Alberta Politics Thread

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I honestly think a lot of people are just afraid of the idea of free energy and what it means. Everything would have to change and nobody knows would happen, but THAT's the market I want to see. What does a demand economy look like when energy is free?

I don't think it is fear at all. Merely a recognition of the fact that realism always trumps idealism. Star Trek's vision of a utopian socialist empire built not on money, but pure altruism is total fantasy.


Out of curiousity though, where do you expect this free energy to come from?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I don't think it is fear at all. Merely a recognition of the fact that realism always trumps idealism. Star Trek's vision of a utopian socialist empire built not on money, but pure altruism is total fantasy.


Out of curiousity though, where do you expect this free energy to come from?

So you're just resigned to this system that we've created? No thoughts on any alternatives or ways we could possibly improve it? We've only been using money seriously for last two hundred years or so. And our current version of money (debt) has only really come to be in the last 100 years, maybe. I just don;t understand the arrogance that this is as far as we go. This is the system that all (potential) civilizations across the universe use and we've found it. Good for us, don't let it break!

I have a tough time wrapping my head around the people who think that pure free market is the way to go and the ONLY way. And then we bail out car companies. And then we bail out banks. And then we lobby against new ideas and technology. And then our system evolves so that energy (oil) is what really controls currency, and the price of that commodity is determined largely by the people producing it, not by the invisible hand. None of that is free market. If the people who ran those bailed out companies and industries were true free market capitalists, they would have been fine with their failed businesses failing. But no, we can't let that happen, because jobs!

How is that argument any different than "we can't let the environment deteriorate, because lives!"?

I do think it's fear. Fear of what might happen in something different. Fear of trying something new, or forcing shifts for the betterment of everyone (because the betterment of everyone means some people will have less than they do now, even if that's negligible). The way I see it, we can make a controlled break of our system, or watch it collapse and have no idea what do afterwards. I truly think that this is going to happen in my life time. We already see violent uprisings in even the most free and democratic of our nations because, IMO, people are fed up with a system that doesn't help them, and the amount of people included in that group gets larger and larger.

And:

[Resolute 14]

That was a lot of words spent to totally and utterly fail to answer my question.

The sun? Great. You've achieved an answer as deep as the Occupy movement's suggestion of using hydro to power Alberta.

Lets take a rather superficial look at your suggestion though. Power the world using solar. Ok.

How many solar panels would it take to power the entire globe? How much space would that take?

Who pays for the manufacturing? Who pays for the R&D to design more efficient builds? Who actually constructs them? Who pays for that? And more importantly, given you have made it very clear that this is to be free power, why would you expect anyone to fund all of this with a promised ROI of 0?

Incidentally, do you practice what you preach? Have you eliminated your reliance on oil for 'free' energy? Do you eschew the accumulation of wealth in favour of altruism and working for the betterment of others? Or are you, like so many other wannabe Earth Rangers, demanding that other people take the step you won't?

[CaptainCrunch]

How much oil will it take to build these solar cells, and advanced electronics and materials and plastics?

How many rare earth metals will we have to strip mine out of the ground for this?

Because I'm all for upping the pumpin.

Plus how many people will be forced to jam wind turbines and solar farms on their land without consultation like they did in Ontario?

Come on people, lets up the production pump pump pump dig dig dig strip mine strip mine strip mine.

[Ozy_Flame]

How about instead we change as a people to be less consumptive? Less cars, more carpooling and transit; less suburbs, more densified neighbourhoods; less wasteful spending, more knowledge of financial management . . . . Everything done in moderation and we can transform our society to use less of what already provides us a great life. Perhaps being more efficient is a better method of living.

Keep in mind the sun and wind also do not produce basic necessities the way oil does, including things like plastics. You need lubricants for that stuff.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by MattyC

So you're just resigned to this system that we've created? No thoughts on any alternatives or ways we could possibly improve it? We've only been using money seriously for last two hundred years or so. And our current version of money (debt) has only really come to be in the last 100 years, maybe. I just don;t understand the arrogance that this is as far as we go. This is the system that all (potential) civilizations across the universe use and we've found it. Good for us, don't let it break!

