61–70 of 97 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That excess value was captured by a select few, rather than by the government (as in Norway).
And Norway was basically warned about the problem by an Iraqi that had experienced it once before. Not that the oil fund is perfect. Using it can drive the currency haywire.
Shutting the mine could eliminate more than seven thousand jobs, in a county of thirty-seven thousand people. “Greene County will become a ghost town,” the neighbor wrote. Isn't that the normal fate of towns built around resource extraction after the resource is economically exhausted? The American West is littered with ghost town remnants around depleted mines. It doesn't make much more sense to stay in a coal minin…
If you believe in extinction-level global climate change, then another possibility is raised: use the mines as the starting point of new Civil Defense shelters. Except instead of built against nuclear fallout, they are for housing the tens of millions we hope survive and make it to them when our species' inaction enables extreme consequences of catastrophic weather changes. This puts the entire local economies back to work at underground construction, renewing and reinforcing the mines to much higher civil engineering standards, and building them out with dormitories, underground farms, cisterns, etc., for long-term stays. These would be multi-decade projects, and gives us a chance to offer the jobs with strings attached to gradually move out all but a skeleton crew as the build-outs gradually taper off. At best, a massive infrastructure project to re-establish our Civil Defense, that we re-purpose in a few decades as underground business parks and cheap residences. At worst, we actually need to use them if climate change causes mass crop failures or the like.
[1] http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/22/striking-paydirt-innovative-n...
Trump says he is going to bring back coal as a part of his program to make America great again. But the reason America was so great is that it was at the leading edge of technological change. That is relevant because in the 19th century, coal was the hot new technology. It was used for powering factory machines, electric generators, railroads and steam boats, heating, and producing steel. But technology continued to…
I wouldn't say we are going technologically backwards if you take a systemic look at energy, manufacturing, & infrastructure. Steel is needed to rebuild existing infrastructure (roads, bridges, railroads) that have been falling apart over the years. Steel is also needed to new infrastructure (buildings, electrical grid, solar panels (including those which will line the Mexican border wall), walls, housing, equipment,…
China and India burn a lot of coal... because they have a lot of inhabitants. But they have also got much more renewables than the US.
Trump says he is going to bring back coal as a part of his program to make America great again. But the reason America was so great is that it was at the leading edge of technological change. That is relevant because in the 19th century, coal was the hot new technology. It was used for powering factory machines, electric generators, railroads and steam boats, heating, and producing steel. But technology continued to…
I wouldn't say we are going technologically backwards if you take a systemic look at energy, manufacturing, & infrastructure. Steel is needed to rebuild existing infrastructure (roads, bridges, railroads) that have been falling apart over the years. Steel is also needed to new infrastructure (buildings, electrical grid, solar panels (including those which will line the Mexican border wall), walls, housing, equipment,…
"I murdered fewer people last year!" would be a terrible defense for Jack The Ripper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this different from the narratives of "welfare dependence" and "inter-generational poverty" advanced by republicans to advocate for deep cuts to urban welfare? If there are more people in a city than it provides opportunity for it seems to me to be a similar cruelty to incentivize them to stay in one place because they have "roots" there or something equally vague.
Good point. I know folks on the right screamed about the 'welfare queens' living on the tax payers' dime in the inner cities for generation after generation. In reality, this was a coded attack against blacks, and the majority of the claims were hyperbole. But now the left has begun making the same mean-spirited attacks on uneducated whites from Appalachia, the Midwest, and the south. Both types of stereotypes are an…
This isn't a case of both sides do it at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Traditionally in this country, people readily migrated for job opportunities. Maybe that's just a fairy tale, though it happened more than once in my family and with plenty of people I know. Perhaps people in resource extraction and one-factory towns no longer want to migrate for opportunity. Or maybe that's never been a majority inclination to begin with.
Not a fairy tale at all. In the 19th century De Tocqueville commented on how eager Americans were to sell land in pursuit of profit relative to Europeans at the time. It seems that in the post-war era we settled on this notion that families should largely remain rooted and stable, and that became part of the modern "American Dream". I wonder if all of that is just a long-term backlash against the forced migrations of…
Unlike you, (and I don't mean this in a negative way, it's a complicated discussion) I actually did the opposite and committed myself to the city I currently reside in, less there are 0 economic opportunities to be had, and I volunteer and participate in my community and get to know people. It's easier to build strong communities when you at least know the other people in your condo building.
