Gabriel Kolko R.I.P.

[Jarhyn]

So because fossil fuels, just by themselves, aren't going to get 5 billion agencies to escape velocity, we should burn it all now? I say it is only one of many high energy density fuels, and the application of it is not best spent as fuel at any stage, but rather as a shortcut to material fabrication.

And just because you happen to be so full of shit that every time you take a dump your toilet plugs, that isn't my problem. My toilet needs a plunger 1 in 8 flushes. If a low flow toilet uses 1 unit of water and a high flow uses 4, that's 8+1=9 units plus a plunger use. 10, if I fail miserably at plunging. Compare that to the 4*8=32 units consumed by the high flow toilet. That's still a factor of more than 3 times the resource efficiency. We can afford 20 seconds to use a plunger every once in a while. We can't, in that same 2.5 seconds of human labor per flush magic another 3 units of fresh water in existence.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Based on the logic presented here, our interstate highways were based on Nazi designs. Republicans supported building these highways therefore Conservatives are all HITLER LOVERS!!!!!

Ayn Rand's novels were hardly about bureaucrats fighting the government.

No, her work was based off those novels. That is what "adapted" means.

Designing a highway is hardly the same thing as designing an economy. In fact, the real problem is that an economy cannot be designed which is something that statists the world over and for all time have never figured out. Often they have actually wound up killing a lot of people in their vain efforts to force it to work.

Exactly my point about magical thinking and posters who are not even bothering to grasp the concepts of what was written makes one think they are stoned, disingenuous, brainwashed, or just plain stupid. But I think the overall problem is laziness, not a lack of comprehension of the words that were written.

 

[boneyard bill]

So the only specific regulations you'd get rid of have to do with toilets and light bulbs.

OBAMA!!

It is quite obvious that the inference you have drawn here is not valid from the content of my post. So why do you waste my time and yours forcing me to point out the obvious?

Probably because I asked you for specific regulations you'd do away with and the only specific things you mentioned had to do with toilets and light bulbs. Everything else you mentioned was the usual, generic, right-wing pap. And honestly the toilet and light bulb things are favorite bugaboos always talked about by the Right as well.

I guess I can ask you again: What specific regulations would you do away with?

Sorry but I don't have the time nor the inclination to go through the federal register and write down all the regulations I'd eliminate just to satisfy your curiosity. Why does it even matter? I gave you the priorities that I would use which is far more important than the specific regulations. There are reasons for imposing regulations and there are reasons for not imposing regulations. Our policies seem to ignore the reasons why you wouldn't impose regulations.

 

[ksen]

So the only specific regulations you'd get rid of have to do with toilets and light bulbs.

OBAMA!!

It is quite obvious that the inference you have drawn here is not valid from the content of my post. So why do you waste my time and yours forcing me to point out the obvious?

Probably because I asked you for specific regulations you'd do away with and the only specific things you mentioned had to do with toilets and light bulbs. Everything else you mentioned was the usual, generic, right-wing pap. And honestly the toilet and light bulb things are favorite bugaboos always talked about by the Right as well.

I guess I can ask you again: What specific regulations would you do away with?

Sorry but I don't have the time nor the inclination to go through the federal register and write down all the regulations I'd eliminate just to satisfy your curiosity. Why does it even matter? I gave you the priorities that I would use which is far more important than the specific regulations. There are reasons for imposing regulations and there are reasons for not imposing regulations. Our policies seem to ignore the reasons why you wouldn't impose regulations.

Fair enough, I just assumed that since you've probably put a lot of thought into this you'd have something more than toilets and light bulbs in mind.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Maybe we should start with the upcoming regulations on drones?

 

[Jarhyn]

So the only specific regulations you'd get rid of have to do with toilets and light bulbs.

OBAMA!!

It is quite obvious that the inference you have drawn here is not valid from the content of my post. So why do you waste my time and yours forcing me to point out the obvious?

Probably because I asked you for specific regulations you'd do away with and the only specific things you mentioned had to do with toilets and light bulbs. Everything else you mentioned was the usual, generic, right-wing pap. And honestly the toilet and light bulb things are favorite bugaboos always talked about by the Right as well.

I guess I can ask you again: What specific regulations would you do away with?

Sorry but I don't have the time nor the inclination to go through the federal register and write down all the regulations I'd eliminate just to satisfy your curiosity. Why does it even matter? I gave you the priorities that I would use which is far more important than the specific regulations. There are reasons for imposing regulations and there are reasons for not imposing regulations. Our policies seem to ignore the reasons why you wouldn't impose regulations.

Well, I already gave you a few great reasons that the two you did mention are entirely necessary, namely conserving limited or fixed rate resources so that we have when we really need it.

 

[boneyard bill]

So the only specific regulations you'd get rid of have to do with toilets and light bulbs.

OBAMA!!

