|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
So we should keep subsidizing fossil fuels to avoid having to subsidize decommissioning fossil fuel plants?
Quark Blast wrote:
@bignorsewolf reread my prior post please. I answer your question there specifically.
Whatever you think is an answer I don't think is an answer
Quark Blast wrote: Decommissioning is a big cost you continue to avoid accounting for.
Abandoning infrastructure well before EoL is a cost you continue to avoid accounting for.
Not really that big, and not being ignored. Included right there in the Lazard analysis I linked to.
Quark Blast wrote: You keep describing the end game whilst ignoring the 20 years+ of pain to get there. I've been describing the current scenario and trends. I haven't said a word about what an 'end game' 20+ years from now would be like.
thejeff wrote: So we should keep subsidizing fossil fuels to avoid having to subsidize decommissioning fossil fuel plants? Are you really that ignorant?
We will be subsidizing both if certain powers get their way. The former because legacy, the latter because unbridled enthusiasm.
We are already massively in debt and soon to be trillions more because Coronavirus. That makes 2040 look pretty #### ##### at the moment. Not a problem if you won't be alive then, otherwise it sucks ###### #####.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
@bignorsewolf reread my prior post please. I answer your question there specifically.
Whatever you think is an answer I don't think is an answer Yeah, reading for comprehension doesn't seem to be a popular thing around here.
Not my problem though.
:D
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: You keep describing the end game whilst ignoring the 20 years+ of pain to get there. I've been describing the current scenario and trends. I haven't said a word about what an 'end game' 20+ years from now would be like. Your "current scenario" will take at least 20 years to implement. But I bet you already know that and are just playing dumb to score a lame rhetorical point. Yeah?
With all due respect Punky QB, are you saying that we shouldn't try to implement any current changes because they'll be financially challenging and take over 20 years? instead, because the virus and other things have messed up several world economies, we would be better off not implementing costly, long term projects to correct climate change? Essentially, we should seal in the doom to the environment such a long-term plan would try to avert, because we don't have the money?
So, our options are: we spend lots of money over the next 20 years and we might, MAYBE, begin to see stagnation in terms of further climate degradation, at least the part of it influenced by humans, or maybe we DON'T see any significant change.
Or
We continue to drill baby drill because the debt is ballooning and we 100% commit to completely ignoring the impending global disaster b/c money.
Do I have those accurate? Cuz that's the either or that seems to be getting debated here. If I have that wrong, PLEASE correct me.
I'm trying to use this thread to educate myself. Thanks for the links to the Lazar study and others. Right now I'm just some rube with no science background that is frankly scared to death that the planet my daughters are inheriting is burning away.
I'd KIND of like to find solutions. If those solutions mean I'm going to have to eat a big cost up front for the early retirement of coal in favor of cheap solar, shut up and take my money.
If, on the other hand, its a guaranteed lock that no amount of energy changeover is going to save the planet and we're all doomed, well I'm gonna have to find a rocket scientist named Jor-El.
My point is, and I've said so expressly a number of times on this thread including the previous page, is that we can push a 'green new deal' or not as far as the year 2100 is concerned. The average global temp won't vary appreciably no matter what we do these next 20 years.
That is, for the year 2040 we can #### the economy or not, depending on how hard the push is (how much $ we waste now). For those of us who hope to be alive in 2040, pushing hard is apt screw us financially at a time in our life that ###### us the most.
For the year 2100, average global temp is going to be at least +2.5°C over pre-industrial. I doubt if our current wrangling over the best policy will move the measurement more than +-0.05°C.
The easy path to a carbon neutral 2050 passed us by around the year 1999. We are on the hard road now and our only choice is to #### ourselves in the short term or not. I prefer not.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
@bignorsewolf reread my prior post please. I answer your question there specifically.
Whatever you think is an answer I don't think is an answer Yeah, reading for comprehension doesn't seem to be a popular thing around here.
Not my problem though.
:D Dude, not productive, not cool, and not making your point either.
If NO one else can read? Maybe you can't write.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Quark Blast wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Quark Blast wrote: @bignorsewolf reread my prior post please. I answer your question there specifically. Whatever you think is an answer I don't think is an answer Yeah, reading for comprehension doesn't seem to be a popular thing around here.
Not my problem though.
:D Dude, not productive, not cool, and not making your point either.
