Karl`s PC Help Forums

Can Obama Save the Planet?
giron - 24-11-2009 at 20:30

Tomorrow, 19:00 on BBC 2.

Worth watching if you've got the chance, it might give us Brits an understanding of what goes on over at the other side of the pond.


waffler - 25-11-2009 at 00:23

NO


Daz - 25-11-2009 at 01:03

Quote:
Originally posted by waffler
NO


Quite right, we're doomed, doomed I thee........

Regards, Private Fraser.

;)


waffler - 25-11-2009 at 02:34

He can't save the US neva mind the Planet , all he does is screw things up . :(


scholar - 25-11-2009 at 07:18

When Obama first took office, he had a lot of good will and many people had confidence in him. He had some political capital. If he had chosen carbon reduction as his first priority, I thinki there is a good chance he could have gotten it passed.

But he has given his attention to other things, which have not worked as he promised they would, and which have increased the national debt dramitically. We cannot afford the economic harm that carbon reduction would do.

The U.S. would do better to use our coal and oil resources now, while they still have some value--oil will not be worth nearly as much after vehicles and electricity are eventually produced more cheaply with improved technology.

I do think cars will eventually run on something else (possibly hydrogen), and electricity will be more cheaply produced by nuclear plants or by orbiting solar stations which will beam power down to earth. But, these will naturally happen when the economics of the situtation make the alternatives attractive. Forcing it before the technologies are ready, and so causing economic hardship to people, is a bad idea.


John_Little - 25-11-2009 at 09:09

See what you've started, Giron?


LSemmens - 25-11-2009 at 12:24

Quote:
I thinki there is a good chance he could have gotten it passed.
Quote:
Is that anything like WIKI?


LSemmens - 26-11-2009 at 03:41

A sign that Obama may be a problem :D


giron - 26-11-2009 at 18:46

Quote:
Originally posted by John_Little
See what you've started, Giron?



That's why I put the tread in the slag off Obama USA Politics and healthcare Forum. ;)

BTW, did you watch the program, if so, what did you think of it?


John_Little - 26-11-2009 at 21:50

Missed it, giron. I'll check to see if its on catch up TV. Was it good?


giron - 26-11-2009 at 21:59

Quote:
Originally posted by John_Little
Was it good?


Yes, it was quite good, but I'll say no more, in order to avoid spoiling for you and others that have not yet seen it. :)


scholar - 27-11-2009 at 03:22

Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
A sign that Obama may be a problem :D
The billboard makes no mention at all of race, or any issue having to do with race, yet the liberal attack group moveon.org falsely calls it racist.

When Senator Dick Durbin compared the American military keeping guard over the illegal combatants at Guantanamo to totalitarians like Pol Pot, angry supporters of the military began referring to him as "Dick Turban." But, Little Dick is white. Obama's opponent treats him the same as a white man--no racism.

It may be that Obama's claim to original citizenship is not unchallengeable; or, it may be that he does not want his birth certificate displayed because his mother either listed the father as unknown or listed a different father than the one he claims. But, in either case, the billboard is not racist.


scholar - 27-11-2009 at 03:39

P.S. "Remember Ft. Hood" seems, to me, to be unfair. I understand that it was still under President Bush when initial complaints/concerns were expressed about Hassan, but he was allowed to continue.


delanti - 28-11-2009 at 05:05

Obama's job rating is a 36% approval which is the same as George Bush's was in December 2007. Thats because all the voters that Acorn led to believe that Obama would be making their car and mortgage payments have not received the checks yet. ooooops! waveysmiley


marymary100 - 7-12-2009 at 23:09

EPA acts as Greenhouse Gases are a danger to human health.


giron - 7-12-2009 at 23:17

It will be very interesting to see whether they can enforce that, personally, I see big trouble ahead.


marymary100 - 7-12-2009 at 23:20

And that's just from one poster on here.


giron - 7-12-2009 at 23:32

He's a pussycat compared to some of the people in America, one thing's for sure, they aren't going to be happy if they're forced to cut down on pollution.


scholar - 8-12-2009 at 01:35

Quote:
Originally posted by giron
He's a pussycat compared to some of the people in America, one thing's for sure, they aren't going to be happy if they're forced to cut down on pollution.
People generally like the idea of less pollution. But, the EPA has declared that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant--by which they give themselves the authority to regulate it (even though no law has been passed giving them the authority to regulate CO2).

Since every animal exhales CO2, they have grabbed for themselves the authority to regulate the breath of every person and animal.shocked_yellowshocked_yellow

Of course, real science would not categorize it as such. It is naturally produced in us, and it is necessary for the plants to use for photosynthesis.


John_Little - 8-12-2009 at 10:33

I did watch this progamme in the end. For the record, it was mostly about fighting climate change and reducing energy consumption mainly by artificially raising the price of oil and electricity.

I have to say I thought the plan was rather drastic and over the top. I wouldn't blame Scholar for objecting to this one on the grounds that he would be likely to freeze to death over the winter - Global Warming or not.


scholar - 8-12-2009 at 14:27

Quote:
Originally posted by John_Little
mainly by artificially raising the price of oil and electricity.
There's the problem! The natural course of economics would be for the various competing energy technologies to overtake carbon fuels when they became cheaper. Let the best idea win! Alternative energy becomes more attractive by LOWERING the cost, making people's lives better by leaving more money in their pockets.

The worse idea is to force a choice among the competing energy technologies that have not been developed to the point that they are cheaper, by raising the price of oil and carbon fuel produced electricity. It INCREASES the cost, and thus increases the suffering of people who need transporatation, transported goods, and electricity. It takes money out of people's pockets, and gives it to the government (in the form of energy taxes). It builds wind turbines that are more expensive than coal power plants, instead of building cheaper ones which would be available after a few more physical/technological improvements. [Sound economics is an interesting science (or interesting subject of study, depending on your definition). For example, a better wind turbine might be one that is poorly constucted--literally! Perhaps the quality turbine was more expensive than carbon fuel electricity. If the one of lesser quality lasts ten per cent less long, but only costs half as much to build, it may be the breakthrough that makes turbine electricity cheaper.] It increases suffering, and it leads the government to settle for, to buy, technology that needs further improvement before it becomes economical.

The consumer/citizen gets a bad deal when the government shuts down a power plant that works well, to replace with a more expensive power plant. I would like to see economics, without government taxes, do the job. When a plant gets old to the point that it needs expensive new equipment--that is a good time to buy a nuclear power module, or put in a section using a technology which promises to be cheaper. It may be the case that some technologies can come close to fuel-burning cost, but can't quite cross the finish line. They should be discarded, in favor of technologies that prove they are the best bargain.


John_Little - 8-12-2009 at 15:02

I mostly agree with you on most of those points. Scholar. It does seem a bit daft to me.