Spork Boards

Granberry's Parlor

tomierna's Avatar Picture tomierna (Admin) – December 08, 2007 02:46AM Reply Quote
Politics. Don Granberry on the old Spork Boards was quite fond of talking about them, and here we continue on in that fine tradition.

stan adams – February 15, 2008 10:56AM Reply Quote
Bah -- it won't work.

What about the poor bastards who work on the banana plantations?

My bias is rto eject anything that supposes "we ought to go back to the old days/ways" -- yeah, let's pretend we don't have quad core processors and HD too. You start down that path it is slippery slope to living in a cave and thinking it is could idea to trade wives for cattle...

El Jeffe – February 15, 2008 12:04PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
That's more than a little extreme in the opposite direction. I would think the green position (not saying YOUR green) would be to lower transportation AND packaging of anything possible. And I buy into that for the most part. The reason we ship stuff from a world away is because we have more than one government. If we were all, let's say for the sake of argument, the USA, and we all were for the most part agreed to abiding by the same employment standards, then the shipping of goods is far less viable. Not entirely absent, but less....profitable. Granted, some things can only come from some places, as we all know. (eg- level-headed people from the midwest)

I would think that if put to a vote the common man would probably choose to live under the French flag, let's say. That is 35 hour work week, 5 weeks of vacations, etc. So, the only reason that we get goods from China is because the common man does not live under a one-world France government. I bet 90% WOULD vote to join the France country, as a satellite state TODAY if allowed to decide their own citizenship. But, since they can't they don't have the opportunities.

Why would we not back a French hostile takeover (aka Conquering) of China? Their own people would more than likely back it, if the result was as above. So, the reason we buy goods, ship them afar, and pollute more than if we did not do those things, is because of multiple governments and the oppression which they represent.

Now, that does not imply living in a cave. Shipping of goods is directly related to the disparate governing of people across the world. If allowed to compete on equal grounds, sure some of us choose lemons from California, over Florida. But, there are far more reasons to use local goods and labor than shipping everybody and everything around the world, imo.

Being that I am eating lunch and multi-tasking, not sure any of that was cogent, mind you. :)

What a journey.

Mokers (Moderator) – February 15, 2008 12:23PM Reply Quote
Formerly Remy Martin
Do everything local works on a small scale, but for the larger world at hand, it is just not going to work unless you are going to go back to an era when the earth's population was significantly smaller. The world population currently increases by 200,000 a day, which is the largest part of this whole carbon problem we talk about. Although it is not a direct ratio, there is a strong correlation between quality of life in a nation and carbon output per person.

Yes, it is not a stretch to say people don't absolutely need bananas, but for the poorest 1/3 of nations out there, that is not the issue. Delivering (not literally delivering bottles, but putting an infrastructure in place) potable drinking water to that bottom 1/3 of the population out there would be a monstrous engineering effort consuming enough carbon dioxide to make all of those UN projections look silly. Want to bring the poorest 1/3 of the population up to even 1950s standards where they don't have to worry about polio or measles? Oops, that's going to take more carbon. And perhaps some refrigeration so their food doesn't spoil? And a sewage system so they don't have to shit in a hole in the ground? Well, you get the picture.

Unfortunately, the population problem, which I think is the one that effects so many other things out there, also has no solutions that aren't very messy if carbon is going to be the number one concern on the planet.

ghidorah – February 15, 2008 12:42PM Reply Quote
Raise taxes on cavemen. --jw
>unless you are going to go back to an era when the earth's population was significantly smaller.

thats just it, I don't see a single realistic solution that allows us to support the current US population, let alone the worlds current population. modern food production depends upon huge energy expenditures. I don't see how we can keep that up post-petroleum.

stan adams – February 15, 2008 12:43PM Reply Quote
Well, as you typically have like a single graham cracker for lunch or something I'll cut you some slack...

I am pretty sure that there is more than just "lack of benevolent social-democracy" driving trade. Like scarcity of natural resources. As in though there IS iron ore in MN the coal is in WV and the best spot between in (factoring rivers & railroads) is/was someplace like Pittsburgh (to any Penn loving sporkers I know that they have a beautiful city that is NOT much involved in steel making these days but the point entered my head and it seemed to be valid once upon a time...).

I know China is probably huge enough to have coal mine, iron ore, vineyards, rice fields, wheat "basket" and a whole bunch of other stuff

BUT it also IMPORTS tons and tons of those goods as well...

I truly believe any effort to try relying on "local sources" as a solution to global energy consumption/pollution is doomed. (now if you think it is a good idea to support local farmers because they are fun people to have around or something I've got not to criticize with that -- my dad grew up on an Iowa farm and I went to school in Iowa and find many aspects very appealing).

El Jeffe – February 15, 2008 12:47PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
population - eventually doesn't that variable take care of itself? I mean, eventually , aside from land for living, that fresh water and food becomes the most important commodities. Right? We have the ability to grow only so much and have only so much water. Now, there may come a time when demand for either becomes so great that we start to really, really beef up various water sources, especially desalinization. And become more efficient in farming productivity. Perhaps even have sky scrapers of farms at some point. Or, start floating cities/farms. Or start to reclaim the seabeds for land with dykes or some other means of holding back the water, storing it somewhere else, or leveling off the higher-elevation land masses.

Then again, a large war, with a few nukes, or some other catastrophe (asteroid) could set back the population growth substantially.

What a journey.

