Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Europe)   The middle finger on José Manuel Barroso's right hand has been in constant action lately. It has been used to deliver an "up yours" salute to 99% of the world's population   (neurope.eu ) divider line
    More: Scary, Manuel Barroso, Europe, European Court of Justice, carbon capture, eu regulations, action alert, emissions trading, environmental laws  
•       •       •

4445 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Mar 2013 at 8:54 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-25 09:01:58 AM  
I thought an uberrich elite holding the population hostage was purely a capitalist thing, unique to America, and unable to possibly happen elsewhere?!
 
2013-03-25 09:06:19 AM  

Bravo Two: I thought an uberrich elite holding the population hostage was purely a capitalist thing, unique to America, and unable to possibly happen elsewhere?!


It is... We have Capitalism too.

/and donuts
//but we call them doughnuts
 
2013-03-25 09:17:27 AM  
It's like I tell Europeans when I have political discussions with them - a lot of the things that provoke full-on outrage in Europe are tragically tame and small-time by American standards.
 
2013-03-25 09:21:46 AM  
It sucks, but that's the Golden Rule for ya.
 
2013-03-25 09:29:11 AM  
As things stand, the supposed benefits of CCS are unproven.

In all fairness, this isn't really true.  CCS stands in about the same theoretical place as every other method of CO2 emissions reduction per unit, and is actually substantially more viable than a number of them.

Admittedly, the association of CCS tech with this particular conference is at best somewhat dubious, as they're supposed to be discussing wide-angle-view stuff and CCS, or any other specific, singular form of emissions control, really falls under "details".  High-level stuff like this meeting should generally address much broader topics like altering industrial output in total or the value of mitigation versus direct control as a general rule.  It's a preservation of detail thing.

Spaced Lion: It's like I tell Europeans when I have political discussions with them - a lot of the things that provoke full-on outrage in Europe are tragically tame and small-time by American standards.


That's not entirely true.  This appears to be an actual, official policy-setting meeting, not an informal "hang out with the lobbyists" thing.  The US gets a couple days of outrage whenever one of those happens with major relevant parties missing too.
 
2013-03-25 09:38:29 AM  
Yeah, I'm not sure if I see the outrage in pursuing another tool for our carbon-reduction toolkit. At least big oil and coal is doing SOMETHING over there to address the problem instead of throwing all their weight into denying that there is a problem.
 
2013-03-25 09:40:43 AM  

Jim_Callahan: As things stand, the supposed benefits of CCS are unproven.

In all fairness, this isn't really true. CCS stands in about the same theoretical place as every other method of CO2 emissions reduction per unit, and is actually substantially more viable than a number of them.


But I have to say - without a single look at a single explanation of CCS other than TFA - CCS sounds like a "sweep it under the rug" solution. I'm sure that there are all manner of theoretical ways the Earth can recycle the tons of CO2 we'd pump underground (to say nothing of the other particulates that we'd likely be introducing), but as explained in TFA, this doesn't really solve the problem so much as redirect it.

// again, to this layman, it looks like the richers just don't want to make hard choices about limiting CO2, so they make an easy choice about mitigating its effects (plus, this Wile E Coyote CCS business means they don't have to alter they way they burn/mine/sell fuel)
 
2013-03-25 09:42:00 AM  
This is why the right is so screwed up right now.  If you want to fight people that have too much power in your lives then you're doing it wrong if you're trying to fight the government.  These dipshiats are the one with all the power in your lives right now.  They're dictating to the governments at every level.
 
2013-03-25 09:43:47 AM  

Jim_Callahan: That's not entirely true. This appears to be an actual, official policy-setting meeting, not an informal "hang out with the lobbyists" thing. The US gets a couple days of outrage whenever one of those happens with major relevant parties missing too.


Really?  There should be outrage over big corporations dictating what is best for the country, but generally there isn't.  At the most it's a back burner story for the corporate media who think that corporate pressure on government is perfectly okay.
 
2013-03-25 09:44:39 AM  
We green links that aren't from Politico?
 
2013-03-25 09:48:51 AM  
Capitalism: A worldwide effort to maximize profits for very few people at the expense of everyone else.

