• 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!

Obama designates national monuments in Texas, Calif., Nevada

Anomalism

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
2,159
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Thanks Obama!

Obama designates national monuments in Texas, Calif., Nevada

President Barack Obama designated new national monuments Friday in California, Nevada and Texas, setting aside millions of acres that are home to prehistoric rock carvings, Mammoth bones and popular outdoors destinations. The presidential move ran into immediate resistance from some Republicans, who accused Obama of a sneaky land grab that ignored the interests of local residents.
 
Why can't we all get along?
 
Some things should be preserved for all of us, not just the exploitation of the locals.

Besides, adaptable locals will take advantage of the new tourism and service opportunities. Adapt or die...choice over entitlement.
 

Why does EVERYTHING have to be contentious in our country? Setting aside areas like this is a NORMAL thing for Presidents to do. The Republicans used to be in favor of preserving lands for future generations (Teddy Roosevelt started the national park system, if my memory serves).

In any case, I think it's great. Otherwise, those areas would be ruined for future generations. There would be no more caveman rock carvings, and all that acreage would be covered in concrete and WalMarts in a generation. I didn't even know there were caveman rock carvings in America.
 
Why does EVERYTHING have to be contentious in our country? Setting aside areas like this is a NORMAL thing for Presidents to do. The Republicans used to be in favor of preserving lands for future generations (Teddy Roosevelt started the national park system, if my memory serves).

In any case, I think it's great. Otherwise, those areas would be ruined for future generations. There would be no more caveman rock carvings, and all that acreage would be covered in concrete and WalMarts in a generation. I didn't even know there were caveman rock carvings in America.

I'm not certain, but I don't think Anomalism's comment was sarcastic or contentious.
 
I just wonder how much oil is on those lands, further locking oil sources up under federal control.
Obama appears not to do anything unless there's a political or agenda gain to be had.

**** oil. We have the technology to go beyond. And if not for prior presidents doing the same as Obama, the charge led by that republican TR, there'd be no Redwoods left, the Grand Canyon would be a vast reservoir, and all the mountains would be leveled.
 
**** oil. We have the technology to go beyond. And if not for prior presidents doing the same as Obama, the charge led by that republican TR, there'd be no Redwoods left, the Grand Canyon would be a vast reservoir, and all the mountains would be leveled.

All that seems unlikely.

Which technology to which are you referring to? So far, all the alternative 'green' technologies have fallen on their faces pretty hard, and are still not viable in the market without government life support.

Just have to look at the ridiculousness of Ethanol as a track record, or perhaps in Germany, heavily invested in solar and wind for some 20 years, and are now pulling it all down because they aren't market viable without government life support.
 
All that seems unlikely.

Which technology to which are you referring to? So far, all the alternative 'green' technologies have fallen on their faces pretty hard, and are still not viable in the market without government life support.

Just have to look at the ridiculousness of Ethanol as a track record, or perhaps in Germany, heavily invested in solar and wind for some 20 years, and are now pulling it all down because they aren't market viable without government life support.

The world is technologically advanced enough to move beyond fossil fuels. But the opposition to it is overwhelming.

This is what keeps republicans, indeed the world dependent upon fossil fuels. ;)

In the 2006 election cycle, oil and gas companies contributed over $19 million to political campaigns. 82% of that money went to Republican candidates, while the remaining 18% went to Democrats. In 2004, oil and gas companies contributed over $25 million to political campaigns, donating 80% of that money to Republicans. In the 2000 elections, over $34 million was contributed, with 78% of that money going to Republicans. Electric utilities also heavily favor Republicans; their contributions have recently ranged between $15–20 million.[4][5] From 2003-2006, the energy lobby also contributed $58.3 million to state-level campaigns. By comparison, alternative energy interests contributed around half a million dollars in the same time period.[6] During the United States elections in 2012 which includes the presidential election there was much spending by the lobbies.[7]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels_lobby
 
Last edited:
The world is technologically advanced enough to move beyond fossil fuels.

Reality would seem to dictate otherwise.

blog-graphic.jpg

The above was produced more than 30 years ago by Petr Beckmann, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Colorado. The intervening decades have not altered the validity of what he wrote and depicted here because it is based on immutable physical and mathematical realities. Those realities are not altered by any amount of laws, subsidies, mandates requiring green energy usage, tax breaks, regulations, political promises, good intentions or democratic voting.

From the above illustration, you can readily grasp that solar power is extremely inefficient for automobile use, compared to the familiar fossil fuel (gasoline). Solar energy is similarly inefficient for other uses of fossil fuels.
Why Solar Power is Permanently Inefficient | Somewhat Reasonable

Study claims wind turbines are 'expensive and deeply inefficient' | Daily Mail Online

Solar Energy Is Inefficient and Impractical

Renewable energy standards inefficient, experts say in House testimony – Kansas Health Institute

Renewable Energy: So Useless That Even Greenie Google Gave up on it - Breitbart

But the opposition to it is overwhelming.

