Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Politics political discourse

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-23-2015, 04:34 PM   #76
Renton555
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,320
Re: The Environment

The Al Gore private jet thing seemed a little hypocritical on its face, but it really needs to to be observed in context. Guy's an extremely busy dude, doing (ostensibly) a lot of environmental good. The same could be said for a lot of New Yorkers. Many of the firms at the forefront of the green movement are headquartered in major cities like New York due to necessity or practicality. Are they all hypocrites as well?
Renton555 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 04:47 PM   #77
suzzer99
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
suzzer99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on top of the bell curve
Posts: 80,775
Re: The Environment

You'd be surprised how many chiefsplanet posters flat out say they don't believe in Climate Change because they hate Al Gore.
suzzer99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 04:49 PM   #78
Low Key
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Low Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Thank you, Florida
Posts: 33,331
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul D View Post
I did answer your question.
Ok, I don't think you did, but I'll assume you said, "Yes, I have donated at least one penny to charity in my life."

To which, following the ultra-stupid line of reasoning you're backing, I would respond, "Then you're a complete hypocrite if you don't donate your entire salary to charity."

There's a million things you can do to benefit the environment that don't involve uprooting your entire life and inconveniencing yourself as much as humanly possible.
Low Key is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 04:54 PM   #79
Paul D
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Paul D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: L.H.O.O.Q.
Posts: 12,061
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet View Post
Low Key gets pretty good credit as an environmentalist for eating low on the food chain.
Vegetarianism isn't always as environment friendly as eating meat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...vironment.html

You need to eat more veggies than you do meat to sustain yourself as well. Also, I have seen an article somewhere that had solid reasons why hunters are more environment friendly(ceteris peribus) than city slicking vegetarians.
Paul D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 05:02 PM   #80
microbet
Solar Powered
 
microbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 69.20.56.132
Posts: 41,334
Talking Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul D View Post
Vegetarianism isn't always as environment friendly as eating meat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...vironment.html

You need to eat more veggies than you do meat to sustain yourself as well. Also, I have seen an article somewhere that had solid reasons why hunters are more environment friendly(ceteris peribus) than city slicking vegetarians.
Yeah, really beef is a huge problem. Pigs pretty bad. Fish is a problem for different reasons. You can eat chicken or nutria or rabbits and probably have less impact than many vegetarian items. And, you can probably go out of your way to have a vegetarian diet that is particularly destructive if you tried.

Hunting....ok, but that's a super fringe diet there.
microbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 05:04 PM   #81
Low Key
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Low Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Thank you, Florida
Posts: 33,331
Re: The Environment

Sorry, you can't claim to be an environmentalist unless you're a hunter
Low Key is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 05:06 PM   #82
microbet
Solar Powered
 
microbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 69.20.56.132
Posts: 41,334
Re: The Environment

Weird in that study that it was comparing processed vegetarian food to unprocessed meat products. Tofu should be compared to sausage or w/e, not to the cow.
microbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 05:09 PM   #83
Paul D
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Paul D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: L.H.O.O.Q.
Posts: 12,061
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Key View Post
Sorry, you can't claim to be an environmentalist unless you're a hunter
Take it to the bad posters thread if you are gonna tard it up.
Paul D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 05:11 PM   #84
microbet
Solar Powered
 
microbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 69.20.56.132
Posts: 41,334
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton555 View Post
The Al Gore private jet thing seemed a little hypocritical on its face, but it really needs to to be observed in context. Guy's an extremely busy dude, doing (ostensibly) a lot of environmental good. The same could be said for a lot of New Yorkers. Many of the firms at the forefront of the green movement are headquartered in major cities like New York due to necessity or practicality. Are they all hypocrites as well?
I'm a bit extreme maybe on the other side, but I think Gore deserves huge credit for getting the debate really going, sticking his neck out, and persevering. The jet plane riding was mostly for the cause. The home lifestyle did use a lot of energy. I guess he could have installed solar earlier and lived a more ascetic lifestyle, but it doesn't bother me too much.
microbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 05:12 PM   #85
Paul D
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Paul D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: L.H.O.O.Q.
Posts: 12,061
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet View Post
Weird in that study that it was comparing processed vegetarian food to unprocessed meat products. Tofu should be compared to sausage or w/e, not to the cow.
Not really in that case. It's not a 1:1 argument.
Paul D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 05:17 PM   #86
microbet
Solar Powered
 
microbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 69.20.56.132
Posts: 41,334
Re: The Environment

