• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Let's say just for the sake of argument that AGW is real

My ideas about a one world government....care to enlighten as to what those consist of? as apparently you've mastered the art of mind-reading....

Do you people ever listen to yourselves? Or read your own posts?

They've been throwing up straw men for so long they can't remember what's real anymore. They have to grossly inflate what "warmists" are supposedly saying just so they have something to bitch about.
 
Answering the OP a bit, here's some things I'd do off the top of my head if I were Dictator Deuce.

The first thing is to heavily promote nuclear power. I know, the NIMBY crowd is powerful on both the "left" and "right" sides of this issue, but **** those people, I'm the dictator remember? The process of approving nuclear construction needs to be streamlined significantly. Right now, it basically takes decades to build a nuclear plant because of all the red tape, and this ramps up costs. I'd also subsidize the construction of nuclear power significantly. Funding this would be a broad approach. There's a couple wars we don't need to fight, a military industrial complex that can be shaved back, I'd raise the income tax back to pre-Bush-cut levels, put a small (couple cents) tax on gasoline, oh, and I'd slash the salaries of Congress. Or just eliminate Congress entirely. Dictator, remember?

The other side of the coin will be electrifying transportation. Not an easy task. Electric motors are amazing, but our current weakness is the batteries. They're heavy, expensive, and way less energy dense than gasoline. (I did the math recently, it was like a factor of a thousand or something!) I'd push research funding into fixing this. I'd divert the tax credits for hybrid vehicle purchases to this effort. Hybrids are nice, but they're not solving the problem. I might even go all Manhattan Project on new battery technology, I think that's really the key to the Electric Revolution. We're good at producing electricity, we need to store it better.

I'd immediately put America on a New Kyoto Protocol, regardless of whether other countries signed it yet. We're America. We're supposed to be a world leader, but half our population is bitching about signing anything because waaaaahh China and India aren't going to have to work at it as hard as we do. Waaaaaahhhh. Screw that. Want to be a leader? Lead. After putting America on track, I'd lock every world leader in a room until they got on board. Anyone who wanted special treatment would run the risk of trade embargoes, tarrifs, sanctions, whatever it took. Fine, pollute as much as you want, China, but you wont be importing any of that cheap crap to America on my watch until you get your act together. What's that? Economic suicide? What, China, you think you're the only ones who can make cheap crap? I got Australia over here talking about the big market gap that you're leaving behind. We got demand, supply will come.

Then I would execute everyone who ever starred in, produced, or "directed" a "reality" television show. Look, I'm a dictator. This Green Thing is neat and all, but I have my legacy to think about. The man who rid the world of the scourge of reality television would be immortalized.
 
Answering the OP a bit, here's some things I'd do off the top of my head if I were Dictator Deuce.

The first thing is to heavily promote nuclear power. I know, the NIMBY crowd is powerful on both the "left" and "right" sides of this issue, but **** those people, I'm the dictator remember? The process of approving nuclear construction needs to be streamlined significantly. Right now, it basically takes decades to build a nuclear plant because of all the red tape, and this ramps up costs. I'd also subsidize the construction of nuclear power significantly. Funding this would be a broad approach. There's a couple wars we don't need to fight, a military industrial complex that can be shaved back, I'd raise the income tax back to pre-Bush-cut levels, put a small (couple cents) tax on gasoline, oh, and I'd slash the salaries of Congress. Or just eliminate Congress entirely. Dictator, remember?

The other side of the coin will be electrifying transportation. Not an easy task. Electric motors are amazing, but our current weakness is the batteries. They're heavy, expensive, and way less energy dense than gasoline. (I did the math recently, it was like a factor of a thousand or something!) I'd push research funding into fixing this. I'd divert the tax credits for hybrid vehicle purchases to this effort. Hybrids are nice, but they're not solving the problem. I might even go all Manhattan Project on new battery technology, I think that's really the key to the Electric Revolution. We're good at producing electricity, we need to store it better.

I'd immediately put America on a New Kyoto Protocol, regardless of whether other countries signed it yet. We're America. We're supposed to be a world leader, but half our population is bitching about signing anything because waaaaahh China and India aren't going to have to work at it as hard as we do. Waaaaaahhhh. Screw that. Want to be a leader? Lead. After putting America on track, I'd lock every world leader in a room until they got on board. Anyone who wanted special treatment would run the risk of trade embargoes, tarrifs, sanctions, whatever it took. Fine, pollute as much as you want, China, but you wont be importing any of that cheap crap to America on my watch until you get your act together. What's that? Economic suicide? What, China, you think you're the only ones who can make cheap crap? I got Australia over here talking about the big market gap that you're leaving behind. We got demand, supply will come.

Then I would execute everyone who ever starred in, produced, or "directed" a "reality" television show. Look, I'm a dictator. This Green Thing is neat and all, but I have my legacy to think about. The man who rid the world of the scourge of reality television would be immortalized.

I might not agree with your entire approach as dictator, but at least you put a lot of thought into it and.... I must admit you got at least one thing dead right without question in your last listed act as dictator. :D
 
My ideas about a one world government....care to enlighten as to what those consist of? as apparently you've mastered the art of mind-reading....