/You should have all been listening to communists, anarchists and/or socialists instead of voting for mainstream capitalist  candidates.
 
2013-03-25 09:54:23 AM  
Who?
 
2013-03-25 10:11:19 AM  

Dr Dreidel: But I have to say - without a single look at a single explanation of CCS other than TFA - CCS sounds like a "sweep it under the rug" solution. I'm sure that there are all manner of theoretical ways the Earth can recycle the tons of CO2 we'd pump underground (to say nothing of the other particulates that we'd likely be introducing), but as explained in TFA, this doesn't really solve the problem so much as redirect it.


Well, putting on my process engineering hat for a moment, sequestration isn't really  intended to be a permanent solution or something that can be done infinitely.  But when you're talking about a problem of this scale, "it will solve the problem for a few centuries" is really all you need, and that's what it is.  The thinking is that we'll have switched to more direct expressions of solar energy (biofuels, photovoltaics, etc) or nuclear energy by them simply because... well, there aren't going to be any more long-term fuel deposits at that point to exploit.

The thing about CO2 regulation is that, while geo-fuel dominates the problem right now, it's not really the only aspect of the problem, or really even the hardest one to tackle.  Sequestration is about shoving it validly into the "deal with later" box long enough to focus some political will and investment capital on the aspect of the problem that's actually probably going to kill us all: the gradual poisoning of the oceans, where most CO2/O2 conversion takes place.

Then, obviously, there's the old "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" paradigm, which has the words in that order for a reason-- Sequestration and other emissions minimization options are never, obviously, going to be as effective as just not making whatever you're making in the first place.  The problem from an industrial perspective is that this is  literally impossible for a company to accomplish: if you lower production, either you're handing a competitor market share or you're going to get legally banned from doing so on the theory you're "price fixing" or otherwise abusing monopoly.  So the industry is stuck with sequestration, scrubbing, and conversion projects (my favorite being the artificial trees) as the next best thing, not really through malice but because the basic politics of their situation screws them if they start making judgments about "how much power southern CA really needs" or whatever.

Albeit, it's also worth noting that sequestration is, ultimately, "putting the carbon back where it came from", i.e. removing it from the biosphere.  So any worries you have about CO2 reservoirs would, well, also equally apply to existing fossil-fuel deposits.  This is why I put it on par with "recycle" in the usual conservation paradigm, and why you'll sometimes get blank looks from oil and gas guys like you're the craziest hippie that ever hipped if you say something about it being unreliable in a social setting.  It's ultimately no worse for the environment than not extracting the carbon in the first place, assuming it's done competently (which, y'know, is a legit reason to doubt, BP and all).

There you go, environmentalist wall o' text accomplished.

//Putting on my chemist hat, I'm rooting for the artificial tree project, because... farking artificial trees, dude.  Always in for the one-upping God game.  Realistically cap+trade plus some national incentives... well, more national incentives to go partially PV/Wind is what most of the first world is probably going to end up with, though.  Ideally with the base need gaps filled in by nuclear as we decentralize the grid.
 
2013-03-25 10:12:41 AM  

FarkedOver: Capitalism: A worldwide effort to maximize profits for very few people at the expense of everyone else.

/You should have all been listening to communists, anarchists and/or socialists instead of voting for mainstream capitalist  candidates.



What has capitalism ever done for us anyway?

Well besides increase our standard of living by an incredible factor, what has it done?
 
2013-03-25 10:14:39 AM  

Mrbogey: What has capitalism ever done for us anyway?

Well besides increase our standard of living by an incredible factor, what has it done?


Here in America it's worked wonders! (at the expense of the laborers in 3rd world countries)
 
2013-03-25 10:15:27 AM  
I guess the short version of the previous wall of text is that sequestration is about removing carbon from the biosphere, where recycling is a thing, and putting it into geology, where from the perspective of our time-scale recycling isn't a concern.
 
2013-03-25 10:15:56 AM  

Mrbogey: FarkedOver: Capitalism: A worldwide effort to maximize profits for very few people at the expense of everyone else.

/You should have all been listening to communists, anarchists and/or socialists instead of voting for mainstream capitalist  candidates.