We've been using money for over two millenia, if not more. Oldest coin found is over 2700 years old

[Coach]

Resolute, I think you and I have been down this path a few times, and we just wont agree, so I'll be brief in my answers. Anything further, feel free to PM me, as we are pretty off-topic, although I do find the discussion very interesting.

For the record, I come at this from a stand point of "things we can and should do" not from a "things we WILL do". Because humanity is a collection of selfish a-holes (including myself), and it's rare that anyone does something without benefit to themselves. So even rarer that 100's of millions or billions of us could do anything collectively. I'm not blind or ignorant of that fact, but I do like to look past it to think about possibilities.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

How many solar panels would it take to power the entire globe? How much space would that take?

This number will dwindle pretty quickly with improved R&D/tech, but I think a couple panels on the roofs of every house and building should do just fine to feed a power grid.

Who pays for the manufacturing? Who pays for the R&D to design more efficient builds? Who actually constructs them? Who pays for that? And more importantly, given you have made it very clear that this is to be free power, why would you expect anyone to fund all of this with a promised ROI of 0?

We do. The people and their collection of resources. Yes, this means a centralized effort, probably with the help and expertise of some very smart and altruistic people to guide it (yes, these people are few, but they do exist).

Incidentally, do you practice what you preach? Have you eliminated your reliance on oil for 'free' energy? Do you eschew the accumulation of wealth in favour of altruism and working for the betterment of others? Or are you, like so many other wannabe Earth Rangers, demanding that other people take the step you won't?

Firstly, yes, I do and have eschewed my own wealth in favor of the benefit of others. I have spent most of my twenties volunteering plenty of time to efforts that benefit me only in spirit, and (hopefully) benefit others, at the opportunity cost of more work/more money. I know this is a weird concept to some people, but beyond my own needs (which are quite minimalist) I really don't care about money at all.

But, in regards to energy, to my dismay, no, I can't. And it literally eats at me every day that I turn the key in my car, or flick my lights on knowing there's the possibility of something better, but money means I can't do it. In this vein, I am more angry with humanity of the past than anything. We went down the wrong road a long time ago. And selfish interests (and unfortunate circumstances) squashed any possibilities of alternatives. A world war breaking out just as solar actually began to gain momentum, but it was crushed because we didn't have time to make it work, we had to use what we had in place to drive the efforts of war. Lobbies pushing for prohibition lead by the founder of Standard Oil just as people started to figure out we can use alcohol to fuel machines rather than oil. Funny coincidence there. A hundred years later and most people still have no idea that their cars can run on pretty much any mixture of gasoline and alcohol (including a 100% of either) but the only reason we can't is that it's programmed OUT of the cars, and then gets sold as some sort of special feature (FlexFuel), when all it is, is a change in the computer coding.

Those types of instances are what bother me, what make wonder how things would be if it wasn't for them. And make me think, this stuff was possible 100 years ago, why haven't we done it yet? And that question is what leads me down the road of looking into stories like the above and getting frustrated at people.


Anyways, not as brief as I thought. This stuff is more just an exercise in thought experiments than anything. But I don't think you can discount the ideas that there are powerful people pulling strings on this stuff behind the scenes as just crazy consiracy theories. It's not a "OH NO THE LIZARDMEN!" thing, its a "this crap has happened before and been happening forever" sort of thing.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

We've been using money for over two millenia, if not more. Oldest coin found is over 2700 years old

That coin was made of stuff of value.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How much oil will it take to build these solar cells, and advanced electronics and materials and plastics?

