the most important election of your lifetime: 2012 american general election thread

The insinuation that Obama should more specifically address poverty issues in the african american community because he is black is kind of a bad rhetorical cul-de-sac to drive into

ATM machines are a valid object of hate: lookit their withdrawal charges!

But Sununu seemed to take it a step further, telling reporters at one point, "I wish this president would learn how to be an American."

loooool

dogwhistle.gif

wonder what Jay Nordlinger thinks

http://www.softwarereality.com/soapbox/images/DogEars.jpg

I wish Sunnunu would spend more time learning to be a patriotic American, too, instead of a partisan who prefers ideology to country.

requiem for a sunnunu

Ideology is not quite what's bugging him or any of them, as Cheney's telltale praise for O last year hinted.

burning gas is cleaner than burning coal; getting it out of the ground might still be cleaner too.

warning - tldr; but

there are good reasons to be very skeptical about this. the burning of natural gas itself may emit fewer greenhouse gases, but the exploitation of natural gas creates leakages of methane. natural gas is mostly composed of methane. methane is a greenhouse gas that is much more "efficient" than CO2 at trapping heat. Methane is 25 times more efficient than CO2 trapping heat over 100 years, and 100 times more efficient than CO2 trapping heat over two decades. the efficiency of methane in the immediate years following its release into the atmosphere becomes even more important when you consider the need to avoid triggering feedback loops.

the percentage that's used in analyses of methane leakage has grave implications for estimates of climate change. the standard estimate of methane leakage is 2.4%. that's EPA's official figure. but the data supporting 2.4% (and especially the sub-2.0% estimates which industry of course support) are thin, and more recent studies and samples have found much higher leakage rates, including a NOAA sample in Colorado that measured 4% methane leakage.

a recent study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) concluded that "the substitution of gas for coal as an energy source results in increased rather than decreased global warming for many decades". the model used in the study included all sorts of factors that are normally excluded, including methane leakage from fracking. that leakage turns out to play a huge role: "The additional CH4 from leakage adds to the radiative forcing of the climate system, offsetting the reduction in CO2 forcing that accompanies the transition from coal to gas."

just wanted to throw all that out there because it's being taken for granted (even by many if not most environmentalists and activists) that the switch from coal to natural gas is an improvement. i'd be very skeptical of that, and of course throw in the boilerplate "what we REALLY need to be doing is aggressively reducing overall energy consumption with energy efficiency and scaling up clean energy as quickly as possible, on a Manhattan Project/Apollo Program level of commitment and urgency" argument.

let me tell you, energy efficiency is a very hard concept to sell...

especially when the president isn't effectively describing the problem of climate change or the solution

we are so fucked

yah but if you're good you'll go to heaven

let me tell you, energy efficiency is a very hard concept to sell...

Remember how it went when he tried to encourage people to keep their tires inflated.

I'm resisting the urge to get up on my I DO THIS FOR A LIVING hobbyhorse but I meant it's extremely difficult to get people/institutions/organizations to even understand the concept that if they spend X amount of $$ on energy efficient equipment/operations, they will both save X amount of dollars as well as reduce demand for the grid, and that the payback for doing this is exponentially better than investing in a new power plant or coal mine.

people are fucking stupid.

oh, feel free

this is like my shopping for ceiling fans and realizing that while I hated the look of many of them at big box home improvement stores, the energy efficiency part was worse -- for moving the same amount of air, you can get a fan that does a much better job, but it might be $300 - $400 instead of $180 or something. But if you figure out how many hours you're going to run it and the energy usage... good god, why would I buy some ugly cheapass fan?

Amy Davidson ‏@tnyCloseRead
Is it odd that Romney keeps talking about the 2002 Olympics as if they were an epochal event in world history?

ha yes this is kinda strange behavior

yeah my landlady (rip) refused to replace the (1940s-era) toilet that kept breaking even though every single plumber was like get a new toilet and you will make up the difference in your water bill in six months

well just extrapolate your consumer-level experiences to the building operations level (air conditioning, hot water heating, huge lighting systems, etc.) and factor in the idiocy endemic to large organizations like property management firms and investment banks and state governments and let your imagination run wild.

and of course, utilities, don't forget them! you need strict market controls in place to motivate utilities to sell you less power instead of more.

ugh

I feel like the company I work for is reasonably far-sighted far as such things go, but due to property tax and accounting laws, we're not building any more office buildings -- we're selling land to a property management company that then builds a building, partially to our specs, and then we sign a contract indefinitely renting the building.

well just extrapolate your consumer-level experiences to the building operations level (air conditioning, hot water heating, huge lighting systems, etc.) and factor in the idiocy endemic to large organizations like property management firms and investment banks and state governments and let your imagination run wild.

I just want to kiss you for your posts itt today Shakey Mo. Working with higher education institutions on how to make their building/new additions/alterations more energy efficient is maddening. You just run around in circles with some of these decision makers:

me: "You'll save 20-24% on your energy costs for running those fume hoods for the next ten years, at least."

them: "But its costs 2% more than that cheaper control system!"

me: "Do you not see the math?"

I mean, I used to work with developers who would flip thier buildings immediately so you could never get them to give shit one about future energy savings but its beyond frustrating to work with institutions that will be in their facilities FOREVER and still refuse to look past the fact that, yes, the first costs will be slightly higher.

