human actions, global climate change, global human solutions

POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 19:38
VIEWED: 60750
PAGE 32 of 111

PREV PAGE 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NEXT PAGE

SECOND

Friday, September 16, 2022 8:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why does the government have to pay capitalists?

What if it were to set up a Works program, like the WPA of old? (You keep thumping FDR, and he created the WPA. You should be all for it!)

It should at least get some of those Big Brains on its staff to come up with estimates to decide which programs to fund right away, which to research and which to back burner

Here is an example of a new fuel instead of trying to build an electric motor-driven jet plane or jet engine burning hydrogen. If the Federal government required airlines to buy this fuel, the Capitalists could get rich manufacturing the fuel. The Capitalists would be racing one another to see who gets the richest quickest. As an unintended side-effect, the price of this special fuel would get cheaper and cheaper per gallon as different Capitalists tried out different processes to manufacture the fuel. Capitalists hate cheaper but too bad for them. The engineers will be racing for cheaper and cheaper as their Capitalistic masters are racing for more and more wealth.

Clean jet fuel could take off with new climate law
BY: AMY HARDER SEPTEMBER 14, 2022

The U.S. government is for the first time in history singling out and subsidizing cleaner aviation fuel.

Such a move is poised to help clean up one of the most high-profile ways our society contributes to climate change—and one of the most difficult given the sheer dynamics required to keep planes in the sky.

With nearly $370 billion flowing from the federal spigots, the Inflation Reduction Act signed into law last month supercharges existing tax credits and gives first-ever subsidies to a range of technologies considered essential in helping the U.S. reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Included in that first-ever bucket is sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). SAF embodies not one thing but a range of liquid fuels produced from various raw materials through different technologies. The fuel is capable of directly replacing or mixing with traditional fossil-fuel-based jet fuel.

Aviation accounts for about 2.5% of global carbon emissions, but its impact could be more than 1.5 times that figure given the warming effect of contrails (those innocuous-looking white cloud lines that form at the end of planes), according to 2021 scientific research.

The tax credit applies for about half as long as earlier proposals, but it's nonetheless notable because SAF didn’t get any support from the infrastructure law passed last year, which poured more than $100 billion into a range of other climate technologies.

“The biggest stumbling block is economics,” said Graham Noyes, executive director of the Low Carbon Fuels Coalition, a group representing a broad cross-section of companies that are somehow involved in the pursuit of low-carbon fuels, including SAF.

“Even though it’s not the 10 years we would have liked to have seen, having five years of the credit will be an enormous boost,” Noyes told Cipher. “It will allow the industry to begin to scale up and deploy new feedstocks and technologies at scale.”

Indeed, like many clean energy technologies, the core challenge for SAF is that it’s simply too expensive compared to its dirtier, fossil fuel counterpart.

The new subsidy may reduce costs for SAF to a point where it would be roughly equal to fossil fuel jet prices, though a wide range exists depending on costs of technology, production and other variables, according to the Rhodium Group, a research firm. (See chart below).

https://go.breakthroughenergy.org/social/c410003ef13d451727aeff9082c29
a5c.510

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, September 16, 2022 8:30 AM

This will all be moot soon.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

SECOND

Friday, September 16, 2022 8:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This will all be moot soon.

I already made that point. Congress has hundreds of egotistical drama queens, most of whom don't actually have any ideas in their heads about climate change (but they try very hard to conceal their vast ignorance with far too much talking) which is why Congress can't actually get much done on that subject. You don't get elected by appealing to the most knowledgeable voters in your state. You get elected by appealing to stubborn know-nothings. That's why Congress is what it is. (The situation is not hopeless because the Congressional staff has more knowledge and expertise than their bosses on the Democratic side. On the Republican side? From my experience with the staff of Republicans, the staff is dumber and more stubborn than their bosses. Why? I don't know. Maybe hiring of the donors' favorites?)

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

SIGNYM

Friday, September 16, 2022 9:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why does the government have to pay capitalists?

What if it were to set up a Works program, like the WPA of old? (You keep thumping FDR, and he created the WPA. You should be all for it!)

It should at least get some of those Big Brains on its staff to come up with estimates to decide which programs to fund right away, which to research and which to back burner
Here is an example of a new fuel instead of trying to build an electric motor-driven jet plane or jet engine burning hydrogen. If the Federal government required airlines to buy this fuel, the Capitalists could get rich manufacturing the fuel. The Capitalists would be racing one another to see who gets the richest quickest. As an unintended side-effect, the price of this special fuel would get cheaper and cheaper per gallon as different Capitalists tried out different processes to manufacture the fuel. Capitalists hate cheaper but too bad for them. The engineers will be racing for cheaper and cheaper as their Capitalistic masters are racing for more and more wealth.

