The politics of incentives

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are ton's of tech jobs in TN, but most have to do with radioactives. :)
Yep...hmmm same here in Eastern WA....wonder where I work at....and I don't have enough family connected well enough to get me a job at Oak Ridge....
 
I expect a lot of people may move here or other places to escape what they consider repressive laws regarding reproductive rights, sexual identity and orientation, the teaching of history, etc.

Nah, people love to talk about these things but I think people that actually move do so for economic reasons 80-90% of the time and that includes retirees moving to better weather and tax climate. The other 10 to 19% move back home for nostalgic reasons or family reasons, being closer to kids, etc. I don't think ANYONE actually moves (which is a huge hassle) because of political reasons. Do you know any who have? I don't.
 
Nah, people love to talk about these things but I think people that actually move do so for economic reasons 80-90% of the time and that includes retirees moving to better weather and tax climate. The other 10 to 19% move back home for nostalgic reasons or family reasons, being closer to kids, etc. I don't think ANYONE actually moves (which is a huge hassle) because of political reasons. Do you know any who have? I don't.

Theres definitely a sorting of people by political ideology going on with conservative areas getting more conservative and progressive areas becoming more progressive. I don’t know exactly how the decision process is made, and politics is probably not the main consideration. But I can see a scenario where a person decides to make a career move, applies for several positions, gets several offers, and decides to move to the place that most closely firs with their own values and worldview. I can think of a few of my friends who have made those kinds of decisions. But I can also think of others who moved to areas where they definitely don’t share the same values of the place they moved to.
 
Not always.

For example, look at light bulbs. If it was not for the government pushing us to more efficient bulbs, we would still be mostly using incandescent bulbs today. In fact, I was annoyed when new rules came out and thought the efficiency standards were a bit of government over-reach. Yes, saying this to my progressive friends pissed them off which was half of the fun of the whole thing. I'm all for reducing power usage but the idea of a $15 light bulb replacing a $0.50 light bulb stuck in my craw. But the government push was needed to get production up to a viable scale to make more efficient bulbs mainstream. Remember the earlier efficient bulbs kinda sucked, and were prone to infant mortality and so forth.

The expensive LED first bulbs I bought had little to do with saving energy. The incandescent bulbs burned out in my coach lamps outside, necessitating me getting on a ladder in a precarious way to change them, and due to moisture getting in and shattering the glass, I was replacing probably 5-10 per year. Didn't care about the cost, was more concerned about effort/risk. I replaced them with LEDs starting in I think 2013 (there's a thread on this forum somewhere about it!). Of the five exterior bulbs I put in, I think 3 of them are still in service. After I warmed up to the ones outside, I started replacing the ones inside (I did the math about energy savings). I kept receipts for all the $15 bulbs I bought, and got free replacements for the ones that died early, and pretty soon as government pressure pushed old incandescent bulbs off the shelves, the $15 bulb became a $8 bulb and now they are probably $2. They last longer than ever and each generation is more efficient than the last while putting out better light.

By about 2016 the only incandescent bulbs in my house were the special purpose utility bulbs in appliances (and even those now have more efficient alternatives).

Today for general lighting it would never occur to me to use an incandescent bulb. And the only reason LED bulbs (and a few other technologies) are the mainstream choice is because our government pushed incandescent bulbs off the shelves. I didn't like it at the time, but I'm grateful in retrospect.

I think transition to widespread EVs will be much harder and take a lot longer, but government pressure (incentives preferably as opposed to bans) will be needed to make it economically viable for scale up, just like light bulbs.
You had to periodically replace the mantle for your gas light, BTW what exactly is "gas lighting"?
Those Florescent bulb replacements were awful. Many contained mercury and are difficult to dispose of properly.
 
I know you're joking, but what's the problem with people living with other people they agree with, and states conducting their economies according to what the populace wants?

No, he’s serious as a heart attack.
 
All we need is to organize 100,000 or so Californians to move to Wyoming, and we could completely take over that state.

Or have those same 100,000 stay in California and address the issues and outcomes they helped create.
Moving on to another location and repeating the process that precluded the need for relocation will only disrupt the lives of the current inhabitants of the new targeted area who don't want to be enveloped in the California culture.
 