If NO one else can read? Maybe you can't write. Well, my other option was to copy-n-paste my prior post. Not sure how that's any more productive/cool. Reread your "whatever you think is an answer..." bit from my perspective and see how "not cool" your own contributions are.
Say what, I'll compromise and post a link to my post that you can't comprehend and you can reread it and be specific about what you would like me to clarify. Deal?
:D
Quark Blast wrote: The average global temp won't vary appreciably no matter what we do these next 20 years. This is, of course, completely false.
What we do over the next 20 years will very likely determine what the temperature increase over pre-industrial by 2100 will be... it could be anything between +1.5°C (extremely unlikely that we will clean up our power use fast enough to achieve that) and +2.5°C (extremely unlikely that we will continue to pollute enough to get that high).
Quark Blast wrote: That is, for the year 2040 we can #### the economy or not, depending on how hard the push is (how much $ we waste now). For those of us who hope to be alive in 2040, pushing hard is apt screw us financially at a time in our life that ###### us the most. No hard pushing required.
Just 'following the path of least resistance', that is doing whatever costs least at the time (not even considering long term), we are now on course to easily get to zero atmospheric GHG growth before 2050.
Indeed, there is every indication that a rapid transition to all renewable power could be achieved before 2040... and cost hundreds of billions less for the US.
Continuing to prop up an obsolete and unhealthy fossil fuel industry is what is 'asterisking' us. Fortunately, the balance is tipping. Even political interference isn't saving them any more. Coal is dropping like a stone and both oil and natural gas are stalled out. Wide scale adoption of electric vehicles will be the next shoe to drop and make the death of fossil fuels official... that's happening now in some countries and will be worldwide in a few years.
Quark Blast wrote: For the year 2100, average global temp is going to be at least +2.5°C over pre-industrial. That is more likely the maximum warming we will see... if we do nothing more than the 'least resistance' / bare minimum. I think +2°C is within reach if governments just adopt sensible long term policies within the next five years.
CB wrote: ... I think +2°C is within reach if governments just adopt sensible long term policies within the next five years. I cried tears of mirth at that.
Since when have governments ever adopted "sensible long term policies"?
Action, not mere talk. Governments talk a good talk all the ###### time. But long term sensible action? LOL
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: The average global temp won't vary appreciably no matter what we do these next 20 years. This is, of course, completely false.
What we do over the next 20 years will very likely determine what the temperature increase over pre-industrial by 2100 will be... it could be anything between +1.5°C (extremely unlikely that we will clean up our power use fast enough to achieve that) and +2.5°C (extremely unlikely that we will continue to pollute enough to get... Earlier...
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: You keep describing the end game whilst ignoring the 20 years+ of pain to get there. I've been describing the current scenario and trends. I haven't said a word about what an 'end game' 20+ years from now would be like. Make up your mind would you?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: Since when have governments ever adopted "sensible long term policies"? Have you heard of this thing called, 'the Internet'?
Compulsory education?
National highway systems?
Power grids?
Endangered Species Act?
Montreal Protocol?
LRTAP?
I could go on... hundreds of examples.
Quark Blast wrote: Earlier...
....
Make up your mind would you?
Do you really not understand temporal causality either?
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Since when have governments ever adopted "sensible long term policies"? Have you heard of this thing called, 'the Internet'?
Compulsory education?
National highway systems?
Power grids?
Endangered Species Act?
Montreal Protocol?
LRTAP?
I could go on... hundreds of examples. I would provide links but don't want to insult as that's the adult thing to do in this situation. That being said...
Our education pales in comparison to the very non-compulsory nature of Finland's education and their students rock compared to ours.
Our national highway system has more failing infrastructure than all of Europe's in any condition.
Power grid? Same.
ESA? Well we are in the midst of the 6th major global extinction in Earth history. So there's that.
The Montreal Protocol seems to be working but that could be because the chemical companies were about to get sued into oblivion.
LRTAP... Right now. Right now, more people (proportionally and of course absolutely) are sucking polluted air than at any time in human history.
Hundreds more examples huh?
Okay, if you want to keep embarrassing yourself I'm game.
:D
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Since when have governments ever adopted "sensible long term policies"? Have you heard of this thing called, 'the Internet'?
Compulsory education?
National highway systems?
Power grids?
Endangered Species Act?
Montreal Protocol?
LRTAP?