Do you people ever listen to yourselves? Or read your own posts?

How else is this statement you made earlier to be interpreted ?

"A world congress with the ability to make laws that affect the environment."

Deuce wrote They've been throwing up straw men for so long they can't remember what's real anymore. They have to grossly inflate what "warmists" are supposedly saying just so they have something to bitch about.

What strawman ? He said what he said.
 
Then I would execute everyone who ever starred in, produced, or "directed" a "reality" television show. Look, I'm a dictator. This Green Thing is neat and all, but I have my legacy to think about. The man who rid the world of the scourge of reality television would be immortalized.

I think executing Simon Cowell alone will solve half the planets ills at a stroke !
 
How else is this statement you made earlier to be interpreted ?

"A world congress with the ability to make laws that affect the environment."



What strawman ? He said what he said.

An international body granted power over one area of law isn't "one world government."
 
An international body granted power over one area of law isn't "one world government."
No, but it means you support a one world government. Can you say that you wouldn't, one by one, want other areas of global power?
 
For those fretting about global warming... let's just scrap all the scientific kerfuffle over whether anthropogenic global warming is real and assume for this argument that (a) the Earth is rapidly warming and (b) it's man's Co2 emissions that are causing it.

What would YOU have us all do about it?




Can we also assume that Tinkerbell is going to live and it's the clapping hands of little children that are causing it?
 
Quote Originally Posted by ArcaniteCartel View Post
My ideas about a one world government....care to enlighten as to what those consist of? as apparently you've mastered the art of mind-reading....

Do you people ever listen to yourselves? Or read your own posts?
How else is this statement you made earlier to be interpreted ?

"A world congress with the ability to make laws that affect the environment."


I didn't actually write that. Go back and check. Either you are confusing me with someone else, or you like to make things up. Don't know which.

I did write this, though. ==>

Take as much carbon out of the energy cycle as possible

1. Convert the national energy infrastructure
- nuclear power generation
- use hydrogen to fuel internal combustion engines
- update the electrical grid so that it is less lossy, "smart", and more resilient to natural disasters
- where carbon must still be used, use natural gas
- keep oil for the production of synthetics
- supplement where feasible with solar and wind - these won't be the mainstay
- invest in new forms of nuclear power research (fusion, LENR). Plus more advances in reactor design.

2. This will need to be done as a national program, much like the Apollo program was. This will be larger.
 
Can we also assume that Tinkerbell is going to live and it's the clapping hands of little children that are causing it?

Of course you can, if you wish.
 
I did write this, though. ==>

Take as much carbon out of the energy cycle as possible

1. Convert the national energy infrastructure
- nuclear power generation
- use hydrogen to fuel internal combustion engines
- update the electrical grid so that it is less lossy, "smart", and more resilient to natural disasters
- where carbon must still be used, use natural gas
- keep oil for the production of synthetics
- supplement where feasible with solar and wind - these won't be the mainstay
- invest in new forms of nuclear power research (fusion, LENR). Plus more advances in reactor design.

2. This will need to be done as a national program, much like the Apollo program was. This will be larger.
I agree with everything you are saying with one exception, I think carbon may be the answer
to energy storage and transport.
By creating hydrocarbons from atmospheric Co2 and hydrogen, we can make fuels that
are liquid and portable, and we already have the infrastructure to handle it.
 
I agree with everything you are saying with one exception, I think carbon may be the answer
to energy storage and transport.
By creating hydrocarbons from atmospheric Co2 and hydrogen, we can make fuels that
are liquid and portable, and we already have the infrastructure to handle it.

If I recall, we do have a process to turn CO2 from the air into methane. Such a process would at lest be carbon neutral.
 
If I recall, we do have a process to turn CO2 from the air into methane. Such a process would at lest be carbon neutral.
We can also make almost any kind of hydrocarbon from methane.
many times in Science it helps to look at prior art, to see what has come before.
The phrase "don't reinvent the wheel" comes to mind.
In the case of hydrocarbons, Nature has shown us a very efficient way to store energy.
An almost perfect battery!, Portable, high energy density, and long shelve life.
The Science and Engineering work will be to make it cheaper than what comes out of the ground.
 
We can work to ensure cleaner air. We can become more energy efficient. We can do a better job of protecting the environment and should. The AGR portion of the Global Warming/Global Cooling/****itletsjustcall it "climate change" has always been foolish and devisive. Blame it on man, so you can stick Uncle Sam with R/D and science grants. You can buy more Gore Carbon Credits and make people rich. Or...you can be smart and do things better for the sake of cleaner air and water. Car pools make sense. In some areas mass transit makes sense. Try walking that block to the store instead of jumping in a car and driving. Keep vehicle tuned up. Dont throw **** out the window.

I WOULD however invite many of those AGR true believers to shut the **** up until they live their word. Shut down the AC units, stop driving, etc. Or keep being like the Goracle. Travel in SUVs, live in a home that polutes more than any 4 average homes combined, travel the world in private jets that dump more polutants into the atmosphere than 100 SUVs all by your lonesome, etc.
 