Or have those same 100,000 stay in California and address the issues and outcomes they helped create.
Moving on to another location and repeating the process that precluded the need for relocation will only disrupt the lives of the current inhabitants of the new targeted area who don't want to be enveloped in the California culture.

We’re gonna come and get you! ;)

I was joking about the “damn Californians keep moving here” attitude that always gets expressed in these kinds of threads. I don’t plan to move anywhere. I like living where I do and have trouble envisioning myself anywhere else. I love the coasts, mountains, forests, deserts, valleys, hills, cities, and towns.

In recent years, I have not liked the fires and drought. But I don’t think moving to avoid that would be worthwhile yet, and I honestly don’t think there’s anywhere you can move to avoid disasters at this point.

The whole country (and world) is having more frequent fires, floods, droughts, hurricanes, extreme cold, extreme heat, etc., etc. In California, it‘s mostly drought and fire, but those nightmares are coming to other places too. That or other extreme weather disasters. In 20-30 years, the world is going to be unimaginable, either in terms of the extreme weather or the measures required to deal with it. The inconvenience of switching to LEDs or electric cars is going to be the least of our concerns. We are all going to wish we had done it 30 years ago.
 
You had to periodically replace the mantle for your gas light, BTW what exactly is "gas lighting"?
Those Florescent bulb replacements were awful. Many contained mercury and are difficult to dispose of properly.
Those curlique florescent bulbs really sucked. I used a few of them back in the 90s/early 2000s then took the remainder back to the hazmat waste site.

Meanwhile, gaslighting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
Not to be confused with a cool TV show, Moonlighting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlighting_(TV_series)(unfortunately not available for streaming due to IP disputes)
 
We’re gonna come and get you! ;)

I was joking about the “damn Californians keep moving here” attitude that always gets expressed in these kinds of threads. I don’t plan to move anywhere. I like living where I do and have trouble envisioning myself anywhere else. I love the coasts, mountains, forests, deserts, valleys, hills, cities, and towns.

In recent years, I have not liked the fires and drought. But I don’t think moving to avoid that would be worthwhile yet, and I honestly don’t think there’s anywhere you can move to avoid disasters at this point.

The whole country (and world) is having more frequent fires, floods, droughts, hurricanes, extreme cold, extreme heat, etc., etc. In California, it‘s mostly drought and fire, but those nightmares are coming to other places too. That or other extreme weather disasters. In 20-30 years, the world is going to be unimaginable, either in terms of the extreme weather or the measures required to deal with it. The inconvenience of switching to LEDs or electric cars is going to be the least of our concerns. We are all going to wish we had done it 30 years ago.
It wasn't too hard to guess that you were speaking with tongue in cheek. Sadly it seems that we have a culture of loving a location to death, then moving on to the next location to "enjoy". I dearly love Yosemite, but to see the valley pounded to dust over the past 50 years of use is tough to stomach. We've a bit better off in Oregon, but the trend in the urban utopias isn't promising.
 
All 12 of the packages of LED bulbs in my cabinet say "Made in China". So this could also be considered a good example of a good idea gone partially wrong.
My packages of incandescent bulbs were also made in China.

I would definitely pay more for a bulb made here in the US. Since the bulbs last so long now, I'd pay a significant premium to support local manufacture.
 
Or have those same 100,000 stay in California and address the issues and outcomes they helped create.
There are a number of people who do this. Organizations exist with the aim of lowering housing costs through various means of curbing destructive market forces. Obviously no state is going to be entirely unified, with one group that seeks to make the problem worse for everybody for their own gain (a broad coalition of banks, house flippers, NIMBY organizations, developers seeking upscale projects, and foreign investors waging economic warfare) and another that is willing to make and expect manageable sacrifices for the betterment of their communities and the state at large.

But until the problem is alleviated and solved, you’re inevitably going to have a segment that goes elsewhere. People have needs and the immediate, ongoing need for affordable homes sometimes overwhelms their capacity for civic engagement.
 
Those curlique florescent bulbs really sucked. I used a few of them back in the 90s/early 2000s then took the remainder back to the hazmat waste site.