What has capitalism ever done for us anyway?

Well besides increase our standard of living by an incredible factor, what has it done?


Given us robber-barons and company towns?
 
2013-03-25 10:22:57 AM  

Tomahawk513: It sucks, but that's the Golden Rule for ya.


Are we talking Jesus Golden Rule, or Jafar Golden Rule?
 
2013-03-25 10:26:24 AM  

Counter_Intelligent: Tomahawk513: It sucks, but that's the Golden Rule for ya.

Are we talking Jesus Golden Rule, or Jafar Golden Rule?


What's the diff?  They're both bearded, Middle-Eastern guys with supernatural powers.

Bomb 'em all, let God sort 'em out.
 
2013-03-25 10:29:13 AM  

Jim_Callahan: I guess the short version of the previous wall of text is that sequestration is about removing carbon from the biosphere, where recycling is a thing, and putting it into geology, where from the perspective of our time-scale recycling isn't a concern.


Thanks for that, but isn't "just shove it underground" what caused so many of our previous headaches? Leaded gas/additives seeping into groundwater/water tables, mountaintop-removal runoff hitting our streams and rivers, industrial pollutants seeping in every which way...

They have a business model that works with carbon, and they don't think they can make one work with solar/wind/whatever. Whether that's due to the inertia of big business or maybe they actually don't see solar as viable much longer, but doing anything and everything they can to make sure we're on carbon fuel just a liiiiiiiiiiitle while longer means we're on carbon fuel for another 30 years without any movement.

If Carter's solar panels and energy-conservation movements had gained any momentum (like if Reagan hadn't been a turbo-dick about it), if we had actually followed through with the "Less oil from despotic regimes" (instead of Reagan making them our favorite business/war partners), if the hippies had made any inroads in the early 90s - where would energy be now?

// you invest today not for tomorrow, but next year, or the year after
// not directed at you, but it looks like the industry doesn't even want to entertain middle-ground solutions that remove carbon/coal, preferring all the mitigation they can handle
// if we mitigate 40% of the problem while we burn more and more coal, we're delaying the inevitable
// but they'll all be dead by time the flutist asks for tribute
 
2013-03-25 10:29:17 AM  

d23: This is why the right is so screwed up right now.  If you want to fight people that have too much power in your lives then you're doing it wrong if you're trying to fight the government.  These dipshiats are the one with all the power in your lives right now.  They're dictating to the governments at every level.


This is why I am glad humans are not immortal. These bastards have to die sometime. And they know how much the rest of Humanity will want to tear apart their corpse so they have to spend huge amounts of money to erect Pullman-type crypts for themselves.

www.brainsnack.net

It may not look like much on the surface, but beneath ground level, it's layers of concrete, asphalt, and metal. Pullman knew he was a bastard, and he knew what people would do if they could have gotten their hands on him, dead or alive.
 
2013-03-25 10:29:50 AM  

Parthenogenetic: Counter_Intelligent: Tomahawk513: It sucks, but that's the Golden Rule for ya.

Are we talking Jesus Golden Rule, or Jafar Golden Rule?

What's the diff?  They're both bearded, Middle-Eastern guys with supernatural powers.

Bomb 'em all, let God sort 'em out.


Typical American reaction -- Europeans screw up something, and the Middle East gets bombed as a result.
 
2013-03-25 10:36:03 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Pullman knew he was a bastard, and he knew what people would do if they could have gotten their hands on him, dead or alive.


screamer.alt-world.com

// one of the people Pullman was afraid of
 
2013-03-25 10:38:24 AM  

Felgraf: Mrbogey: FarkedOver: Capitalism: A worldwide effort to maximize profits for very few people at the expense of everyone else.

/You should have all been listening to communists, anarchists and/or socialists instead of voting for mainstream capitalist  candidates.


What has capitalism ever done for us anyway?

Well besides increase our standard of living by an incredible factor, what has it done?

Given us robber-barons and company towns?


Dusted off the medieval multi-generational family dynasty and given it a fresh, modern look?
 
2013-03-25 10:41:28 AM  

Lochsteppe: Felgraf: Mrbogey: FarkedOver: Capitalism: A worldwide effort to maximize profits for very few people at the expense of everyone else.

