Analysis; Tucker debates socialist that thinks perosnal responsibility is worthless

a reply to: Wayfarer

I dont know that I want a single payer system. Though I concede the current system is so bad that single payer would probably be better.

Its a very complicated issue that I am willing to hear all opinions on, and I admit I dont have an answer I am very confident in.

But we definitely agree on the problem and the need to fix it.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

It's not about saving the climate.

Let's get that settled right now.

It's never been about "saving" anything.

It's about taking more taxes, infringing on more rights, and reducing the freedoms and liberties we still enjoy.

You truly are 1/1024th awesome!!

And I mean that in a good way!

a reply to: Grambler

It really annoys me how this argument is often boiled down to "we need more electric vehicles instead of machines powered by fossil fuels", because if the electricity is generated primarily by burning fossil fuels then it makes no difference what so ever. What they really need to be debating is the methods used to generate power, I watched an interesting video a few days ago which attempted to debunk the myth that electric vehicles are worse for the environment, but I think what it really does is highlight how important it is to consider the way the electricity was generated. Electric vehicles release more emissions during manufacturing due to the batteries, in the video they show that it takes 2 to 5 years before that difference is offset by the reduced emissions of the electric vehicle. However in a state such as West Virginia where 93% of the electricity is generated from coal plants, it can take up to 17 years before that difference is offset, meaning it wont be beneficial to the environment unless you drive the same EV for more than 17 years in that state.

This is highly relevant to the current energy debates in Australia because environmentalists constantly complain about coal power, since around 63% of our electricity comes from coal plants and only 16% of it comes from renewables (see this report), but at the same time they fear monger about nuclear energy and refuse to acknowledge it as a solution. The U.S. has a nuclear reactor in almost every state, over 20% of electricity in the U.S. comes from nuclear plants and only 30% comes from coal, meaning if you calculated the offset time for EV's in Australia it would be much longer than 2-5 years. Despite the fact Australia only emitts just over 1% of the worlds CO2 emissions, compared to the U.S. which emits around 15%, and China which contributes 30% of all emissions, we have people constantly demonizing coal power and shutting down our coal plants, with no real backup plan because they refuse nuclear solutions, when in fact the amount of CO2 we release as a nation is perfectly sustainable. We've seen quite rapid rises in our electricity prices over the last few years and it's directly correlated to an effort to make the grid entirely green despite the consequences.

The more we replace reliable sources of power generation with less reliable sources like wind and solar, the less reliable the grid becomes, as we've seen with rising blackouts and brownouts. It also increases the cost of electricity for the simple fact that solar and wind are not very efficient ways of generating power, the amount of money you must spend compared to the power you get out isn't anywhere close to the efficiency of fossils fuels so the prices increase to make up the difference. This may slowly change over time but for now it's mostly true except for maybe those advanced modern solar farms which use an array of mirrors to focus light into a point in order to heat a steam turbine, although I've never really looked at the numbers on those and I don't think many exist in the world. Hydro energy is another very effective way of generating reliable clean energy but that depends on a reliable flow of water, such as the generators built at Niagara Falls by Nikola Tesla, at one point around a quarter of all electricity in the U.S. was generated from hydro sources.

The point is I'm not against green solutions if they produce reliable and cheap energy, but I am against fear mongering and moralizing at the expense of consumers, especially when clean cheap sources of energy like nuclear energy are dismissed as a solution. It's also very important to realize that wind and solar solutions also have an environmental cost just like EV's, you need massive fields full of solar panels and wind mills to generate the same amount of power a small coal plant could provide. Granted, there are places like the desert where no one will care if we cover the land in such devices, but we still have the emissions created during the production of these countless devices made mostly from plastic and glass materials. It sounds very nice to talk about free energy which comes from the sun, but if people really cared they would realize nuclear energy is the cleanest and most reliable option we have, assuming we have a good way to dispose of the nuclear waste of course. Australia has the flattest and most stable continent on Earth, the 2nd largest uranium reserves of any nation, yet not a single nuclear reactor but we store nuclear waste for the rest of the world.

a reply to: Grambler

I saw this lady. She was an absolute piece of work.

After a while, she stopped even trying to respond to his questions and told him he had a problem with opinionated, strong women.

Basically, agree with me or it's all your problem you don't accept my Gospel! BURN HERETIC!

I also loved her idea that we should all drive electric cars ... where does the electricity come from? How do you drive long distance in cars without that capacity as of yet?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Awesome post!

The truth is as with most problems, there is no easy solution.

The fear mongering to try to get people to agree with a solution based totally on emotion leads to unrealistic plans and people being hurt in significant ways. Aks Paris right now.

So we have to have a discussion that is honest about what the problem is, how bad could it get, how long would that take, what are the chances of the worst case scenario happiening, what solutions could we offer, what percentage of the problem will the solutions fix, how long will the solution take, what are the costs of the solution, what are other problems that could result form enacting this solution.

Instead, we get shouted down as climate deniers and told we are bad people for asking these very relevant questions.

Take wind power. You already outlined its unreliability and unfeasibleness is some areas. But it also does massive damage to bird species, to the pint where it is becoming a massive problem.

Now that tradeoff may be worth it, but its worth analyzing.

I remember years ago reading that some forms of recycluing, such as glass, may have actually been worse for the environment. The reason is that the emmisions necessary to break down the glass actually could potentially cause more pollution than just making new glass (though this may have changed by now)

In addition, most glass recycling plants were placed in impoverished communities, where it lowered air quality for the poor people that lived near there.

Yet none of this mattered; only the feeling of doing something good by recycling.

This is the danger we get in when we start under the assumption that advocates of a certain plan or ideology are morally superior, and questioning their proposals is immoral.

And its how we also lead to accepting absurd positions such as personal responsibility and action is irrelevant and useless, which is of a greater danger in my opinion than anything climate change could do.

a reply to: Grambler

Think about the movement to replace paper with plastic. Now we have all the vapors about too many plastic bags.

a reply to: Grambler

I remember years ago reading that some forms of recycluing, such as glass, may have actually been worse for the environment. The reason is that the emmisions necessary to break down the glass actually could potentially cause more pollution than just making new glass (though this may have changed by now)

Yeah and I didn't even go into the concerns of recycling and disposing of batteries, which often require special treatment due to the chemicals. The point is every solution has a consequence, ironically I think a truly "free energy device" would be the worst of all for the environment, it would allow our species to grow and expand on an unprecedented level, and if the technology has been suppressed that is most likely the primary reason why.

originally posted by: FamCoreOcasio replies with a rant about how "healthcare for all will actually save Americans a lot of money", without actually saying where the $38 trillion would come from.

These people are talking out of their ***, plain and simple. What's worse is people support them

It's FREE, how can something FREE cost more?? DUH.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's the real-world version of the underpants gnomes. Sometimes, I do wonder how Parker and Stone got so much right.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's FREE, how can something FREE cost more?? DUH.

How do you find $3.3 Trillion (per year) worth of "FREE HEALTHCARE"? The doctors, hospitals and medical equipment people just give away their time, resources, and expertise for free? Sounds like fun, where do I sign up for this 'Healthcare for All' thing?

If one degree rise in temp will wipe out NYC and DC, bring it on. I can't wait to see that. How much do we need to take care of Baltimore, Philly and LA? Maybe we could wipe out Chicago if we work at it.

a reply to: FamCore

I am obviously not as bright as she is as I too can not figure it out.