I could go on... hundreds of examples. I would provide links but don't want to insult as that's the adult thing to do in this situation. That being said...
Our education pales in comparison to the very non-compulsory nature of Finland's education and their students rock compared to ours.
Our national highway system has more failing infrastructure than all of Europe's in any condition.
Power grid? Same.
ESA? Well we are in the midst of the 6th major global extinction in Earth history. So there's that.
The Montreal Protocol seems to be working but that could be because the chemical companies were about to get sued into oblivion.
LRTAP... Right now. Right now, more people (proportionally and of course absolutely) are sucking polluted air than at any time in human history.
Hundreds more examples huh?
Okay, if you want to keep embarrassing yourself I'm game.
:D And none of those things in Europe or Finland were done by governments?
thejeff wrote: And none of those things in Europe or Finland were done by governments? That is the point!
Finland's education program is government light and yet it can non-hyperbolically be described as world class.
Europe? By that reference I can only assume you mean just roads. Some countries are as ##### as ours (Italy), some better (Germany, though you get one guess as to which German political party started that successful roads program and why), the rest about like our various states (some ok, most not, ALL are overpriced). Norway is an outlier given all the fossil fuels cash they are flush with.
Care to try again?
Maybe after you've had your coffee?
:D
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: And none of those things in Europe or Finland were done by governments? That is the point!
Finland's education program is government light and yet it can non-hyperbolically be described as world class.
Europe? By that reference I can only assume you mean just roads. Some countries are as ##### as ours (Italy), some better (Germany, though you get one guess as to which German political party started that successful roads program and why), the rest about like our various states (some ok, most not, ALL are overpriced). Norway is an outlier given all the fossil fuels cash they are flush with.
Care to try again?
Maybe after you've had your coffee?
:D The first 3 things CB listed were non-country specific things established by governments across the world. You jumped in to compare "our" versions to better ones - also done by governments as if that proved governments couldn't do anything good. Which makes no sense at all.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: And none of those things in Europe or Finland were done by governments? That is the point!
Finland's education program is government light and yet it can non-hyperbolically be described as world class.
Europe? By that reference I can only assume you mean just roads. Some countries are as ##### as ours (Italy), some better (Germany, though you get one guess as to which German political party started that successful roads program and why), the rest about like our various states (some ok, most not, ALL are overpriced). Norway is an outlier given all the fossil fuels cash they are flush with.
Care to try again?
Maybe after you've had your coffee?
:D The first 3 things CB listed were non-country specific things established by governments across the world. You jumped in to compare "our" versions to better ones - also done by governments as if that proved governments couldn't do anything good. Which makes no sense at all. No coffee yet?
Interesting you should put it that way. CBs claim was that these were examples of sensible long-term policies. Long-term, most of these have proven to be executed in the boondoggle sort of way. Half#### at least.
The one big exception I listed was also government light. Government blows #### up well but that's not generally a policy or something they do individually long-term.
I'll grant that the ideas are sensible.
I'll grant that, in the abstract, having government involved long-term in these is sensible.
When does government ever do anything long-term and sensible?
The green new deal will be cronyism and cash grab. It'll be a nickel of worth for a dollar spent. As such it'll make no net difference to the average global temperature in the year 2100. Unless it gets overbuilt by a factor of 10 or more. Then it'll make a difference but won't be worth the intermediate cost.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: And none of those things in Europe or Finland were done by governments? That is the point!
Finland's education program is government light and yet it can non-hyperbolically be described as world class.
Europe? By that reference I can only assume you mean just roads. Some countries are as ##### as ours (Italy), some better (Germany, though you get one guess as to which German political party started that successful roads program and why), the rest about like our various states (some ok, most not, ALL are overpriced). Norway is an outlier given all the fossil fuels cash they are flush with.
Care to try again?
Maybe after you've had your coffee?
:D The first 3 things CB listed were non-country specific things established by governments across the world. You jumped in to compare "our" versions to better ones - also done by governments as if that proved governments couldn't do anything good. Which makes no sense at all. No coffee yet?
Interesting you should put it that way. CBs claim was that these were examples of sensible long-term policies. Long-term, most of these have proven to be executed in the boondoggle sort of way. Half#### at least.
The one big exception I listed was also government light. Government blows #### up well but that's not generally a policy or something they do individually long-term.