It is quite obvious that the inference you have drawn here is not valid from the content of my post. So why do you waste my time and yours forcing me to point out the obvious?

Probably because I asked you for specific regulations you'd do away with and the only specific things you mentioned had to do with toilets and light bulbs. Everything else you mentioned was the usual, generic, right-wing pap. And honestly the toilet and light bulb things are favorite bugaboos always talked about by the Right as well.

I guess I can ask you again: What specific regulations would you do away with?

Sorry but I don't have the time nor the inclination to go through the federal register and write down all the regulations I'd eliminate just to satisfy your curiosity. Why does it even matter? I gave you the priorities that I would use which is far more important than the specific regulations. There are reasons for imposing regulations and there are reasons for not imposing regulations. Our policies seem to ignore the reasons why you wouldn't impose regulations.

Well, I already gave you a few great reasons that the two you did mention are entirely necessary, namely conserving limited or fixed rate resources so that we have when we really need it.

And I pointed out that these new, tiny tanks don't save water because you have to flush them too many times. As for the light bulbs, they're just a sop to General Electric who holds the patent on the fluorescent bulbs. Meanwhile, the safety and environmental problems that are created by the need to dispose of these bulbs creates problems that probably outweigh the amount of energy saved.

 

[Jarhyn]

Except that that is demonstrably false. For a normal person with normal shits, it's still a 3:1 reduction in water use for shits, and that's not even counting the urine.

You are either full of enough literal shit to back up your toilet every time you squat or so full of metaphorical shit that it is coming out your ears. I guess I know now, where why you always have shit ready to pull out your ass (like the claimed that CF bulbs incur a higher opportunity cost than throwing 2 tungsten elements a year per light into a landfill and the doubling of electricity costs per household, more than the 1 bulb per light every 20 years)

Also, it sure is nice that GE makes all these lightbulvs which reduce waste and power consumption by such a high percentage. If you dislike that easy-now, deadly-later things are being banned and people selling the alternatives are getting rich, you should make your own factory selling the a-little-harder-now, save-our-collective-asses-later products too. It's not like there isn't a free market where you can compete with them...

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Bill, you know that you can still buy and install vintage large tank toilets without breaking the law. There are plumbing salvage yards all across the country that'll ship them to ya. Also, the cheap lightbulbs burn out quicker and cost more in the long-term (not to mention with the cheapest bulbs 20-50% were shipped with broken filaments). The industry had responded well in advance of this law (signed by President Bush) and the bulbs you buy in the store are just as cheap as the average old energy wasting bulbs. I really don't see how this is fascism, but I'm sure you'll find a way to school us on our 28th Amendment rights to sucky light bulbs.

 

[boneyard bill]

Except that that is demonstrably false. For a normal person with normal shits, it's still a 3:1 reduction in water use for shits, and that's not even counting the urine.

You are either full of enough literal shit to back up your toilet every time you squat or so full of metaphorical shit that it is coming out your ears. I guess I know now, where why you always have shit ready to pull out your ass (like the claimed that CF bulbs incur a higher opportunity cost than throwing 2 tungsten elements a year per light into a landfill and the doubling of electricity costs per household, more than the 1 bulb per light every 20 years)

Also, it sure is nice that GE makes all these lightbulvs which reduce waste and power consumption by such a high percentage. If you dislike that easy-now, deadly-later things are being banned and people selling the alternatives are getting rich, you should make your own factory selling the a-little-harder-now, save-our-collective-asses-later products too. It's not like there isn't a free market where you can compete with them...

I'm not really into shit counting. I haven't done the numbers regarding how many times I have to flush and how many times I have to use the plunger to get the damn tanks to flush and seriously doubt that you, or the EPA have done this research either. I'm sure they've done some kind of armchair study. They love to pay for studies. But it's really a dumb idea. For places where there is a serious water shortage, there might be some need for government intervention, but to introduce this as national policy is simply so stupid only a government bureaucrat could think it up. So what if we use more water? That's why we also spend all that money on water purification plants.

 

[boneyard bill]

Bill, you know that you can still buy and install vintage large tank toilets without breaking the law. There are plumbing salvage yards all across the country that'll ship them to ya. Also, the cheap lightbulbs burn out quicker and cost more in the long-term (not to mention with the cheapest bulbs 20-50% were shipped with broken filaments). The industry had responded well in advance of this law (signed by President Bush) and the bulbs you buy in the store are just as cheap as the average old energy wasting bulbs. I really don't see how this is fascism, but I'm sure you'll find a way to school us on our 28th Amendment rights to sucky light bulbs.

Last time I checked, the new bulbs cost $8 apiece while the only bulbs sold for 4 for $1.00. So I see a considerable difference in price there. But if the new bulbs are so cheap, then you didn't need the law because we would buy the new bulbs anyway to save electricity except, perhaps, for anyone who doesn't want to risk the new bulbs because they have to be disposed of so carefully.