/You should have all been listening to communists, anarchists and/or socialists instead of voting for mainstream capitalist  candidates.


What has capitalism ever done for us anyway?

Well besides increase our standard of living by an incredible factor, what has it done?

Given us robber-barons and company towns?

Dusted off the medieval multi-generational family dynasty and given it a fresh, modern look?


Inhibited the development of a mixed economy?
 
2013-03-25 10:44:36 AM  

Mrbogey: FarkedOver: Capitalism: A worldwide effort to maximize profits for very few people at the expense of everyone else.

/You should have all been listening to communists, anarchists and/or socialists instead of voting for mainstream capitalist  candidates.


What has capitalism ever done for us anyway?

Well besides increase our standard of living by an incredible factor, what has it done?


I don't think that capitalism as an economic system is the problem. It's our political system that's farked up. When we allow the blatant and outright wholesale buying of political candidates by powerful interests, we're virtually guaranteeing a system where laws are written to benefit those groups and individuals, often to the detriment of the general public. Most of the laws and regulations concerning businesses that are written today are done so to protect the interests of the few. They help those in power secure monopolies or near-monopolies, protect them from the consequences of their actions, reduce or eliminate their tax obligations and sometimes just straight-up pump taxpayer dollars into their own coffers.  Capitalism isn't the problem, it's our corrupt, bought-and-paid-for, morally bankrupt government that is doing its best to turn us into a banana republic, all for their own personal gain.
 
2013-03-25 10:49:10 AM  

Bravo Two: I thought an uberrich elite holding the population hostage was purely a capitalist thing, unique to America, and unable to possibly happen elsewhere?!


I see this thread went from zero to blithering right out of the gate.

Anyway, unfortunately this is to be expected. Sham "democracy" and capitalism go hand in hand to create an illusion of freedom while keeping the aristos firmly in control. Put up the right veneer and then it doesn't matter who is brought in on the decision-making, because the people who complain will be labeled as malcontents by everyone else.
 
2013-03-25 10:57:20 AM  

mod3072: Mrbogey: FarkedOver: Capitalism: A worldwide effort to maximize profits for very few people at the expense of everyone else.

/You should have all been listening to communists, anarchists and/or socialists instead of voting for mainstream capitalist  candidates.


What has capitalism ever done for us anyway?

Well besides increase our standard of living by an incredible factor, what has it done?

I don't think that capitalism as an economic system is the problem. It's our political system that's farked up. When we allow the blatant and outright wholesale buying of political candidates by powerful interests, we're virtually guaranteeing a system where laws are written to benefit those groups and individuals, often to the detriment of the general public. Most of the laws and regulations concerning businesses that are written today are done so to protect the interests of the few. They help those in power secure monopolies or near-monopolies, protect them from the consequences of their actions, reduce or eliminate their tax obligations and sometimes just straight-up pump taxpayer dollars into their own coffers.  Capitalism isn't the problem, it's our corrupt, bought-and-paid-for, morally bankrupt government that is doing its best to turn us into a banana republic, all for their own personal gain.


Capitalism taps into the power of desire (or, in its stronger form, greed).  In moderation this tends to work out fine, but it's the exceptions that are the problem. More money leads to more power and control (over one's own situation first, then over others); for some people, this is like mainlining Jabroka - they turn into crazed beasts needing more, more, more and not caring at all whose necks get snapped along the way.  That's part of the reason we have market controls in the US, and why it's so dangerous to let them be eroded or removed altogether.  Capitalism is like playing the dozens with Bruce Banner. Unless you're careful, shiat's gonna get smashed eventually.
 
2013-03-25 10:58:47 AM  

mod3072: I don't think that capitalism as an economic system is the problem


Capitalism is just as much a problem as is our political system.
 
2013-03-25 11:15:35 AM  
"There is only one way of improving the situation: by public pressure. Building and sustaining a movement against the corporate capture of politics are probably the most important challenges of our times."
-=-

Or you could shoot them.
(That's why they don't like you to have guns.)

The Book of Revelations is playing out.
 
2013-03-25 11:25:12 AM  

Stoker: The Book of Revelations is playing out.