Now you're just walking away from your response and pretending you're not. And being insulting in the process.
thejeff wrote: Now you're just walking away from your response and pretending you're not. And being insulting in the process. Now you understand the force of my argument and rather than admit you're wrong you decide to deflect with being "hurt" over my standard use of sarcasm.
You could admit that or you could buck up and give an example of a sensible long-term government project.
Your choice - the hard way or the impossible way - makes no difference to me.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Now you're just walking away from your response and pretending you're not. And being insulting in the process. Now you understand the force of my argument and rather than admit you're wrong you decide to deflect with being "hurt" over my standard use of sarcasm.
You could admit that or you could buck up and give an example of a sensible long-term government project.
Your choice - the hard way or the impossible way - makes no difference to me. Nah, just amused (and frustrated) at your comparing things one government did with things other governments did to prove governments can't do anything well.
Ah, the third way it is then. Not surprised.
Government is simply how humans organize themselves for collective action. Whatever organizational system that happens to be... IS a government.
Ergo, virtually everything the human race has achieved is, to varying degrees, the result of government. Without government we'd still be living in the stone age... if that.
Thus, when I see someone making the (all too common) 'government cannot achieve anything' argument, I am always amazed at the power of propaganda to convince people of complete and utter nonsense.
You praise 'government light'. You know what that is? Government.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote:
When does government ever do anything long-term and sensible?
Reg: 'All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health ... what have the Romans ever done for us?
I've been debating whether to respond to this nonsense at all, but... it is just too egregious to not point out that;
Quark Blast wrote: Our education pales in comparison to the very non-compulsory nature of Finland's education and their students rock compared to ours. You don't know what you are talking about. Finland has compulsory education. They do many things better than most US schools, but it is absolutely compulsory.
Quark Blast wrote: Our national highway system has more failing infrastructure than all of Europe's in any condition.
Power grid? Same.
The simple act of building infrastructure like national highways and electrical grids shows that governments have indeed engaged in "sensible long term policies". Whether one country has done a better or worse job at that is irrelevant... it was still sensible long term action by all of them.
Quark Blast wrote: ESA? Well we are in the midst of the 6th major global extinction in Earth history. So there's that. Which in no way changes the fact that the ESA was enacted by government, and has protected many species for a long time now. A sensible long term policy.
Quark Blast wrote: LRTAP... Right now. Right now, more people (proportionally and of course absolutely) are sucking polluted air than at any time in human history. LRTAP is a North American and European treaty. The vast majority of the modern air pollution you refer to is in Asia.
That Asia is not part of LRTAP does nothing to change the fact that LRTAP has been a "sensible long term policy" enacted by other governments.
Quark Blast wrote: Hundreds more examples huh?
Okay, if you want to keep embarrassing yourself I'm game.
That you might think the specious arguments you presented above would embarrass me is a big part of the problem. You should be embarrassed for yourself. You didn't refute anything I said... you just threw out nonsense in an effort to obfuscate things.
This is another case of blind men describing an elephant. Both your views are true in different narrow views. The middle ground is to work on making solar cells cheaper, shut down some, but not all, coal powered plants, and building more and better wind turbines.
Goth Guru wrote: The middle ground is to work on making solar cells cheaper, shut down some, but not all, coal powered plants, and building more and better wind turbines. The 'middle ground' between reality and fiction is just another form of fiction. The above is not an accurate view of the current state of affairs.
Even if we do nothing to improve solar further, nearly all coal power plants will still be shut down within the next 10 years.
As noted previously, building new solar power already costs less (i.e. $29 - $38 per MWh) than continuing to use existing coal power ($41 per MWh on average). Let alone building new coal power ($65 - $159 per MWh). This is why coal power plants are shutting down and coal companies are declaring bankruptcy.
Nearly all coal plants are going to get shut down. Not because of government mandates or to 'save the planet'... but simply because NOT shutting them down would be throwing money away. There will be a handful of plants kept around (just as you can still find horse drawn carriages if you look hard enough), but coal is rapidly transitioning from the primary source of global energy production to an obsolete bit player.