I guess it depends on the details. I mean, you don't add the cooking at home most of the time when you consider the impact of beef. It gets pretty complicated. I understand the basic point though that vegetarian is neither always more healthy or low impact on the environment. I would suggest though that on average, at least for the typical American diet, it is both.
microbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 05:22 PM   #87
Low Key
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Low Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Thank you, Florida
Posts: 33,331
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul D View Post
Take it to the bad posters thread if you are gonna tard it up.
That's the logic you've been defending the last two days, so, no u?
Low Key is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 05:30 PM   #88
einsteinaint****
adept
 
einsteinaint****'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Outer space
Posts: 1,041
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet View Post
This is global electric car demand. It's not a huge percentage of cars at the moment, but these things take a little time.
While there's nothing wrong with electric cars per se, selling them environmentally friendly is just a scam. If you take into count the generation of the electricity they are worse than gasoline powered cars.
einsteinaint**** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 05:31 PM   #89
einsteinaint****
adept
 
einsteinaint****'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Outer space
Posts: 1,041
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet View Post
Yeah, really beef is a huge problem. Pigs pretty bad. Fish is a problem for different reasons. You can eat chicken or nutria or rabbits and probably have less impact than many vegetarian items. And, you can probably go out of your way to have a vegetarian diet that is particularly destructive if you tried.

Hunting....ok, but that's a super fringe diet there.
Also cows fart a lot.
einsteinaint**** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 05:39 PM   #90
microbet
Solar Powered
 
microbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 69.20.56.132
Posts: 41,334
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by einsteinaint**** View Post
While there's nothing wrong with electric cars per se, selling them environmentally friendly is just a scam. If you take into count the generation of the electricity they are worse than gasoline powered cars.
This is not even close.

We can certainly get into this deeply, but here's something to consider:

Oil refineries are huge users of electricity. They are the largest industrial users in the state of Cali. The refinery near my house has it's own natural gas power plant and that just meets a small percent of the refinery's electrical needs. This is just refining. Not extraction or transport. And then it does nothing to take the environmental impact of the oil/gas itself into account.

It takes 6kwh to refine one gallon of gasoline. A Tesla, an electric sports car not an economy car, goes 3 miles on a kwh. It goes 18 miles on the electricity used JUST TO REFINE a gallon of gas.

Electric cars have a tiny environmental impact compared to gas cars.
microbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 06:09 PM   #91
Paul D
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Paul D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: L.H.O.O.Q.
Posts: 12,061
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Key View Post
That's the logic you've been defending the last two days, so, no u?
You don't even make arguments outside of "if you make criticize my lifestyle i'll make non-sensical counter arguments."

I don't particularly judge people who wield iPhones and all sorts of modern amenities that aren't natural and who proclaim themselves to be environmental friendly. But I also don't really bother listening to their self-righteous claims either. It's really that simple. If you want to be environment friendly you probably shouldn't use modern amenities and dwellings and go live in a hut and hunt and gather. That's the natural order. But if you want to delude yourself into thinking living in the biggest polluting cities and being worried about the environment isn't adding to the existing problem, lol you.
Paul D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 06:13 PM   #92
microbet
Solar Powered
 
microbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 69.20.56.132
Posts: 41,334
Re: The Environment

That's quite extreme.

Why is zero impact the measure of being an environmentalist? Why not sustainability? The earth can certainly sustain a certain impact. Ambitious goals are things like reducing carbon emissions to 1990 levels.