As I said before, we should use oil for this stuff. We have to. It's great for that. But that makes it all the more crazy to me to burn it for fuel/energy when we don't need to. I have no aversion to oil, just for using oil as energy

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

It's hilarious how we all think we know what the future holds or have a general idea of the direction that the future is heading towards. I had friends 10 years ago that were literally kept up at night because of peak oil theory and how were were at the precipice of the end of the oil age due to dwindling oil supplies. I personally wouldn't sweat it (I'm not saying O&G will always be here for us, just that there's plenty of paths the future could take that we can't wrap our heads around right now). At lot of stupid decisions get made going all in and preparing for a certain future that doesn't come. Sometimes there's a great advantage to not being the first mover on things.

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

-Mark Twain

Unfortunately the people with the most vested interest in the status quo are the least likely to see the writing on the wall before it hits them in the face.

http://www.umontreal.ca/climat/engl/index.html

[Resolute 14]

One thing really stood out in your reply to me, Matty, that has me curious. You are trying to argue Prohibition was really about setting back alternative fuel sources. I would like to see your sources on that, given the Temperance Movement predated the Model T by about a century.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

One thing really stood out in your reply to me, Matty, that has me curious. You are trying to argue Prohibition was really about setting back alternative fuel sources. I would like to see your sources on that, given the Temperance Movement predated the Model T by about a century.

These are blogs, but there are links contained (could probably do some more in-depth research later on):

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.ca...scism-use.html

http://weblog.timoregan.com/archive/...l-prohibition/

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Prohibition?rec=544

Of course, prohibition/temperance movements were a thing long before Ford started looking at alcohol fueled cars, but It's pretty coincidental that Rockefeller would start supporting the prohibition lobby once the Model T went into production. But there are sources that debunk it too, but their reasoning is yours (that temperance was a thing long before), and the timing (and amount) of his actual support is just too convenient.

If you're interested, there's a documentary called Pump that I thought was really interesting. It obviously has it's biases (like anything) but some stuff is pretty intriguing.
IE: The director watches a FlexFuel Ford Focus and a regular Focus go through the assembly line, and there iss no difference in manufacturing until the very end when they program the computer. Then he visits a guy who actually hacks peoples cars to change the programming to allow alcohol fuel (which is illegal, for some reason).

I'd recommend checking it out, if just to learn about how different places treat this stuff (Brazil uses almost 80% alcohol fuel cars, and pumps for alcohol fuel are available at every station, something I've never seen here).

[Tinordi]

Do you agree that climate change will have high costs on society for millenia to come?

Do you think the costs of trying to significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption in the short-run are lower than the costs of climate change over the long run?

Do you think dealing with climate change means fundamentally reorienting our economy and society or can we incrementally transition without significant social upheaval?

The answers to those questions pretty much explain the priors of the people arguing in this thread.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Do you agree that climate change will have high costs on society for millenia to come?

Yes.

Do you think the costs of trying to significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption in the short-run are lower than the costs of climate change over the long run?

Costs in what context? In monetary terms or in terms of lost homes, food and lives? It will be really expensive to significantly reduce consumption (because we'd have to jump start the alternative techs and their implementation), but the real costs of long-run climate change are ones of actual physical damage to our environment and our species.

Do you think dealing with climate change means fundamentally reorienting our economy and society or can we incrementally transition without significant social upheaval?

Yes, it will require fundamental re-orientation, which is think the biggest thing that deters us from doing it.

Or I guess I should frame it more like, both are possible (there could be incremental change, and probably would be eventually, if we make it that far) but IMO, it's too slow and left up to too many human variables to be left for the free market to figure out. In order to make any real change, this stuff needs to begin being implemented yesterday.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Do you agree that climate change will have high costs on society for millenia to come?

Do you think the costs of trying to significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption in the short-run are lower than the costs of climate change over the long run?

Do you think dealing with climate change means fundamentally reorienting our economy and society or can we incrementally transition without significant social upheaval?

The answers to those questions pretty much explain the priors of the people arguing in this thread.

Do you think the average western citizen has the will to alter their lifestyle as opposed to just wanting GHG emitting companies to change?