Goth Guru wrote: This is another case of blind men describing an elephant. Both your views are true in different narrow views. The middle ground is to work on making solar cells cheaper, shut down some, but not all, coal powered plants, and building more and better wind turbines. Golden mean is a fallacy. Not a goal.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Goth Guru wrote: This is another case of blind men describing an elephant. Both your views are true in different narrow views. The middle ground is to work on making solar cells cheaper, shut down some, but not all, coal powered plants, and building more and better wind turbines. Golden mean is a fallacy. Not a goal According to the diversity/inclusion instruction I've had, that's not true. All voices are equally important.
:D
CB wrote: Even if we do nothing to improve solar further, nearly all coal power plants will still be shut down within the next 10 years. Exactly my point!
Why the push for a 'green new deal' if doing nothing (and therefore spending a metric ####ton less money) gives the same result?
Glad you agree.
:D
Additionally, there may be some confusion by others using "sensible" in an equivocal manner.
Do governments engage in sensible long-term projects?
Yes.
Do governments engage sensibly in long-term projects?
Sometimes yes. Usually by accident. But otherwise almost never.
Government will build a $5M road for $100M every time. And when government doing nothing gets us the same result, I vote for doing nothing every time.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: CB wrote: Even if we do nothing to improve solar further, nearly all coal power plants will still be shut down within the next 10 years. Exactly my point!
Why the push for a 'green new deal' if doing nothing (and therefore spending a metric ####ton less money) gives the same result? A: The results would NOT be "the same".
Without efforts to accelerate the transition, oil and natural gas will hang on for a few decades. Even the retirement of coal could be further accelerated.
B: Most versions of a 'green new deal' I have seen would result in less money being spent overall.
Quark Blast wrote: Do governments engage in sensible long-term projects?
Yes.
Directly contradicting your earlier statement, 'Since when have governments ever adopted "sensible long term policies"?'
Quark Blast wrote: Government will build a $5M road for $100M every time. And when government doing nothing gets us the same result, I vote for doing nothing every time. So... do nothing and the coronavirus will just 'magically go away' on its own. Global warming will solve itself. The national highway system both sprung into existence on its own and is now self-repairing.
No. Doing nothing does NOT get the same result. Doing nothing gets... nothing.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: CB wrote: Even if we do nothing to improve solar further, nearly all coal power plants will still be shut down within the next 10 years. Exactly my point!
Why the push for a 'green new deal' if doing nothing (and therefore spending a metric ####ton less money) gives the same result? A: The results would NOT be "the same".
Without efforts to accelerate the transition, oil and natural gas will hang on for a few decades. Even the retirement of coal could be further accelerated.
B: Most versions of a 'green new deal' I have seen would result in less money being spent overall.
Quark Blast wrote: Do governments engage in sensible long-term projects?
Yes.
Directly contradicting your earlier statement, 'Since when have governments ever adopted "sensible long term policies"?' Clearly I made a point to further conversation and true to form you weaponize it.
My concession to the lack of sensibleness in government programs is that they are best when the government portion is least. Cf. Education in Finland.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Government will build a $5M road for $100M every time. And when government doing nothing gets us the same result, I vote for doing nothing every time. So... do nothing and the coronavirus will just 'magically go away' on its own. Global warming will solve itself. The national highway system both sprung into existence on its own and is now self-repairing. I prefer the way you put it:
CB wrote: Even if we do nothing to improve solar further, nearly all coal power plants will still be shut down within the next 10 years. CBDunkerson wrote: No. Doing nothing does NOT get the same result. Doing nothing gets... nothing. Contradict yourself as you like.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote:
A: The results would NOT be "the same".
Without efforts to accelerate the transition, oil and natural gas will hang on for a few decades. Even the retirement of coal could be further accelerated.
B: Most versions of a 'green new deal' I have seen would result in less money being spent overall.
Quark Blast wrote: Do governments engage in sensible long-term projects?
Yes.
Directly contradicting your earlier statement, 'Since when have governments ever adopted "sensible long term policies"?'
Clearly I made a point to further conversation and true to form you weaponize it. "Answering you" is apparently "weaponizing" your words. Ok.
Quark Blast wrote:
My concession to the lack of sensibleness in government programs is that they are best when the government portion is least. Cf. Education in Finland.
Which is bat***t insane. Starting with the fact that Finland does not have a less regulated education system compared to the US, or even the world average, and ending with the idea that government-regulated hellholes like germany and scandinavia are "worse" then beautiful government-free countries like somalia...