This is what keeps republicans, indeed the world dependent upon fossil fuels. ;)

In the 2006 election cycle, oil and gas companies contributed over $19 million to political campaigns. 82% of that money went to Republican candidates, while the remaining 18% went to Democrats. In 2004, oil and gas companies contributed over $25 million to political campaigns, donating 80% of that money to Republicans. In the 2000 elections, over $34 million was contributed, with 78% of that money going to Republicans. Electric utilities also heavily favor Republicans; their contributions have recently ranged between $15–20 million.[4][5] From 2003-2006, the energy lobby also contributed $58.3 million to state-level campaigns. By comparison, alternative energy interests contributed around half a million dollars in the same time period.[6] During the United States elections in 2012 which includes the presidential election there was much spending by the lobbies.[7]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels_lobby

In spite of your position, the reality is that green energy's problem is not a political one (other than the continual pushing of inefficient and ineffective green technology mandates down everyone else's throat regardless of the cost - gee sounds like ObamaCare!) - it's a physics problem.

Fundamentally all the green technologies can't recover or collect enough energy efficiently enough (there are energy losses in the collection mechanism) and quickly enough (time is money after all) to be market viable and competitive with other energy sources. Once they do, and once they can, the market will beat a patch to their doors and quickly adopt the market competitive green technologies.

This leaves us with two viable choices: 1) Petroleum based - hopefully with continued improvement in efficiency and pollution reduction and 2) Nuclear, be it fission (nasty radioactive by products and fuel wastes to deal with) or possible Thorium reactors - but I don't think that even a lab experiment has been built and tested yet, so call that one only theoretical.

For the Green lobby, nether s acceptable, so what sort of market viable energy sources do they offer? Distort the market with larger and more government subsidies!

Well, that's not really a solution when I want to heat my home, or drive to work, or turn on a light bulb, now is it?

The greatest experiment with this is Germany. For 20 years they've been investing in wind and solar energy generation, and within a short time of the subsidies being cut off, all of that is being decommissioned because it doesn't make financial sense to continue.

We should learn from Germany's experience on this, and not repeat it. At least not until the fundamental physics issue betters itself to making economic sense anyway.
 
**** oil. We have the technology to go beyond. And if not for prior presidents doing the same as Obama, the charge led by that republican TR, there'd be no Redwoods left, the Grand Canyon would be a vast reservoir, and all the mountains would be leveled.

Lol...

Uhm, no, no we don't.

Unless you're specifically refering to Nuclear, we actually DON'T have the technology to " go beyond " oil.

We learned our lesson when the world watched the enormous failure that was Germany's " green revolution " bite the dust...

Well when I see " we " learned our lesson, I mean we should have learned our lesson.
 
Perhaps President Obama is simply preparing for declaring the new State of Illegalalienna to be announced in his last State of the Union address coming your way in January, 2016.
 
Reality would seem to dictate otherwise.

Why Solar Power is Permanently Inefficient | Somewhat Reasonable

Study claims wind turbines are 'expensive and deeply inefficient' | Daily Mail Online

Solar Energy Is Inefficient and Impractical

Renewable energy standards inefficient, experts say in House testimony – Kansas Health Institute

Renewable Energy: So Useless That Even Greenie Google Gave up on it - Breitbart



In spite of your position, the reality is that green energy's problem is not a political one (other than the continual pushing of inefficient and ineffective green technology mandates down everyone else's throat regardless of the cost - gee sounds like ObamaCare!) - it's a physics problem.

Fundamentally all the green technologies can't recover or collect enough energy efficiently enough (there are energy losses in the collection mechanism) and quickly enough (time is money after all) to be market viable and competitive with other energy sources. Once they do, and once they can, the market will beat a patch to their doors and quickly adopt the market competitive green technologies.

This leaves us with two viable choices: 1) Petroleum based - hopefully with continued improvement in efficiency and pollution reduction and 2) Nuclear, be it fission (nasty radioactive by products and fuel wastes to deal with) or possible Thorium reactors - but I don't think that even a lab experiment has been built and tested yet, so call that one only theoretical.

For the Green lobby, nether s acceptable, so what sort of market viable energy sources do they offer? Distort the market with larger and more government subsidies!

Well, that's not really a solution when I want to heat my home, or drive to work, or turn on a light bulb, now is it?

The greatest experiment with this is Germany. For 20 years they've been investing in wind and solar energy generation, and within a short time of the subsidies being cut off, all of that is being decommissioned because it doesn't make financial sense to continue.

We should learn from Germany's experience on this, and not repeat it. At least not until the fundamental physics issue betters itself to making economic sense anyway.

Wrong! Green energies problem is that black energy has a vastly larger and more powerful lobby with deeper pockets. ;)
 
Lol...

Uhm, no, no we don't.

Unless you're specifically refering to Nuclear, we actually DON'T have the technology to " go beyond " oil.

We learned our lesson when the world watched the enormous failure that was Germany's " green revolution " bite the dust...

Well when I see " we " learned our lesson, I mean we should have learned our lesson.

And the point is so far over your head that you should just continue feeding with the earth worms. :2wave:
 
Wrong! Green energies problem is that black energy has a vastly larger and more powerful lobby with deeper pockets. ;)

You can ignore physics, but it'll be at your peril.

There is an incredible amount of energy stored in the carbon bonds that 'black energy' is comprised of, and it's not easily replaced by the green collection / gathering mechanisms that currently exist.

You not wanting this to be fact isn't going to change the physics that make it a fact.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom