641–650 of 879 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We were talking about energy policy. It was well known at the time policy was motivated by the oil crisis and environment was a second fiddle: https://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/17/archives/environmentalist... * Aside: EPA and the Clean Air act weren't motivated by Climate Change but by particle pollution concerns.
OP > …real work on Climate Change would have begun in 1981… I don’t think that’s incorrect even if you ascribe all of the era’s environmental decision making to energy scarcity. Carter still set a goal of 20% renewable energy by 2020, and that still would have made a significant impact. It seems obvious to me that environmental policy was in some part driven by concern for the environment itself, but that doesn’t cha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're asking for a lot of evidence on what's overall the opinions of an entire country. Something entire electorial campaigns apparently struggle to do despite their funding ballooning. You have to do that research yourself, that isn't a question answered within HN's character limit. But Bernie's popularity along the youth probably was not just some trend, to help you start.
> You're asking for a lot of evidence on what's overall the opinions of an entire country we literally just had a referendum on that. moving further left from 2016-2020-2024 lost voters. how pissed off do people have to be to have that result? that implies, very strongly, to me that there is a huge segment in the center-left to center-right that is really irritated right now. not bernie's group for sure. although he…
No, it continued the 30 year trend since Hw Bush. Right to left to right.
It only really hints that people only rile up after the other party leaves office. So I guess "pissed off enough to be mildly annoying but not so pissed off to overcome an incumbent". But yes, the center is riled up, a little. The right moreso. Someone on the fringes is never not going to vote to begin with, so that's a bad way to judge those groups.
>not bernie's group for sure. although he seems more center compared to the "squad". you should thank them for that.
Really depends on your lens. For the EU, US is basically center right even with liberals. So Bernie would be a proper left wing candidate.
But for US, that's about as liberal as we've been for decades. Decades of red scare narrative made many across the board hate the idea of "socialist ideals" like Universal healthcare and publicly owned utilities. It seems that's starting to crack,maybe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OP > …real work on Climate Change would have begun in 1981… I don’t think that’s incorrect even if you ascribe all of the era’s environmental decision making to energy scarcity. Carter still set a goal of 20% renewable energy by 2020, and that still would have made a significant impact. It seems obvious to me that environmental policy was in some part driven by concern for the environment itself, but that doesn’t cha…
* The main practical work the admin did wasn't solar but synthetic fuels cuz the Carter admin believed in peak oil. That's an incredibly polluting technology that didn't happen in our timeline. It's only possibly reasonable if it displaces tarsands, but if it doesn't we end up in the worst scenario. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_Fuels_Corporation * Aside, significant global warming became scientific consens…
* I wonder how much investing in solar would have been worth it. The tech was carried over by a huge investment in semiconductors that helped silicone tech on the side. If you go back early you probably end up replicating it and that costs a lot? Or I could be wrong here.
* Wind tech was probably doable. You could have iterated over designs, material science was behind but not that much I think. Nuclear was reasonable too.
* CFLs were developed in the late 70s. One could have done an early version of banning incandescent lighting. Blue LED lightening weren't invented yet and took a breakthrough.
* Probably even more stringent fuel mandates. Electrical vehicles were in the future, you could have brought them forward by a decade or two, but in the 1980s they weren't an alternative, and I don't think in the 90s either?
* Of course, the US could have mandated solar water heaters where the climate allows.
We can imagine an alternate past where green tech was wind + nuclear, and lightening was CFLs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
11 years old and I doubt HfH was spamming their channel with reactions, memes, and Crazy challenges (GONE SEXUAL!). A lot of the "good content" isn't as "watchable", sadly. I am glad more and more well produced channels are starting to buck this trend though. They won't ever be Mr. Beast levels, but they amass a solid following.
2013 was a big year on YouTube, it was the year after Gangnam Style came out - the first YouTube video to reach a billion views. When I see old videos on there I often see a high upvote count.
And it's not a music video. 2013 was a big year but also when the algorithms went into overdrive on what you needed to do to drive engagement. The only thing this video didn't do "wrong" was be less than 5 minutes, which IIRC was the mini umum video length of that time to not be punished by the algorithm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He gave his life to compassion in service to all of humanity.
All of humanity? Propaganda much? No, thank you. At very least he destroyed Iran's government and was the American architect of the Islamic Republic in Iran[1], which has a direct causal relationship to many disasters within and outside the country and led to October 7. But sure he put solar panels on the White House. Great guy. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadeloupe_Conference
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Hanford site could be solved with a bunch of cement but we promised to restore. Now of course we don't dump waste the same way.
That's the joke with the 3-eyed fish on the Simpsons: "It's all fine. You're supposed to be okay with nuclear waste in your environment." I kinda want to get this Simpson's Jersey with a 3-eyed fish as the mascot that says Hanford or something on the back of it. I was thinking it should say maybe CESIUM 137 on the back. https://www.ebay.com/itm/373450099460
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which didn't justify the ban. Other countries didn't follow suit, main effect was hurting US nuclear industry and increasing pollution. P.S. These weren't solar panels (i.e. electricity generation), but solar water heaters . A very different tech, a useful tech, but not a global warming solution.
Solar thermal water heaters are a retro technology at this point. It's simpler and easier to install PV panels driving a heat pump water heater.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is an ideology that is gaining popularity in Israel though. I am regurgitating what Israel's own Finance minister is saying. "In an interview for the documentary, In Israel: Ministers of Chaos, produced by European public service channel, Arte, [Israel's Finance Minister Bezalel] Smotrich claimed that Israel would expand “little by little” and eventually encompass all Palestinian territories as well as Jordan, Leb…
I have little desire to defend Smotrich (nor would Israelis, as his extremist party is currently polling at ~3% support), but even he wouldn't dare claim support for something as far-flung as the alleged "Greater Israel" ideology. On the contrary, after Smotrich was merely perceived to lend support for expansionism, having spoken at a conference behind a graphic reminiscent of the Irgun's emblem depicting the entire…
Source: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2016-12-09/ty-article/.p...
The current Syria campaign is another counter example. Look at how they have systematically captured all water resources East of the Golan heights. Whoever is in charge is suing for expansion, not peace.
Source: https://syria.liveuamap.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of humanity? Propaganda much? No, thank you. At very least he destroyed Iran's government and was the American architect of the Islamic Republic in Iran[1], which has a direct causal relationship to many disasters within and outside the country and led to October 7. But sure he put solar panels on the White House. Great guy. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadeloupe_Conference
I wrote out a snarky response based off what I understood and then I did more research and he had a big impact. This is a better article to link to in my opinion though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_wi...
The other funny and ironic thing is Shah was instrumental in mediating and shaping the deal between Sadat and Israel, but somehow he got the short end of the stick and was branded an asshole authoritarian dictator by US leftist media (see Mike Wallace 60 mins from 1976[1] for example) and Carter got the Nobel Prize.
P.S. for fun, compare to Wallace's attitude when he sat down with Khomeini only a few years later, with questions submitted and vetted in advance[2]! Oh well, how history is written and rewritten...