Clean jet fuel could take off with new climate law
BY: AMY HARDER SEPTEMBER 14, 2022

The U.S. government is for the first time in history singling out and subsidizing cleaner aviation fuel.

Such a move is poised to help clean up one of the most high-profile ways our society contributes to climate change—and one of the most difficult given the sheer dynamics required to keep planes in the sky.

With nearly $370 billion flowing from the federal spigots, the Inflation Reduction Act signed into law last month supercharges existing tax credits and gives first-ever subsidies to a range of technologies considered essential in helping the U.S. reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Included in that first-ever bucket is sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). SAF embodies not one thing but a range of liquid fuels produced from various raw materials through different technologies. The fuel is capable of directly replacing or mixing with traditional fossil-fuel-based jet fuel.

Aviation accounts for about 2.5% of global carbon emissions, but its impact could be more than 1.5 times that figure given the warming effect of contrails (those innocuous-looking white cloud lines that form at the end of planes), according to 2021 scientific research.

The tax credit applies for about half as long as earlier proposals, but it's nonetheless notable because SAF didn’t get any support from the infrastructure law passed last year, which poured more than $100 billion into a range of other climate technologies.

“The biggest stumbling block is economics,” said Graham Noyes, executive director of the Low Carbon Fuels Coalition, a group representing a broad cross-section of companies that are somehow involved in the pursuit of low-carbon fuels, including SAF.

“Even though it’s not the 10 years we would have liked to have seen, having five years of the credit will be an enormous boost,” Noyes told Cipher. “It will allow the industry to begin to scale up and deploy new feedstocks and technologies at scale.”

Indeed, like many clean energy technologies, the core challenge for SAF is that it’s simply too expensive compared to its dirtier, fossil fuel counterpart.

The new subsidy may reduce costs for SAF to a point where it would be roughly equal to fossil fuel jet prices, though a wide range exists depending on costs of technology, production and other variables, according to the Rhodium Group, a research firm. (See chart below).

https://go.breakthroughenergy.org/social/c410003ef13d451727aeff9082c29
a5c.510

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

So basically the govt is funding a fuel which may never come to light and there are a dozen speculators at the end of the money pipeline with their mouths wide open ready to swallow up govt largesse.

That's not capitalism.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we

SECOND

Friday, September 16, 2022 9:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

So basically the govt is funding a fuel which may never come to light and there are a dozen speculators at the end of the money pipeline with their mouths wide open ready to swallow up govt largesse.

That's not capitalism.

I assume you never read "Federally Supported Innovations: 22 Examples of Major Technology Advances That Stem From Federal Research Support"
https://www2.itif.org/2014-federally-supported-innovations.pdf

There are not any Bell Labs inventing these ideas because AT&T stopped generously funding research once pure Capitalists took over the company.

Federal R&D funding: the bedrock of national innovation
https://sciencepolicyreview.org/2020/08/federal-rd-funding-the-bedrock
-of-national-innovation/
Article Summary
The U.S. government’s financial commitment to scientific research has significantly declined in the past few decades. Recent research has also revealed a lack of public awareness of the importance of federal research and development (R&D) funding; only one in four Americans believe that the government’s role in science is indispensable. In this paper, we argue that federal funding provides the bedrock for the U.S.’s innovation infrastructure while guiding the national research agenda to benefit society.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

SIGNYM

Friday, September 16, 2022 9:17 AM

SECOND, you keep misusing the word "capitalism". It DOES have a definition, yanno.

Capitalism does eventually develop into something else, often fascism ... "Government in service to business".

That's where the government uses taxpayer money to do the unprofitable part of research, and then gives the results to the moneygrubbers so they can rip off the public for the research that the public already paid for.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake

SECOND

Friday, September 16, 2022 4:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SECOND, you keep misusing the word "capitalism". It DOES have a definition, yanno.

Capitalism does eventually develop into something else, often fascism ... "Government in service to business".

That's where the government uses taxpayer money to do the unprofitable part of research, and then gives the results to the moneygrubbers so they can rip off the public for the research that the public already paid for.

