Re: OT: NOT EVIL JUST WRONG

James Arthur <bogusabdsqy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
Zs8ok.649$EL2.246@trnddc01:">news:Zs8ok.649$EL2.246@trnddc01:

Kris Krieger wrote:
James Arthur wrote:

Kris Krieger wrote:

But in any event, that's a red herring. THe point is that, as with
insurance, you can pay something now, or risk losing everything
later on.

The numbers MATTER. Insurance against the wrong problem is useless.

No, you said a number above, which referred in a very specific but
unconstructive and inapplicable way, to my analogy with insurance.

If you disagree with teh analogy, then say so

I disagree with your analogy.

OK. I'd be interested in a better one (mine aren't perfect). But
mainly, I was just trying to


- but red-herring numbers
pulled out of the air seem only to imply a nonexistent authority. I
made an analogy to insurance; you pulled out some number out of your
hat. If you have real numers that honestly and rationally compare
long-term cost comparisons between
(1) research, development, and pahsed implementation of pollutionn
controls andalternative energy,
with
(2) continuing on with things as they are, including things like
eventual health-care cost increases due to [pollution-related halth
effects, then offer the numbers. If you have none, don't pull
numbers out of the air that are not intended to inform, but rather
merely intended to denegrate an analogy/idea.

You're the one suggesting we should take <unnamed measures> as a
way of buying "insurance", against an unquantified, unknown
problem, that it's a good idea.

I mentioned measures elsewhere, so I thought I should skip a list for the
sake of brevity :o

But OK, In a nutshell:
1) continuing oil exploration and extraction, becasue current
infrastructure and suburbanization and so on cannot be changed quickly;
2) realizing that "more drilling" is not a solution, and not really a
"quick fix" to either gas prices or teh increasing difficulty of finding
and recovering oil (i.e. the problems associated with any non-renewable
resource) - it's something that only offers some "breathing room" while
additional/alternative technologies are researched, developed, made more
efficient, have infrastructure developed, and so on;
3) nix NIMBYism - people want to have their energy-cake and eat it too,
but that simply isn't realistic; eventually, the time comes to pay the
proverbial piper, and people have to realize taht they can't get "cheap"
energy by saying that "someone" should "fix" it, but do so in a way that
keeps thoes nasty, ugly, un-stylish power-generating thingamadohickeyjigs
at least three states over from their Suburban back-yards;
4) nix "single-solution-ism" - there is not such thing as "The" solution
to energy needs; no, conservation will not "solve it all", and no, wind
will not "solve it all", etc and so on and so forth - OTOH, oil doesn't
"solve ti all" eitehr, and never has - that's why there is "hydroelectric
power" and "nuclear power". Arguing taht a technology must be rejecte
because "it can't meet all our needs" is nonsensical - nothing ever has,
and nothing ever will.

As part of all that:
Educate epople. And I don't mean shout scary stuff at tehm. I mean,
present facts as facts, present probabilities as probabilites, and
present possibilities as possibilities.


You've analogized that it's cheap and easy, like buying house
insurance. You've made the proposal, so I'd expect you to have
answers about the costs vs. benefits.

Nope, I didn't say it would cheap and easy. (My insurance, at least,
ain't cheap! But it certainly isn't the $40K/year you suggested as an
analagous projection.) I just think that your number was unnecessarily
exaggerated.



You asked what could possibly be wrong with taking out insurance, so
I pointed out, by analogy, that until you can a) estimate the cost
of those <unnamed> measures, and show b) they actually help
protect against a c) credible problem, you haven't made your case.

I said we're already adapting; you deny. Fine. If you want
to be gloomy, be gloomy. Priced SUVs recently? Or their makers'
stock prices?

Individauls are coming up with ideas - what's needed is for teh gov.t to
get the bleep out of their way. In the past few years, there has been an
inordinate emphasis upon petroleum, at teh expense of other technologies.
Do I think tat people dfeveloping alternative technologies should receive
tax breaks? You bet. It's "insurance".