In that it was carefully couched allegory for the fall of Rome, and rome still isn't around?

Yeah, probably.
 
2013-03-25 11:28:54 AM  

Lochsteppe: Capitalism taps into the power of desire (or, in its stronger form, greed).  In moderation this tends to work out fine, but it's the exceptions that are the problem. More money leads to more power and control (over one's own situation first, then over others); for some people, this is like mainlining Jabroka - they turn into crazed beasts needing more, more, more and not caring at all whose necks get snapped along the way.  That's part of the reason we have market controls in the US, and why it's so dangerous to let them be eroded or removed altogether.  Capitalism is like playing the dozens with Bruce Banner. Unless you're careful, shiat's gonna get smashed eventually.


That's what makes it a great system to encourage innovation and advancement. Like you are saying, however, unless proper controls are put in place, it will eventually lead to a collapse. We need, in my opinion, better separation between money and politics. Publicly funded campaigns would be a start, along with putting an end to the revolving door between businesses and regulatory agencies like we see with entities like the SEC. Lobbyists should be barred from giving ANY gifts, favors, promises, etc., including cushy job offers after retirement from government. Politicians should be there to lead and do what is best for the country, not to line their own pockets with graft. Yeah, I know it's a pipe dream. Getting congress to cut off their own gravy train is about as likely as me winning the lottery while getting struck by lightening during an orgy with greased-up super models.
 
2013-03-25 03:06:35 PM  
Wowbagger, the Infinitely Prolonged?
 
2013-03-25 03:41:42 PM  
Barroso is on my short list titled "Might be the Antichrist".
 
2013-03-25 04:45:06 PM  

Lochsteppe: mod3072: Mrbogey: FarkedOver: Capitalism: A worldwide effort to maximize profits for very few people at the expense of everyone else.

/You should have all been listening to communists, anarchists and/or socialists instead of voting for mainstream capitalist  candidates.


What has capitalism ever done for us anyway?

Well besides increase our standard of living by an incredible factor, what has it done?

I don't think that capitalism as an economic system is the problem. It's our political system that's farked up. When we allow the blatant and outright wholesale buying of political candidates by powerful interests, we're virtually guaranteeing a system where laws are written to benefit those groups and individuals, often to the detriment of the general public. Most of the laws and regulations concerning businesses that are written today are done so to protect the interests of the few. They help those in power secure monopolies or near-monopolies, protect them from the consequences of their actions, reduce or eliminate their tax obligations and sometimes just straight-up pump taxpayer dollars into their own coffers.  Capitalism isn't the problem, it's our corrupt, bought-and-paid-for, morally bankrupt government that is doing its best to turn us into a banana republic, all for their own personal gain.

Capitalism taps into the power of desire (or, in its stronger form, greed).  In moderation this tends to work out fine, but it's the exceptions that are the problem. More money leads to more power and control (over one's own situation first, then over others); for some people, this is like mainlining Jabroka - they turn into crazed beasts needing more, more, more and not caring at all whose necks get snapped along the way.  That's part of the reason we have market controls in the US, and why it's so dangerous to let them be eroded or removed altogether.  Capitalism is like playing the dozens with Bruce Banner. Unless you're careful, shiat's gonna get smashed eventuall ...



Agreed. Capitalism is just one of many tools. It's a powerful tool, but like ALL tools it must be used properly or it can be damaging.

Unfortunately... it has been turned into a quasi-religious principle by folks with a simplistic understanding of it, and that plus all the nearly unlimited cash money our politics are awash in is making it a destructive tool rather than a constructive one. And any time someone says a market will be "self-regulating" you can pretty much tune out anything else they have to say.
 
2013-03-27 12:56:47 AM  

mongbiohazard: Agreed. Capitalism is just one of many tools. It's a powerful tool, but like ALL tools it must be used properly or it can be damaging.


I think part of the problem is thinking of capitalism as a tool. It's more like a fundamental function of resource management. Even during the most strident of anti-capitalist movements, there still existed the exchange of goods and services for other services or other goods.

Capitalism and free markets often gets blamed for anything bad that happens even when the plan is inately counter to free market principles.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report