Quark Blast wrote: CBDunkerson wrote: So... do nothing and the coronavirus will just 'magically go away' on its own. Global warming will solve itself. The national highway system both sprung into existence on its own and is now self-repairing. I prefer the way you put it:
CB wrote: Even if we do nothing to improve solar further, nearly all coal power plants will still be shut down within the next 10 years. CBDunkerson wrote: No. Doing nothing does NOT get the same result. Doing nothing gets... nothing. Contradict yourself as you like.
When you do it, it is educational. When others do it, it is "weaponizing".
Also, as CB has pointed out already, the fact that coal will disappear on its own does not mean that we can not or should not excelerate the process. With could also save us money.
Wow! CB has a clone... or pupsocket.
:D
"The fact that coal will disappear on its own does not mean that we can not or should not excelerate the process."
If you don't mind doubling your utility rates and increasing your taxes, go right ahead. Heck, move to California now to get a foretaste of what it'll be like everywhere if the USA goes for a 'green new deal'.
They did this in Germany and it's sucking hard for the little guy. Aloys Wobben has made billions ######## #### Euro-citizens.
And you're flat out wrong about education regulation in Finland. Middle schoolers spend half the day in what amounts to recess there. Outside of a Montessori school, where does that happen this side of the Atlantic?
As for the other points... not worth responding to that spew of hyperbole and distraction.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: And you're flat out wrong about education regulation in Finland. Middle schoolers spend half the day in what amounts to recess there. Outside of a Montessori school, where does that happen this side of the Atlantic?
And that happens because all the non-government middle schools independently decided a half day of recess was a good idea or because the government structured the middle school day that way?
Just because you like what the government did in this case, doesn't mean the government didn't do it.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: And you're flat out wrong about education regulation in Finland. Middle schoolers spend half the day in what amounts to recess there. Outside of a Montessori school, where does that happen this side of the Atlantic?
And that happens because all the non-government middle schools independently decided a half day of recess was a good idea or because the government structured the middle school day that way?
Just because you like what the government did in this case, doesn't mean the government didn't do it. And you posted on this forum in strict adherence to FCC rules.
So the #### what?
Try posting what you like in countries not to be named - UDHR be damned. You can bet your family jewels that if the freedom we're enjoying here wasn't stated plainly in our founding document that our opinions would be as regulated as a few billion others' around the world.
If you will recall, back a page or two on this thread, the latest IPCC report requires that we all do our perfect best to avoid a catastrophic year 2100.
Since when does everyone doing their best ever happen?
Now involve multiple national governments.
How do you think that^ will turn out?
Based on what facts?
The federal government of Finland controls all funding for schools and highly regulates how teachers themselves are taught and continue to develop professionally. The federal program for CPD (continuing professional development) of teachers in Finland has just under 70,000 participants. In 2018, there were 70,069 primary and secondary school teachers in Finland.
The teachers making the decision on when and how long recess is are all federally trained.
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: And you're flat out wrong about education regulation in Finland. Middle schoolers spend half the day in what amounts to recess there. Outside of a Montessori school, where does that happen this side of the Atlantic?
And that happens because all the non-government middle schools independently decided a half day of recess was a good idea or because the government structured the middle school day that way?
Just because you like what the government did in this case, doesn't mean the government didn't do it. And you posted on this forum in strict adherence to FCC rules.
So the #### what?
Try posting what you like in countries not to be named - UDHR be damned. You can bet your family jewels that if the freedom we're enjoying here wasn't stated plainly in our founding document that our opinions would be as regulated as a few billion others' around the world.
If you will recall, back a page or two on this thread, the latest IPCC report requires that we all do our perfect best to avoid a catastrophic year 2100.
Since when does everyone doing their best ever happen?
Now involve multiple national governments.
How do you think that^ will turn out?
Based on what facts? WTF are you talking about?
What does any of it have to do with Finland's schools being regulated by the government?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Well, I will name the country where I like lots and lots of Government programs. Canada. Imperfect as they are. Like ALL human actions whether public, private or some mix thereof they ARE imperfect and could be improved.
1) Very rarely enforced (ie, the burden of proof is high) restrictions on hate speech
2) A publicly funded single payer Health System
3) Our social safety net in general
4) Reasonable taxes to pay for reasonable levels of infrastructure
5) A federal bureaucracy of unelected officials controlling in a non political fashion the way that elections are handled
6) A constitution that makes it unheard of (and theoretically all but impossible) for the government to ever be put into the position that it can't pay its bills.