You can't be an environmentalist and have that as a goal?

You can certainly have an iPhone and live in NYC and be consistent with that.
microbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 06:16 PM   #93
microbet
Solar Powered
 
microbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 69.20.56.132
Posts: 41,334
Re: The Environment

Analogies suck and all, but if you're against slavery but wear a sweatshop shirt or eat some chocolate is it 'lol you'?

Even if you eat a tomato. Many of those are picked by people who are literally imprisoned during the picking season.

I'm sure you've had some tomato lately. Are you telling me that you can't claim to be anti-slavery?
microbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 06:17 PM   #94
Low Key
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Low Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Thank you, Florida
Posts: 33,331
Re: The Environment

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

Last edited by Low Key; 06-23-2015 at 06:17 PM. Reason: @ post 91
Low Key is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 06:40 PM   #95
grizy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
grizy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Looking for Rush HU Poker
Posts: 15,381
The Environment

Obsession with ethanol
Anti-nuclear
Obsession with dead end technologies (solar and wind immediately come to mind)

Investing in and mandating cleaner fossil fuels will do a lot more to keep carbon emissions in check than telling Africans to leapfrog to renewable (but unscalable and more expensive) energy sources like the UN is pushing

Last edited by grizy; 06-23-2015 at 06:50 PM.
grizy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 07:23 PM   #96
microbet
Solar Powered
 
microbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 69.20.56.132
Posts: 41,334
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by grizy View Post
Obsession with ethanol
Anti-nuclear
Obsession with dead end technologies (solar and wind immediately come to mind)

Investing in and mandating cleaner fossil fuels will do a lot more to keep carbon emissions in check than telling Africans to leapfrog to renewable (but unscalable and more expensive) energy sources like the UN is pushing
1. Ethanol

I don't know any environmentalist who has ever been obsessed with ethanol. It's big agribusiness that's obsessed with it and it's something that anti-environmentalists like to represent as something dumb that environmentalists support.

2. I'm ambivalent. I don't think nuclear is generally a good choice because I think there are better options.

3. I have AMA threads on Solar on OOT and STTF and a lot about solar in the Climate Change thread as well. I'm not sure whether I should go into detail on solar ITT or not or start a thread on it in Politics. So, keeping it short:

No, solar is where it's at. Prices continue to drop massively, grid parity is being achieved more and more broadly, manufacturing and total installations are increasing at an incredible pace. Replacing 100 years of fossil fuel growth is not something that happens overnight and perhaps it won't happen fast enough, but it is very far from a dead technology.

Wind, I don't know as nearly as much about. It has very large capacity in some areas. It's more intermittent than solar, but is widely available and often in places where solar resources are lower (cloudy northern areas).

Energy solutions for Africa are interesting and definitely worth a separate post at least, but energy use per capita in the US is 4 times the average in China, 7 times the average in Nigeria, and 14 times the average in The Congo. I understand that that's the demand that coming down the road, but for a while it's not even going to be a huge part of new demand.
microbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2015, 07:46 PM   #97
microbet
Solar Powered
 
microbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 69.20.56.132
Posts: 41,334
Re: The Environment

Ok, I guess there's no harm in posting a couple graphs. An indication of what has and is continuing to happen and a caution to use very very recent data and even that's too old.





(yes, I know the y-axis doesn't go down to zero)
microbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2015, 03:39 AM   #98
einsteinaint****
adept
 
einsteinaint****'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Outer space
Posts: 1,041
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet View Post
It takes 6kwh to refine one gallon of gasoline. A Tesla, an electric sports car not an economy car, goes 3 miles on a kwh. It goes 18 miles on the electricity used JUST TO REFINE a gallon of gas.
What is the cost of generating the electricity used by the Tesla? Electricity is mostly generated by burning coal or natural gas, or via nuclear power, depending on the country. One gallon of gasoline gets most cars many miles, let's say 25. 25 miles on 6kwh (according to your numbers, which I don't believe) sounds a lot better than 3 miles on 1 kwh. Of course you lose something burning the gasoline, but in general gasoline motors are more efficient than electrical motors.

