Headline news over at LP.org

[Beefy]

Originally posted by

I'm not against nuclear power. But, the economics of it are pretty unpalatable to most private investors and energy companies. But, I'm open to exploring it

Isn't this one of those situations where the beloved government should come in and explore it?

 

[Cypress]

This is not even close to the same thing. Switching to CFs does provide some benefit.

Banning lead in paint and gasoline, and CFCs was a matter of PUBLIC HEALTH.

Banning incandescent bulbs is a matter of political posturing, as they are on the wane ANYWAY. Incandescent bulbs are not hazardous in and of themselves. In fact, they are far more environmentally friendly than CF bulbs, which contain mercury.

If the electricity PRODUCTION issue were dealt with, incandescents wouldn't be an issue at all. In fact, they'd be SAFER.

The only reason CFs are "more environmentally friendly" is because the means of ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION are so bad.

I agree that banning incandescent bulbs would have a relatively minor effect on our overall energy consumption. But, it's just one piece of a larger comprehensive national energy policy we need to have. And it will have an effect. I'm sure free market privateers insisted in the 1980s, that "consumer choice" would eventually cause CFCs to stop being produced. I'm glad reagan banned them. I think there are cases where you can't afford to wait and hope that the market will voluntarily ban a product that is detrimental to the public good.

And lightbubls is not an issue I'm going to have a heart attack over. I'm fine with it.

 

[Agnosticus_Caesar]

What do you think of Nuclear power? I think it is the best solution, but the energy companies don't like it because its too cheap.

I wouldn't call it the best solution, but it should certainly be a part of the solution. If we had a "space elevator", we could simply jettison the waste into deep space. Since that isn't an option any time soon, I think it should be launched into space.

 

[Agnosticus_Caesar]

Again, Cypress, CFCs were a direct threat to public health and safety. Incandescents are NOT.

 

[Agnosticus_Caesar]

Personally, I think that Concentrated Solar Power is the best solution. No pollution at all.

 

[Cypress]

Again, Cypress, CFCs were a direct threat to public health and safety. Incandescents are NOT.

that's true. But incandescents are a major source of energy waste, and thus an unneccessary contributor to greenhouse emissions and our overuse of fossil fuels. And its going to be relatively easy economically and technologically to mandate a transition away from thier use, so why not do it as part of a comprehensive energy strategy?

 

[Agnosticus_Caesar]

that's true. But incandescents are a major source of energy waste, and thus an unneccessary contributor to greenhouse emissions and our overuse of fossil fuels. And its going to be relatively easy economically and technologically to mandate a transition away from thier use, so why not do it as part of a comprehensive energy strategy?

Because it delves into areas where government SHOULD NOT be interfering.

Besides, incandescents are on their way out anyway.

If government wants them done away with, they should offer incentives.

 

[Agnosticus_Caesar]

Unfortunately, incentives don't look like "decisive political action", and don't wind up in 30 second sound bites.

Banning incandescents isn't good governance, it is good PR.

 

[Agnosticus_Caesar]

Meat production is a much bigger producer of CO2. it isn't necessary to eat meat...in fact, it is bad for you.

Should government be allowed to ban meat production?

 

[Agnosticus_Caesar]

Speaking of which, it is time for me to head out and grab a steak.

 

[Beefy]

Speaking of which, it is time for me to head out and grab a steak.

Come on, just a few more consecutive unanswered posts, then go eat.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Should government mandate vegetarianism? Meat production is one of the leading producers of CO2, as well as other pollution.

Animals farting does not introduce any NEW CO2 into the atmosphere. That is the clear difference you seem to forget. Burning fossil fuels takes CO2 out of the ground, that has not been in the enviroment for hundreds of millions of years, and throws it back into an enviroment that evolved to exist without its presence.

That's really the biggest problem with most arguments of that nature. For instance, walking a distance DOES, in fact, cause a net emmittence of almost as much CO2 as driving that distance. But this is recycled Carbon and Oxygen that was already in the atmosphere, not new CO2, so the net carbon emmision is nothing.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

If Congress should be banning anything relating to energy policy, it should be banning the burning of unprocessed coal for electricity generation.