I did LCA (Life Cycle Analysis) years ago for a large multi-national corporation, and for the most part the mercury in florescent bulbs drum pounding was misplaced. Yes, mercury is bad for the environment and public health and the early florescent bulbs had excessive mercury content. The other side of the argument is the emissions of mercury caused by coal fired plants, even after the scrubbing required in the US. For the purpose of discussion let's limit the choices to incandescent and florescent bulbs (as it's pretty clear that LED bulbs are the better option, but weren't available at price and quantity at this time that made them viable in the consumer marketplace). The LCA assessment of lightbulbs indicated that the more mercury would be released into the environment during the power generation phase needed to run similar lumen incandescent bulbs than was contained in the florescent bulbs. The differential was extended even further by the collection and recycling efforts of florescent lamps and bulbs.

If you really want to see industry stupid involving mercury, one needs to only look at the primary battery industry. For decades they added mercury to their cell electrolytes, believing that it decreased anode gas formation at high discharge rates. The gas formation increased cell resistance which lead to thermal losses and lower effective capacity. Come to find out that adding mercury to the cells was tribal knowledge passed down for decades without being challenged. Then someone did the needed experiments and determined that mercury had no mitigation effect. So today you see cells marked with a statement "No Mercury Added".
 
Last edited:
But until the problem is alleviated and solved, you’re inevitably going to have a segment that goes elsewhere. People have needs and the immediate, ongoing need for affordable homes sometimes overwhelms their capacity for civic engagement.

What ideas do these organizations have to intervene in a basic market force supply demand imbalance?
 

I know better than to argue with cherry-picked and incomplete data.

I think we all know the world is changing, and it’s picking up speed. You don’t need data to know, just a living memory. I don’t consider myself all that old, but in my lifetime the weather has definitely changed. I don’t remember these kinds of fires when I was young. There were fires, and sometimes really big fires, but we didn’t have weeks of dangerous smoke. And we didn’t have huge disastrous fires year after year. And now we see huge fires in places we didn’t usually see them in the past.

It used to be we had 1,000-year floods on the order of every 1,000 years or so. So it was not likely to see one in your lifetime, let alone several in a decade.

There were always hurricanes, but not on the scale of the ones we see routinely now.

It’s getting strange, and it’s getting worse, and that’s what it is going to continue to do. Even people who didn’t believe it before and won’t admit it now know it’s true.
 
Cherry picked from the EPA...
Despite the apparent increases in tropical cyclone activity in recent years, shown in Figures 2 and 3, changes in observation methods over time make it difficult to know whether tropical storm activity has actually shown an increase over time.3
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity

Yes, absolutely correct — you did cherry pick that from the EPA.

Figures 2 and 3 do show a strong indication that the strength and intensity of tropical storm activity has increased in the past 30 years. And Figure 3 shows that the sea surface temperature has risen in that time, as predicted it would do.

All of this was predicted 30 years ago, and it has played out almost exactly as predicted, with stronger evidence every year. It’s now to the point where you don’t need the data to see it happening right before your eyes. Massive fires, floods, droughts, heat waves, extreme cold, storms. We are at the beginning of the time when it is affecting our lives in noticeable ways. Everyone knows it. And it is only the beginning. This is going to get worse for our entire lives and well beyond. And it won’t matter much where you live.
 
Yes, absolutely correct — you did cherry pick that from the EPA.

Figures 2 and 3 do show a strong indication that the strength and intensity of tropical storm activity has increased in the past 30 years. And Figure 3 shows that the sea surface temperature has risen in that time, as predicted it would do.

All of this was predicted 30 years ago, and it has played out almost exactly as predicted, with stronger evidence every year. It’s now to the point where you don’t need the data to see it happening right before your eyes. Massive fires, floods, droughts, heat waves, extreme cold, storms. We are at the beginning of the time when it is affecting our lives in noticeable ways. Everyone knows it. And it is only the beginning. This is going to get worse for our entire lives and well beyond. And it won’t matter much where you live.
This climate change hysteria is utter nonsense. Climate does change but we’re not causing it. There was an ice age 30,000 years ago and some believe that there may have only been 10,000 people on the planet at the time. Are we to believe there was a massive civilization before that that polluted the earth and caused global warming and then cooling? Or was it just natural solar cycles? I don’t buy into the gloom and doom. Do your part, try and conserve natural resources and don’t pollute. That’s the best we can do and embrace new tech when it makes a difference. Sitting out there worrying about the end of the world because you own a car and heat your home is just dumb.