We can also make almost any kind of hydrocarbon from methane.
many times in Science it helps to look at prior art, to see what has come before.
The phrase "don't reinvent the wheel" comes to mind.
In the case of hydrocarbons, Nature has shown us a very efficient way to store energy.
An almost perfect battery!, Portable, high energy density, and long shelve life.
The Science and Engineering work will be to make it cheaper than what comes out of the ground.

Then we should be able to use cheap energy like coal during peak usage and carpure the carbon output, then convert it to liquid fuel when solar and wind are excess.
 
Then we should be able to use cheap energy like coal during peak usage and carpure the carbon output, then convert it to liquid fuel when solar and wind are excess.
Long term, I would think Nuclear, but the idea is using hydrocarbons as an energy storage vehicle.
The actual source of the energy could be both conventional and others.
 
Long term, I would think Nuclear, but the idea is using hydrocarbons as an energy storage vehicle.
The actual source of the energy could be both conventional and others.
I really don't think we will get past the environmentalists and others who fear nuclear power, no matter how safe we make it.

Thorium cycle anyone?
 
Then we should be able to use cheap energy like coal during peak usage and carpure the carbon output, then convert it to liquid fuel when solar and wind are excess.

Making hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2 is fairly energy intensive. Not a great idea.

Sequestering the CO2 makes more sense.
 
Making hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2 is fairly energy intensive. Not a great idea.

Sequestering the CO2 makes more sense.
Do you never understand what the finer points of what people say are?

Both wind and solar can produce more power than is being used. Any type of storage lacks good efficiency. I am saying that conversion to a fuel can be one method of storing this extra, unused power. Now creating hydrogen from water is probably more efficient than making hydrocarbons, but hydrogen isn't as safe to make mobile in any desired quantities for transportation.

Are you in a habit of finding a weak point in an argument just to argue? Can't you see the larger picture?
 
No Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix? ;)
I had stuff on 45's but I had Beatles albums (no 45's at all) and A Space In Time was my first non-Beatles LP. I liked a lot of individual stuff by Zeppelin and Hendrix but not their whole albums, really. I was more into psychedelic (Iron Butterfly), electronic (ELP, some Yes, anything with a lot of synthesizer), orchestrated (Beatles and Moody Blues), rock blues (Steppenwolf, some ZZ), and modern jazz (early Herbie Hancock).


Thinking about all that - I take it back. In Search of the Lost Chord was my first (non-Beatles) LP and then I got In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida. I bought a lot of LP's in '71 starting with A Space In Time.
 
I think electric cars are going to be a must in the coming decades for one reason or another and if we expect to change over, then now is the time to start. If we just let the normal purchase cycle run it's course it would probably take about 50 years for 99% of the cars on the road to become electric - and I doubt semis will make the transition that fast, though they could easily switch to methane in the interim. Jets and planes, where weight is a huge factor and gas stations cost power to use, are the biggest obstacle and may well be the last to switch to a newer technology. In the end, regardless of the inefficiency of it, longview is quite possibly right. Created hydrocarbons may be our only way to resolve that issue for a century or more without a huge breakthrough somewhere.

As I noted above, thorium is an excellent avenue for us to explore. Exceptionally safe and able to use existing waste as fuel, thorium plants could be the future until fusion effectively gets worked out.


Another option seldom mentioned is transforming coal into liquid fuels - and I don't mean the old-fashioned way that also created pollution. I can see where a bacterium might be developed that would 'feed' on coal but create liquid or gaseous (methane/propane) hydrocarbons as an output or by-product leaving the nasty (and polluting) stuff like sulfur compounds behind as waste.
 
Last edited:
As I noted above, thorium is an excellent avenue for us to explore. Exceptionally safe and able to use existing waste as fuel, thorium plants could be the future until fusion effectively gets worked out.
Yes, too bad too many people are afraid of fission, no matter how its done.
 
This looks like progress.
When people start thinking outside the box, they find solutions.
As an Engineering exercise we have to build a sustainable energy future,
but there are a limited number of tools in the shop to work with,
Organic hydrocarbons, Nuclear Fission, Hydro, Solar, Wind, geothermal, ect.
We can build new tools, but we have to keep the lights on long enough to do so.
From my perspective the whole AGW thing is just noise,
it distracts from the real threats, and possibilities that are in front of us.
If someone wants to really save the planet, invent a better Air conditioner/Refrigeration system,
or a tractor that can run off of field scraps.
 
This looks like progress.
When people start thinking outside the box, they find solutions.
As an Engineering exercise we have to build a sustainable energy future,
but there are a limited number of tools in the shop to work with,
Organic hydrocarbons, Nuclear Fission, Hydro, Solar, Wind, geothermal, ect.
We can build new tools, but we have to keep the lights on long enough to do so.
From my perspective the whole AGW thing is just noise,
it distracts from the real threats, and possibilities that are in front of us.
If someone wants to really save the planet, invent a better Air conditioner/Refrigeration system,
or a tractor that can run off of field scraps.
Or a light bulb that yields as much light as an Edison Special but only uses 15% of the power and emits less heat. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom