Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl
For the record, I'm a right winger who is not blaming Sandy. If anything, it would have prevented people from getting out to vote in the states which historically tend to vote Democrat, not Republican. It may have cost Obama votes, not Romney. Mabye a wash in the end, because those undecideds who were affected, but could still make it to a polling station, might be more inclined to vote Obama if they felt he handled the tragedy well.
Talking about global warming, this is a good example of how Democrats present an pro-environment argument that sounds better at first, until you think it thru. (it has that in common with a LOT of the left-wing platform, IMHO).
Manufacturing 1 widget produces x amount of carbon footprint if you make it here. BUT, it's much more expensive to make it here than in China, where the lack of controls also means it creates 2x the carbon footprint to make that same widget.
If you implement carbon taxes here or more punitive environmental rules here, then all the production elsewhere will go overseas. What happens then ? Assuming the global aggregate production of widgets stays the same (or goes up because of increased demand in emerging markets), then the world ends up with the same (or more) widgets that it would have had anyways, but twice the pollution hits the atmosphere to make them. Well-meaning, but ill conceived efforts to improve the environment actually make it worse, unless you outlaw the possession of widgets altogether. Of course if places like China and India dont also outlaw those widgets, then you've just killed a lot of jobs and gained nothing.
It's as pointless as having a no-peeing section in 1/2 of a hot-tub, but the other half of the same tub allows all the peeing you want.
Enough of my ranting for tonight. Time for a nice single malt. Good evening to all.
I wasn't suggesting the US stand alone in sanctioning polluting countries. It would be the same problem if we stood alone in sanctioning Iran for pursuing nukes. It only works if it's a coalition of countries doing the sanctioning. If the UN can decide to sanction countries for human rights issues or nuclear issues, they should be willing to do it for the good of the global environment. But we all know that is unlikely to happen. To use your analogy, if one person in the hot tub wants to pee and the other doesn't, the hot tub gets polluted. If nine people in the hot tub threaten to beat the snot out of the one person who wants to pee, the hot tub stays clean. You don't reverse the rule against peeing in the hot tub, you enforce it for everyone. It just takes cooperation.
I also wasn't suggesting all Republicans were blaming Sandy for the loss, but there are plenty who are. Not that they think GOP voters couldn't vote, but that the whole thing gave Obama a chance to shine while the campaigning was on hold. Gov. Christie will no doubt pay a heavy price for his praise of Obama.
BTW, I've thought through the whole pro-environment vs pro-business thing. My first job out of school was working as an environmental geologist cleaning up waste sites. I've seen firsthand the damage polluters can cause. In some cases, the damage was inflicted a hundred years before and was still a problem. Once the crap is in the ground or the atmosphere, it can be damn hard to get out. If the developed world as a whole doesn't start setting and enforcing limits, then yes, the Chinas and the Indias of the world will continue to reap an unfair advantage. In the end, we'll all pay for that.
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl
...having more dependant children than college credits by the time you are 22 is not a good idea...
Post of the Year right there.
The Balvenie? Or something better?