack. Mother****ers get ****ed up. I'm not too keen on America going at it alone. I know we're all going to continue to pollute the **** out of the world. But since everyone else is pretending to care, shouldn't we?

Frownland 06-02-2017 11:25 AM

I do think we should be participating in the agreement because something is better than nothing. My point is the way it's being reported as "Donald signs the world's death sentence" is too OTT. So is the downplaying on the other side.

Chula Vista 06-02-2017 11:41 AM

It's all about worldwide public perception. Backing out sends a very bad message to a lot of our allies. Like I said earlier, when you have China and Europe mutually agreeing that the US has done something stupid - that says a lot.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:46 PM.

© 2003-2022 Advameg, Inc.