That's a good idea. But it's not as economically or enviromentally efficient per net CO2 saved as banning incandescents. Few things are. This is a no-brainer. Most steps designed to reduce the emmitence of NEW CO2 emmisions are FAR more intrusive, than this common sense measure.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

This is not even close to the same thing. Switching to CFs does provide some benefit.

Banning lead in paint and gasoline, and CFCs was a matter of PUBLIC HEALTH.

Banning incandescent bulbs is a matter of political posturing, as they are on the wane ANYWAY. Incandescent bulbs are not hazardous in and of themselves. In fact, they are far more environmentally friendly than CF bulbs, which contain mercury.

If the electricity PRODUCTION issue were dealt with, incandescents wouldn't be an issue at all. In fact, they'd be SAFER.

The only reason CFs are "more environmentally friendly" is because the means of ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION are so bad.

Yep yep.

If we had recycling plants none of this would be a problem at all.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Isn't this one of those situations where the beloved government should come in and explore it?

I'm waiting in terror for the picture Beefy is going to choose for me. I'm probably never going to recover from the shock. But it's just a matter of time.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Personally, I think that Concentrated Solar Power is the best solution. No pollution at all.

Far more expensive than banning incandescents...

 

[Cypress]

Because it delves into areas where government SHOULD NOT be interfering.

This is merely an assertion. I don't see why energy inefficient appliances is something the government can't regulate.

Besides, incandescents are on their way out anyway.

This is another unsubstantiated assertion proffered without any evidence. How do I know that companies will voluntarily stop selling incandencent light bulbs? Sure, maybe in a decade or two they'll voluntarily stop making them. We simply don't know. I think a mandate to effectively stop their manufacture in the next 5 years is good public policy, given the benefits of using energy efficient bubls.

If government wants them done away with, they should offer incentives.

I don't know what this means. Incentives are good in some circumstances. Not so good in others. Our nation has been held hostage by middle eastern despots for 30 years because of our energy policy. We've started at least two wars based on oil. We have a defense budget approaching a trillon dollars a year, primarily to defend oil supplies. The planet is over heating.

I think the time if now for decisive action, to reduce our dependence on foreign energy supplies, and to reduce our greenhouse emissions. This isn't the time for half hearted actions, and for hopes that the confluence of "consumer choice" and "profit" will magically solve global warming, and wars for oil.

Meat production is a much bigger producer of CO2. it isn't necessary to eat meat...in fact, it is bad for you.

Should government be allowed to ban meat production?

This is beneath you AC. This is like tinfoils post about "why don't we raise the minimum wage to 50 dollars an hour". Its bad debate ettiquette. Good public policy is always based on what is technologically and economically achievable. Simply forcing everyone to be vegetarians is not even an option. Mandating a switch to energy efficient lightbulbs, is relatively painless and easy, and has an immediate and significant public and environmental benefit.

The cows will have to be dealt with by modifying their diet, to reduce their flatulence, or something like that.

 

[Damocles]

I hate fluorescent lighting.

Maybe I will vote for RP.

Now he's going to win for sure...

The fluorescent "episode" it will be called... It will drive voters over to the RP side in droves!

 

[Damocles]

Yep, phasing out old technology is a tremendous overreach, the next step is certainly fascism. Prepare for people in boots to go around with guns, killing people who hold onto their incandescents, and brutally crushing the underground incandescent market that will certainly emerge.

If it is really old technology it will phase itself out, there was no great law against Buggy Whips set forth by the congress.

 

[Damocles]

I'm not against nuclear power. But, the economics of it are pretty unpalatable to most private investors and energy companies. But, I'm open to exploring it

Preposterous.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html

At least keep up with the technology so your arguments don't sound like this. The cost basis for nuclear power is not all that massive, there is a reason that 70% of the power in France, for instance, is nuclear and it isn't because they wanted to spend more money.