((Then too, IMO, the current attempt by Russia to repeat history and
again flex its IMperialistic muscles is also an obnject lesson
ilustrating the dnagers of being dependent upon a foreign power for one's
energy supplies - Russia has Europe bythe cahones becasue, according to
the various news reports, it supplies most of Europe's petroleum and
natural gas, so, if they vketch too much abotu Russia's invasion of
Georgia, all Russia has to do is turn off the tap. As for making
economic threats against Russia - look at history; Russia will survive,
evden if many Rissians lose their lives in the process. THey're stubborn
and resilient in that way.))

Let's put it this way. I'm pretty sure that some of Louisiana's state
tax money, and certainly soem of New Orleans' city taxes if such exist,
was put towards teh levees in New Orleans. Federal money also goes to
that, so people in Alaska are in part paying for New Orleans as well.
They were supposed to be the city's "insurance". Because of governemntal
(state and fed) screwing around and iterferance and fund-diversion and
who knows wat else, the people did not get what they paid for, and the
levees failed. Does that mean that nobody should ever contribute to
paying for the levees and the city should be abandoned? There is debate
about that, but the overall view seems to be that no, the city should not
just be abandoned, but the levees need to be gotten right.

You objected to having "everybody" pay for the development of non-
petroleum energy. THe fact is that "everybody" pays for a whole lot of
stuff that is decided upon by the *gov.t*, nut by people as individuals.
SOme of thesethings are blatantly wasteful, others are only marginally
useful, and so on. THe problem is that the politicians need to be a held
accountable for their actions, pork has to be cut - and tehn some of
those funds could go towards R&D, and implementation, of non-
petroleum/non-fossil-fuel energy.

SOme people talk as tho' alternative energy R&D is going to bankrupt
Americans, but that's also fear-mongering - the money is already there,
but the gov.t bureaucracy has gotten so obese that it sucks up vast (and
increasing) amounts of money merely to keep itself alive and expanding.
SO another part of the solution is to throw out the partisan-politics BS
and put teh gov.t on a diet. The assumption that alt. energy *itself*
will somehow bankrupt Americans is incorrect - what is *now bankrupting*
Americans has nothing to do with R&D into non-fossil-fuel energy and
everythign to do with arrogant politicians who believe themselves to be
some sort of unaccountable, above-the-law aristocracy which posesses some
sort of divine right to piss away taxpayers' money.

Again, if the anti-AGW/GW people are right, we'll have less pollution, a
leaner gov.t, and blah blah blah, but, if the anti-AGW/GW people are
wrong, again, the risk is far greater. *BUT*, again, even aside from
global warming, this 700 billion per year money-bleed is insane. If the
US is to remain sovereign, it has to develop, not some 2-yr or 4-yr see-
sawing Political game, but a long-term and cohesive plan that both
parties, and a succession of Presidents, will follow.

Again, at least some oil companies are expanding from being oil
companies, to energy companies; GE is investing in wind technology;
amajor power company in Arizona is using blue-green algae to 'scrub' CO2
out of its emissions, and the algae can be harvested and used in animal
feed (it's nutritious), fertilizer, and other products/uses. And so on.
THe Fed mostly needs to get out of their way.






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: NOT EVIL JUST WRONG
    ... Insurance against the wrong problem is useless. ... research, development, and pahsed implementation of pollutionn controls andalternative energy, ... I'm pretty sure that some of Louisiana's state tax money, and certainly soem of New Orleans' city taxes if such exist, was put towards teh levees in New Orleans. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: WE WON (Actiq)
    ... and they found that the insurance ... must pay for the suckers. ... strength and determination to fight for your right to have it. ... I hope by tomorrow I find the energy. ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • Re: An Insurance/MRI related question
    ... on any insurance application...unless it is employment based..which cannot ... which is why we pay thru the ass for Employer based insurance ... medicaid in michigan cannot even cover for it. ... say so in referrals, not w/medicaid and not w/private insurance ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • Re: [OT] Re: Linux & BSD history
    ... > Gates" who cannot afford Health Insurance. ... When the government forces me to pay, ... > job does not result in loosing your health care. ... be as many people having to work two minimum wage jobs. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: IV ABX Study for Psychosis
    ... I still pay 20% of labs after reaching deductible. ... I have to say I am blessed with great insurance. ... where we are all lab rats its hard to say what is fair and what's not. ... swell...my LLMD is not quite sure what to do with me to be honest. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
Quantcast