All I'm saying is you are comparing two dissimilar things, using questionable numbers, and taking into account only a small part of the question. Where does the electricity come from and how was it generated?
einsteinaint**** is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2015, 04:23 AM   #99
Dutch101
old hand
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,387
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul D View Post
Vegetarianism isn't always as environment friendly as eating meat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...vironment.html

You need to eat more veggies than you do meat to sustain yourself as well. Also, I have seen an article somewhere that had solid reasons why hunters are more environment friendly(ceteris peribus) than city slicking vegetarians.
This can't be true globally. They are comparing it for people living in the UK and there it might be true because the UK doesn't produce some core ingredients for vegetarian dishes and it does produce some of the relatively environmental friendly meats. So they add the transport costs to the tofu and have the meat eater live on local food.

But if a country can produce both locally then the vegetarian will always be more environmental friendly even if they need to eat more veggies and the tofu needs to be processed. It is still nothing compared to first growing the livestock feed and then feed it to the animal.

Both vegetarians and meat eaters could do a lot for the environment if they would eat local food as much as possible and would accept not eating fruits and vegetables that are basically out of season. The transport and storage costs from that are much bigger than the difference between eating meat or being a vegetarian.

But most people are like me and not willing to give up their meat and their tropical fruits all year round.
Dutch101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2015, 07:57 AM   #100
grizy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
grizy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Looking for Rush HU Poker
Posts: 15,381
Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet View Post
1. Ethanol

I don't know any environmentalist who has ever been obsessed with ethanol. It's big agribusiness that's obsessed with it and it's something that anti-environmentalists like to represent as something dumb that environmentalists support.
It's true environmentalists (informed ones anyway) are waking up to the disaster but ethanol was their baby in the name of "Renewable Fuel". Gore pushed it. Environmental groups endorsed it. EPA made rules for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet View Post
2. I'm ambivalent. I don't think nuclear is generally a good choice because I think there are better options.
Solar, wind, and really nothing but coal can be scaled to match what nuclear can do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet View Post
3. I have AMA threads on Solar on OOT and STTF and a lot about solar in the Climate Change thread as well. I'm not sure whether I should go into detail on solar ITT or not or start a thread on it in Politics. So, keeping it short:

No, solar is where it's at. Prices continue to drop massively, grid parity is being achieved more and more broadly, manufacturing and total installations are increasing at an incredible pace. Replacing 100 years of fossil fuel growth is not something that happens overnight and perhaps it won't happen fast enough, but it is very far from a dead technology.

Wind, I don't know as nearly as much about. It has very large capacity in some areas. It's more intermittent than solar, but is widely available and often in places where solar resources are lower (cloudy northern areas).

Energy solutions for Africa are interesting and definitely worth a separate post at least, but energy use per capita in the US is 4 times the average in China, 7 times the average in Nigeria, and 14 times the average in The Congo. I understand that that's the demand that coming down the road, but for a while it's not even going to be a huge part of new demand.
Nobody has solved the inconsistent sunshine and power storage issues that keep solar from becoming a viable replacement for fossil fuels.

Solar can be part of a stop gap solution, especially in places where demand tends to correlate with sunshine (Arizona for example) but it's just not scalable enough to replace conventional fossil fuels. To replace a 1gwh nuclear plant, you need like 12 square miles of nothing but solar panels. That much land use has significant environmental impact and still produces at higher marginal cost than nuclear plants (but lower than natural gas when sun is shining).

PS: storage issues wouldn't make solar viable overnight either. It would make solar viable vs. natural gas but storage also means excess cheap baseline capacity won't go to waste, making nuclear plants all that much more economical.
grizy is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.33 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ę 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online