7-100) And lots and lots more. Many of which I'm sure that you'd disagree with
QB - I actually agree with your main point. We're NOT doing enough to combat climate change and as a result the effects are going to be much worse AND ultimately much more expensive than they could be. Quite likely verging on the catastrophic, quite possibly actually meeting any rational definition of catastrophe. I think that we're seeing a non zero chance of the collapse of civilization in the future caused at least as much by reactions to worsening conditions (eg, widespread war) as to the conditions themselves. I'm often reasonably glad that I almost certainly won't live to see the worst of it and don't have children.
But you are doing your cause a disservice by arguing for that position with obviously absurd arguments that government intervention and action is always bad, that we're inevitably DOOMED, that we should all just give up.
thejeff wrote: WTF are you talking about?
What does any of it have to do with Finland's schools being regulated by the government?
And you flag my posts for flaunting forum rules.
:D
Or, you can be constructive and answer the substantive portion of that post which triggered you.
To repeat:
If you will recall, back a page or two on this thread, the latest IPCC report requires that we all do our perfect best to avoid a catastrophic year 2100.
Since when does everyone doing their best ever happen?
Now involve multiple national governments.
How do you think that^ will turn out?
Based on what facts?
pauljathome wrote: QB...
But you are doing your cause a disservice by arguing for that position with obviously absurd arguments that government intervention and action is always bad, that we're inevitably DOOMED, that we should all just give up.
So take up the very reasonable challenge and name a federal level program on the scale of the 'green new deal' that's turned out well. That hasn't wasted $95M for every $100M spent.
In fact I'll lower the bar to just 50% waste.
Then realize, according to the IPCC report, we need to be seeing single-digit waste on a global scale for decades straight.
You think that will happen?
The other option is to argue that the IPCC report is #### and so too are the scale/expense of any 'green new deal' plan put forth in good (if misguided) faith.
Themetricsystem wrote: I like poking my head in here from time to time to see if QB is still neck-deep in"intellectual" denialism and it seems like nothing has changed in the last five years.
He's still the same dude who compared a federally funded government healthcare system to prehistoric shaman burning herbs to cure unknown diseases and chase out spirits. It makes sense that they're still desperate to engage in conversations like those being had here because the rest of you folks who are bothering to engage with him are wich is only feeding his ego by treating him as an equal instead of a degenerate like he is who spouts nonsense debunked false narratives that even Joe Rogan would wince at.
Just my 2c though. Carry on.
You put down shaman rituals and my posts get flagged?
Interesting....
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: WTF are you talking about?
What does any of it have to do with Finland's schools being regulated by the government?
And you flag my posts for flaunting forum rules.
:D
Or, you can be constructive and answer the substantive portion of that post which triggered you. Will Save: 1d20 + 8 ⇒ (19) + 8 = 27
Themetricsystem wrote: false narratives that even Joe Rogan would wince at.
Naw, Rogan would have QB on every couple months.
At least we all agree my informed opinions are worthy of discussion on a public forum.
:D
pauljathome wrote: But you are doing your cause a disservice by arguing for that position with obviously absurd arguments that government intervention and action is always bad, that we're inevitably DOOMED, that we should all just give up. I think you never met american libertarians. That absurd argument, that "government intervention and action is always bad", IS his position.
Oh, and as he has made clear several times, he does believe that we're inevitably doomed and should in fact give up. So ... yeah. His position is not what you think it is.
Case in point: his "very reasonable challenge".
Quark Blast wrote: pauljathome wrote: QB...
But you are doing your cause a disservice by arguing for that position with obviously absurd arguments that government intervention and action is always bad, that we're inevitably DOOMED, that we should all just give up.
So take up the very reasonable challenge and name a federal level program on the scale of the 'green new deal' that's turned out well. That hasn't wasted $95M for every $100M spent.
In fact I'll lower the bar to just 50% waste.
I'm not an American so I'm certainly not going to try and name YOUR federal programs that aren't a waste. But I'd imagine the building of the highway systems, the defending of America in WW2, the building of Hoover Dam would all count.
For Canada, I'll just refer back to my list and cite Public Health Care and a Federal Elections System.
But I now remember how foolish it is to argue with you (even or especially when I partly or largely agree with you) and will again try hard to stop wasting my time with you.
|