Shutting the mine could eliminate more than seven thousand jobs, in a county of thirty-seven thousand people. “Greene County will become a ghost town,” the neighbor wrote. Isn't that the normal fate of towns built around resource extraction after the resource is economically exhausted? The American West is littered with ghost town remnants around depleted mines. It doesn't make much more sense to stay in a coal minin…
How do other countries deal with this? Or do they have the same problem of local communities extracting federal subsidies for their unsustainable, selfish, local desires?
The discussions I observed happen in a way that I can hardly describe otherwise than that coal is some kind of replacement religion for those areas. For a long time (and for some even today) talking about anything beyond coal was considered some form of heresy. By now denial gets increasingly hard, because except one minor expansion all plans for further mines have been cancelled.
Shutting the mine could eliminate more than seven thousand jobs, in a county of thirty-seven thousand people. “Greene County will become a ghost town,” the neighbor wrote. Isn't that the normal fate of towns built around resource extraction after the resource is economically exhausted? The American West is littered with ghost town remnants around depleted mines. It doesn't make much more sense to stay in a coal minin…
I'm originally from an area not in coal country, but right by it and heavily influenced by it. I couldn't agree with you more. Both my home state and the federal government are already essentially subsidizing these people to live in these communities simply because it's where they were born. There is no infrastructure for jobs because there are no industries other than coal and growing marijuana / making moonshine (a…
Trump says he is going to bring back coal as a part of his program to make America great again. But the reason America was so great is that it was at the leading edge of technological change. That is relevant because in the 19th century, coal was the hot new technology. It was used for powering factory machines, electric generators, railroads and steam boats, heating, and producing steel. But technology continued to…
Kind of like how wheat is not quite as sexy as javascript frameworks. However, the midwest has the unique geological feature of being the "Saudi Arabia" of wheat production, so despite wheat not being as sexy as SV startups, we are one of the best places on the planet to grow it so you'd think we'd grow a heck of a lot of wheat compared to, say, Ecuador or Hawaii.
Imagine as a thought experiment that javascript frameworks were not cool and not the future, yet, SV remained the best spot on the entire planet to grow new javascript frameworks. If something (politics? regulation of programmers?) prevented SV from actually being the world capital of javascript frameworks, it would be a valid question to ask why and then fix it.
USA is a big country. We do all kinds of stuff, not just SV stuff. Also obviously 99.99% of the countries population isn't going to sit down and quietly die because they can't participate in SV tech scene, luckily they have plenty of economic activities to perform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't say we are going technologically backwards if you take a systemic look at energy, manufacturing, & infrastructure. Steel is needed to rebuild existing infrastructure (roads, bridges, railroads) that have been falling apart over the years. Steel is also needed to new infrastructure (buildings, electrical grid, solar panels (including those which will line the Mexican border wall), walls, housing, equipment,…
"Cleaner than ever" still ain't clean. "I murdered fewer people last year!" would be a terrible defense for Jack The Ripper.
Ok, less dirty. Happy?
> "I murdered fewer people last year!" would be a terrible defense for Jack The Ripper.
By that logic, solar & wind are not clean either. You still have to mine for & process rare earth minerals for solar cells & batteries. Not to mention the poor Chinese workers who process the electronics in poor working conditions. How about the extra infrastructure needed to support solar cells & wind turbines everywhere, as you have power loss with power transmission over a distance.
Neither is fission clean. Perhaps Thorium is relatively clean?
> China and India burn a lot of coal... because they have a lot of inhabitants. But they have also got much more renewables than the US.
China & India are also building infrastructure, which uses steel. I don't think there's any qualms about using renewables in the US. It's a matter of letting the technology mature in the free market & reducing the Federal Budget & lowering taxes. When renewables are more mature, the US will adopt them more.
Note that there are several alternative technologies being developed. Thorium, Biogas, Fusion, etc. When these technologies mature, we can use them all in combination; taking "the right tool for the right job" approach.