Because that is the biggest component.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by nik-

Do you think the average western citizen has the will to alter their lifestyle as opposed to just wanting GHG emitting companies to change?

Because that is the biggest component.

I think they do, if the price is right.

If alternative energies become so economically viable for the family household and it means less costs than conventional energy usage, then yes - the people will shift that way. I think most people don't care where their energy comes from, as long as it's the cheapest and most reliable option.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I think they do, if the price is right.

If alternative energies become so economically viable for the family household and it means less costs than conventional energy usage, then yes - the people will shift that way. I think most people don't care where their energy comes from, as long as it's the cheapest and most reliable option.

This is assuming the energy consumption levels are going to be the same though.

If people want a quick move away from fossil fuels, the way of life we have right isn't sustainable. Energy consumption will need to drop. Will people put their money where their mouths are?

Considering people are demanding oil companies just stop producing an in demand product, I'm going to go with the answer being "No, they aren't willing to change their way of life".

[Coach]

Originally Posted by nik-

This is assuming the energy consumption levels are going to be the same though.

If people want a quick move away from fossil fuels, the way of life we have right isn't sustainable. Energy consumption will need to drop. Will people put their money where their mouths are?

Considering people are demanding oil companies just stop producing an in demand product, I'm going to go with the answer being "No, they aren't willing to change their way of life".

I think anyone that takes this opinion is out to lunch. Many people may think stuff I've said is out to lunch, but I've never lobbied for the outright stop of oil production. We need it for a lot of things.

For energy generation? Yes, we should stop using it for that as soon as possible and move onto cleaner things that don't require we use a very valuable resource that is used for an almost infinite amount of things.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Do you think dealing with climate change means fundamentally reorienting our economy and society or can we incrementally transition without significant social upheaval?

A corollary to that question:

What political mechanisms do we have at hand to fundamentally reorient our economy and society?

It's one thing to speculate what humanity could or should do if it were governed by a wise and benign global ruler who wields absolute power. Another thing entirely to plot a roadmap for dozens of individual states, most of which leave their economic decisions to hundreds of millions of private citizens, and which have constitutions and laws that prevent the concentration of power in the hands of the state.

Let's say discretionary air travel is identified as an extremely wasteful activity in terms of carbon emissions. Could a government step in and say its citizens have to enter a lottery in order to be awarded the privilege of flying in a plane, and no citizen can enjoy this privilege more than once every four years? In the scope of reorienting our economy and society, it's a pretty modest step. And yet it's hard to imagine such a measure being undertaken in a free-market democracy.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A corollary to that question:

What political mechanisms do we have at hand to fundamentally reorient our economy and society?

It's one thing to speculate what humanity could or should do if it were governed by a wise and benign global ruler who wields absolute power. Another thing entirely to plot a roadmap for dozens of individual states, most of which leave their economic decisions to hundreds of millions of private citizens, and which have constitutions and laws that prevent the concentration of power in the hands of the state.

Let's say discretionary air travel is identified as an extremely wasteful activity in terms of carbon emissions. Could a government step in and say its citizens have to enter a lottery in order to be awarded the privilege of flying in a plane, and no citizen can enjoy this privilege more than once every four years? In the scope of reorienting our economy and society, it's a pretty modest step. And yet it's hard to imagine such a measure being undertaken in a free-market democracy.

Good post.

For the airline issue, would the (an) alternative to sweeping government restriction on air travel be improved airline technology, possibly bringing us to a point of zero-emission travel?

[Tinordi]

So you believe we can't incrementally get there with current institutions and politics. Understandable and defensible. But that still wouldn't preclude you from supporting action, as that depends on the answers to the first two questions.

To think that climate mitigation will not happen is still consistent with the desire for it to happen. In other words, I'm skeptical we can get there as well, but that isn't holding me back from trying to get there.

The mirror of that argument is much more insidious. If you wish we don't do anything because you don't care about climate change and then justify it with the case that we can't get there is the worst argument for inaction.