And BTW,Thirsty, Ohio is a pretty great place to live. Don’t have much in the way or hurricanes or droughts. We also have the largest freshwater lake in the world on our north shore. No wildfires, no earthquakes, no tsunamis either! The world is a big place. You might consider seeing some of it before it ends in 30 years. :)
 
This climate change hysteria is utter nonsense. Climate does change but we’re not causing it. There was an ice age 30,000 years ago and some believe that there may have only been 10,000 people on the planet at the time. Are we to believe there was a massive civilization before that that polluted the earth and caused global warming and then cooling? Or was it just natural solar cycles? I don’t buy into the gloom and doom. Do your part, try and conserve natural resources and don’t pollute. That’s the best we can do and embrace new tech when it makes a difference. Sitting out there worrying about the end of the world because you own a car and heat your home is just dumb.

And BTW,Thirsty, Ohio is a pretty great place to live. Don’t have much in the way or hurricanes or droughts. We also have the largest freshwater lake in the world on our north shore. No wildfires, no earthquakes, no tsunamis either! The world is a big place. You might consider seeing some of it before it ends in 30 years. :)

Your kids and grandkids are going to love the world they inherit, and that huge freshwater lake is going to be super handy for putting out the inevitable fires! Such a wonderful world it will be.
 
Thank you for the well wishes Dr Strangelove! We will be fine. Until then, just remember: Purity of Essence!

Tell them how lucky they are! They will love it!

Tell them about the Ice Age. That will be a fun conversation.
 
This climate change hysteria is utter nonsense. Climate does change but we’re not causing it. There was an ice age 30,000 years ago and some believe that there may have only been 10,000 people on the planet at the time. Are we to believe there was a massive civilization before that that polluted the earth and caused global warming and then cooling? Or was it just natural solar cycles? I don’t buy into the gloom and doom. Do your part, try and conserve natural resources and don’t pollute. That’s the best we can do and embrace new tech when it makes a difference. Sitting out there worrying about the end of the world because you own a car and heat your home is just dumb.

And BTW,Thirsty, Ohio is a pretty great place to live. Don’t have much in the way or hurricanes or droughts. We also have the largest freshwater lake in the world on our north shore. No wildfires, no earthquakes, no tsunamis either! The world is a big place. You might consider seeing some of it before it ends in 30 years. :)
Your kids and grandkids are going to love the world they inherit, and that huge freshwater lake is going to be super handy for putting out the inevitable fires! Such a wonderful world it will be.
Snark aside….

The evidence pointing to human origin for the ongoing climate change phenomenon and its catastrophic effects is at this point sufficiently robust to call it overwhelming. It may not be obvious to somebody whose sample size is their immediate community or State, but the people whose jobs it is to collect, record, analyze, review, and publish climate data on a global scale have noticed disturbing trends since perhaps the early part of the 20th century. Natural records (ice cores, tree rings, etc.) suggest that the trend began much earlier, at the start of the industrial era.

The proposed mechanisms have been proven sound, the data collection improves with every new technology that comes online, and the models have improved continuously.

Regarding the things that can be done by an individual, research shows that this is inadequate. A report published about 5 years ago now (I’ll see if I can find it) concluded that 71% of global emissions come from the operations of just 100 large companies. US military operations produce the largest slice outside of that, which is actually the largest individual slice overall, and everybody else fits in the remainder. TL;DR Individual efforts will not reverse the process of catastrophic man made environmental destruction. Accomplishing that will require coordinated efforts from national authorities and cooperation on a global scale.

The question is, how much of that can come from incentives, and how much is going to have to come from somebody powerful refusing to allow polluters to continue destroying Earth’s biosphere?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top