El Jeffe – February 15, 2008 12:47PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
hey now, I had a cup of veggie soup, don't be hatin'! :)

I did say that certain things only come from certain places. But, what does not have a 'next best' possibility or substitute? (again, land, water, air)

But steel? We did without it for a long time. I won't go down a laundry list of resources, but there are necessities, but when push comes to shove there are NECESSITIES!

What a journey.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2008 12:58PM by El Jeffe.

Mokers (Moderator) – February 15, 2008 12:58PM Reply Quote
Formerly Remy Martin

yes, I got a little ranty. my rant was mainly against this idea that we can cut back on our carbon usage if we can all decide to be less greedy. There are very few countries that have enough arable land and natural resources to sustain their populations at their current standard of living.

stan adams – February 15, 2008 01:00PM Reply Quote

While I often do poke fun at Al Gore, I think it is good thing that he is trying to rake in massive profits by promoting alternative energy/conservation and even the carbon credits thing (which,as Mokers points out, is largely unworkable).
The reason is that one way or another there are going to be major shifts needed. Historically if people have a PROFIT MOTIVE the odds of making such shifts increases, the likelihood of them happening in a peaceful manner increases and the chance of there being breakthroughs also sky rockets. All the early work that Bell Labs & IBM put into silicon was motivated by the same thing driving the "green" VCs. I have an awful lot of faith that folks who like to buy and drive Bugattis are not going to advance the notion that living in a cave is good idea. In the broader (fairer?) sense I sincerely doubt that any Venture Capitalist that really understands the scope of the issues would believe that "scaling back" anything for the average American is desirable or achievable. There will have to be LOTS of shifts and tradeoffs. With openness and wide scrutiny these things will happen in a fairly orderly way. Any effort to "cut deals" or opperate outside of public oversight stand a good chance of provoking backlash that would be unpleasant at best..

morganti – February 15, 2008 03:01PM Reply Quote
Im under the impression that the Sulfur Tax/Credits actually DID make a difference in the acid rain that is now not falling so much in the north east...

Im not saying a Carbon Tax all of a sudden FIXES everything, but it certainly turns on the PROFIT MOTIVE in free enterprise.

If you could save 10% or 20% of your taxes (as a corporation) by reducing your carbon output, or even better, MAKE MONEY by having an extra low emission, that to me sounds like an incentive.

Morg "Its not about you and me buying credits, its about Exxon, and PGE buying them" anti

El Jeffe – February 15, 2008 03:08PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
but eventually, as the population grows, even that will be worthless, and in my opinion it will all boil down to survival (food/water). That might be thousand or three years away.

What a journey.

stan adams – February 15, 2008 03:25PM Reply Quote
I'd argue that what REALLY made the difference was the intense public out cry against polluters. Call it "education" or call it "fanning the flames" but if there were no outcry that fish are dead and trees are dead and lakes are dead they'd still be getting more and acidified.

Playing fast and loose with tax credits leads to Enron. Even trying to be "fair" about them is impossible -- http://energytechstocks.com.previewmysite.com/wp/?p=860

The basic problem is that EVERYONE who really understand what carbon credits are based on understands that real profits are more attractive than any "tax credit" -- if profits are larger by continuing to pollute they'll let the accountant types scare up credits before the books close, but the "damage" will not cease.
There is no problem having a REAL market for commodities/goods/services but markets based of whims/subject to excessive political interference quickly degenerate. The traders DON'T CARE about doing anything other than enriching themselves at that point.
The overhead of the traders and markets themselves (even assuming the "policing" happens for free {like the UN does anything for free}) means that even in the BEST CASE it is STILL diverting cash that would be more productively spent up grading the underlying technologies to better/cleaner solutions...

ghidorah – February 15, 2008 03:51PM Reply Quote
Raise taxes on cavemen. --jw
Out here, our acid rain is coming to us directly from china.

Thank you globalization.

riothamus – February 27, 2008 03:10AM Reply Quote
I apologize profusely for asking an off topic question...

I have been trying to contact Don Granberry for quite a while now. I believe that the person this forum is named after is the person I seek.
Would anyone know how to contact him or be willing to pass on a message for me?

Thank you very much,

Keith Rodgers

El Jeffe – February 27, 2008 05:52AM Reply Quote
What a journey.
I recall some old bloke named Granberry.

What a journey.

El Jeffe – February 27, 2008 06:41AM Reply Quote
What a journey.

You can all go home now.

You cooled it!

Your work here is done.

Thanks for all the jetting around, protests, and such. It must have worked. Now what is the plan if we cool off TOO MUCH? Aerosol cheez whiz for all!!


What a journey.

Madaracs – February 27, 2008 10:01AM Reply Quote
Ooh! Scary! Scary! Don't we look mean? You can't see me! But I can see you!
So what in the hell are you saying?

That looks just like another graph I saw:

Looks like plagiarism to me! Clearly the amount of hair being cut has gone down over the last year or so. It looks like we're trending backward toward the Sixties.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2008 10:01AM by Madaracs.

El Jeffe – February 27, 2008 10:06AM Reply Quote
What a journey.
i shake my head in disgust.

What a journey.

Madaracs – February 27, 2008 10:14AM Reply Quote
Ooh! Scary! Scary! Don't we look mean? You can't see me! But I can see you!
Free love, man.

El Jeffe – February 27, 2008 10:54AM Reply Quote
What a journey.
only if you shave

What a journey.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login