I can't even begin to imagine trying to convince people of these things on any sort of large scale.

well tbf most universities are planning on being shuttered after next spring term

lol, i guess there's that

actually its more like a "my entire department is retiring next year so i can push the problem down the road and look like i saved $$$$ before i get out of here"

i thought the water-contamintion evidence was equivocal

i didn't see this until now, re: fracking, and i don't feel like derailing with another tl;dr but i wouldn't describe the evidence as equivocal. people are really being sold a bill of goods with fracking. the collective facepalm on this in 20 years is going to...uh...smack loudly and hurt a lot.

btw, due to an onslaught of acquisitions over the past several years, exxon-mobil is now the world's largest holder of natural gas reserves. they are totally cool with a big transition to natural gas. just something to keep in mind when you an exxon-mobil ad run before and after every network news segment

at least here in California we have a functioning regulatory system, and (in the case of universities) forward-thinking executive leadership and priorities - the problem, increasingly, is getting the money to pay for projects. Convincing a bank or other financial entity to loan you the money for an energy efficiency project on the condition that you will pay them back out of the money you save on your electricity bills (am grossly oversimplifying here btw) ... it's just a really hard concept for investment banker-types to grasp. If it's not a mortgage or a credit card with an accompanying exorbitant interest rate, they don't understand how they're going to make any money, or even get their money back.

apologies for thread derail to all bored participants, we can take this to the energy thread I guess....

i'm always expressing astonishment that huge companies have somehow managed to get the lower-middle class to fight tooth and nail against their own interests, to the benefit of rich people, to the point of inspiring a bunch of people to don late 18th century revolutionary garb and stand on street corners trying to get people to honk horns. big oil/fossil fuel is pulling the same trick, only the net is much larger. it's managed to fool just about everyone.

i'm always expressing astonishment that huge companies have somehow managed to get the lower-middle class to fight tooth and nail against their own interests,

nail on the fucking head here, it really is amazing to watch people fight so hard against things that would totally benefit them!

i mean, its one of the greatest con jobs i've ever watched unfold.

theres another aspect to people 'fighting against their interests' which is that people have other interests than just like material comfort, they also have idealogical and moral interests which may out weigh other concerns, in fact when someone who we agree with puts ideology before material enrichment we generally applaud them - not saying people arent ever tricked or w/e but theres more going on than just that, they may actually deeply believe that its important for corporations to be able to put particles in the air or w/e and theyre willing to sacrifice for that

oh, that's totally true and a good point, but i guess i was pulling out of context a little and including some larger societal issues, like disadvantaged people fighting against financial aid programs and stuff like that.

yeah lots of ppl hate teh gays, brown people, "liberals" more than they hate being unemployed

even better if you can find a way to blame the ppl you hate for your unemployment

it helps

Mark Hammill:

"'Cause without him, I think the middle class will completely disappear. And you look at Romney—and I'm sure he's a nice guy, but I think he's like (ILX's favorite movie) The Thing: He only imitates human behavior. He's not actually human himself. "

It goes along with the fear right now that is causing people to beat the austerity/smaller government drum -- people see personal debt and the debt carried by local institutions as bad, but the national government and some city/state governments have the opportunity to not only boost productivity and employment by borrowing money at record lows, but to actually make money in the long term by doing so once things do take off.

The republicans claiming that people don't want the government to spend money to encourage the economy, yet constantly claim that encouraging business owners is a great idea, is the stupidest shit.

btw national review and rick perry have joined the list of republicans telling mitt to release his dang tax returns, feels like he might have to cave soon

what if mitt's big secret is that he has a gambling addiction and he actually lost lots of money?!?

he national government and some city/state governments have the opportunity to not only boost productivity and employment by borrowing money at record lows, but to actually make money in the long term by doing so once things do take off.

The republicans claiming that people don't want the government to spend money to encourage the economy, yet constantly claim that encouraging business owners is a great idea, is the stupidest shit.

― hot sauce delivery device (mh), Tuesday, July 17, 2012 6:12 PM (51 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

haha yes i always think abt this, you know what youd do if you were really interested in running the gov like a business, take advantage of this cheap ass money

i liked pierce's take on it -- there may or may not be anything damaging, but to mitt you're either his family or you're the help, and the help has no standing to ask you to disclose anything

also lol i was like 'is mark hammill some pundit i've never heard of?'

ya i suspect thats an important aspect, mitt is colossally arrogant, also i suspect theres damaging stuff in there

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/07/bushiest-george-w-bush-quote-ever

See you've mentioned the National Review editorial:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/309738/release-returns-editors

They even come close to using the same defense that Mark Shields was joking about the other night!

"But there is no scandal in that: Romney is a wealthy man — and he has complicated personal finances, something that is typical of wealthy men. In fact, Romney’s personal finances are a very good case study in what’s wrong with the American tax system and regulatory climate."

Reminds me of George Costanza: "I'm disturbed, I'm depressed, I'm inadequate--I've got it all!"

amazing thing abt these tax returns is even if romney releases ten years that doesnt nearly go back to when he started running for political office, he never bothered to clean the situation up, even tho hes been attacked for this behavior going back to the beginning when he ran for senate in the 90s, he just couldnt stop doing stuff to embarrass himself, hes addicted to not paying taxes, even tho he has more money than he could ever spend!

If you have that money you have a social obligation to be as fiscally responsible with it as possible, which means swiss bank accounts

between mitt and obama and mccain and w, presidential candidates sure do have some daddy issues

its a common one w/ambitious guys

You forgot Clinton.