Where did you get your ideas about how Capitalism works? It is as mindless as some blind fish at the bottom of the deepest ocean sucking up decaying food falling from the surface. But in Capitalism's case, it is money it sucks up. If government doesn't give Capitalism a direction and a higher purpose, humanity gets exactly what it is now getting from Capitalism: a huge waste stream of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Capitalism can dispose of its own wastes, but that requires the government to spend money and enforce regulations on carbon dioxide. The choice is up to the government of how much money and what regulations. The Capitalists are NOT thinking ahead about climate change or anything except money. If the government won't think ahead, expecting Capitalists to altruistically save the world from climate change, we are dead.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

SIGNYM

Friday, September 16, 2022 6:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SECOND, you keep misusing the word "capitalism". It DOES have a definition, yanno.

Capitalism does eventually develop into something else, often fascism ... "Government in service to business".

That's where the government uses taxpayer money to do the unprofitable part of research, and then gives the results to the moneygrubbers so they can rip off the public for the research that the public already paid for.
Where did you get your ideas about how Capitalism works?

I'm not talking about how "capitalism" works, I'm refering to the defintion of itself.

There wouldn't be so many words (capitalism, feudalism, socialism, mercantilism, imperialism, fascism, etc) for economic systems if they could be used interchangeably.

So, what is the definition of capitalism? How is it different from monopolism. financialism, fascism, socialism, and rentier capitalism?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake

SECOND

Friday, September 16, 2022 6:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I'm not talking about how "capitalism" works, it's the defintion of capitalism itself.

It's like the difference between the defintion of Catholic Church and how the Ctholic Chruch works. The definition of the Catholic Church, strictly speaking, is the Christian religion (ie one that believes in Christ as god) headed by a Pope in Rome. How it actually works is a different story.

You can't just use a word any way you want. If you say "hat" when the definition is "oatmeal", I won't know what you're trying to communicate.

There had to be a an agreed-on definition otherwise communication is impossible.

There wouldn't be so many words (capitalism, feudalism, socialism, mercantilism, imperialism, fascism, etc) for economic systems if there weren't any distinctions and you could just use words interchangeably.

So, what is the definition of capitalism? How is it different from monopolism. financialism, fascism, socialism, and rentier capitalism?

Lawyers and philosophers write like you do as if nothing can be accomplished until a definition of each word is hammered into shape and agreed upon by all involved. That's why there has never been a lawyer or philosopher who changed the physical world as much as the most mediocre Engineer. Engineers DO NOT engage with the world as if words go first and physics/chemistry/metal/concrete trails far behind and the last thing to think about.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

SIGNYM

Friday, September 16, 2022 6:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I'm not talking about how "capitalism" works, it's the defintion of capitalism itself.

It's like the difference between the defintion of Catholic Church and how the Ctholic Chruch works. The definition of the Catholic Church, strictly speaking, is the Christian religion (ie one that believes in Christ as god) headed by a Pope in Rome. How it actually works is a different story.

You can't just use a word any way you want. If you say "hat" when the definition is "oatmeal", I won't know what you're trying to communicate.

There had to be a an agreed-on definition otherwise communication is impossible.

There wouldn't be so many words (capitalism, feudalism, socialism, mercantilism, imperialism, fascism, etc) for economic systems if there weren't any distinctions and you could just use words interchangeably.

So, what is the definition of capitalism? How is it different from monopolism. financialism, fascism, socialism, and rentier capitalism?
Lawyers and philosophers write like you do as if nothing can be accomplished until a definition of each word is hammered into shape and agreed upon by all involved. That's why there has never been a lawyer or philosopher who changed the physical world as much as the most mediocre Engineer. Engineers DO NOT engage with the world as if words go first and physics/chemistry/metal/concrete trails far behind and the last thing to think about.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Actually, engineers, chemists, etc think in words FIRST, and these words have extremely specific definitions. LEARNING the physical sciences involves learning the words and concepts that go with them: what is a cell? What is DNA? what is an alcohol, an amine? what is heat? what is a lever? what is current? Voltage?

And, the framers of the Constitution, which- you may recall- is just a bunch of words, didn't change the world? and laws... the're just words? And the discovey AND NAMING of the elements and subatomic paricles, the concept AND NAMES of "lever", "current", "voltage", "energy" "heat", "DNA" and "cell" didn't change th world?

WORDS greatly shape how we see the world, in fact WHAT we see. (A neurologist wanted to see how long it would take his daughter to discover the color "blue" if he and his wife never used the word. IIRC she was six years old before she noticed there was an as yet unnamed color.)

People get into all kinds of trouble using wods they don't understand and haven't even defined for themselves: Freedom, love, rights, human ... capitalism, communism ... they don't know where the defintion begins and where it ends.

So, what is capitalism, and how is it different from monopolism, financialism, fascism, socialism, and rentier capitalism?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake

PREV PAGE 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NEXT PAGE