Originally Posted by Pepe
I don't suppose he wants to run the risk of being a three-time loser, but (theoretically) could Mitt Romney come in late and gobble up all the other delegates as a UNITY candidate?
Theoretically he could, but it would be utterly barmy. I don't think anyone has ever tried gatecrashing the convention since Ted Kennedy tried it in, erm, at some point.
Talking of tertiary candidates, that Bloomberg piece on nymag.com is hilarious.
Bloomberg isn't going to run if Clinton's the Democratic nominee anyway. It's just the media getting bored with the current narrative of inevitability around the two leading candidates.
Penis size talk, the in only thing the republican debates were missing.
Big coal and big oil probably won't be any worse than big green from an economic point of view, but at least they won't be buying influence for a product that is actively harming the future of humanity, you know?
It's not so much that everything has to be solar - sustainable energy absolutely needs a mix of sources - more than the investment in making coal "clean" is so great and requires so much time and planning that it's basically more economically effective to just start on renewables now, especially after the price collapse in solar PV since that article was written. There's just no reason to keep investing capital in fossil fuel energy generation, even on an economic basis.
Also, the evidence shows that pricing carbon emissions is actually a really good way to get "the common folk" to prioritise conservation. So it just takes the political willpower to do it.
I haven't read Epstein's book, but the problem with most of the moral arguments for fossil fuel use, which tend to boil down to it being immoral and hypocritical for the industrialised world to deny the developing world access to the transformative nature of cheap energy, is that it lacks imagination for what could be, rather than just seeking to repeat what has been. Just because the West developed through fossil fuel use, doesn't mean the developed world has to. If they can jump straight to locally generated, low loss, high efficiency green energy it will likely be much more economically efficient and equally transformative as the centralised, fossil fuel driven energy generation model that the West followed. We don't expect them to build telegraph and then copper and then fibre telecommunications networks before they get access to mobile telephony; it seems silly to expect them to go through the energy development cycle rather than just jumping straight to best practice now. Of course, that will require continued research and cost reductions for renewable energy, but that's happening anyway.
I agree with that, except that to 'just start on renewables now' has already been done. The idea that the only reason we don't use renewables is cost is false, there are huge technological issues, the main one being intermittency of course. Until that one is solved (it won't) you'll need to have a backup. Better batteries would obviously help and while we will definitely get better batteries, there are physical limits as to how good they will be. So, until we get dramatic improvements in solar/wind generation and batteries (how long have all of those been reaearched? 70, 80 years?) we will need combustion-based power plants to serve as backup (could be biofuels tbf, but those bring other issues beyond cost on themselves.) Now, since you cannot just turn on power plant on a moments notice, those things will always have to be running. So we'll have to be burning something regardless, might as well work on ways to do it in a carbon neutral way.
I am all for a strong mix of sources and I really hope the use of renewables dramatically increases and that it does so quickly. I just don't think the issue is the research being underfunded and I think that research on methods for carbon neutral or carbon negative fossil-fuel based energy generation is a worthwhile investment.
Yup, I strongly support the pricing of carbon emissions.
I agree that just because that's the way it happened before, doesn't mean that's the way they have to follow. But right now it is the only way. If they could 'jump straight to locally generated, low loss, high efficiency green energy' they should. But such thing does not exist. Should they wait until such thing exists to think of progress? Should they rather limited resources go to renewable energy research instead of going to getting electricity to their people?
That's all nice, but what is best practice now? To suggest that the use of renewables is 'much more economically efficient and equally transformative' today would be wrong. Might be some day, but what should they do until it is? Keep starving to death? As you say, research is already on its way and once 'green energy' is cheap and reliable and safe and all the fantastic things it will be you can be certain that the developing world will embrace it rather than wait fifty years just to follow our same path. But to go to climate summits and ask developing countries to pledge to curb their CO2 emissions while we've been living it large for centuries is just fucked up. What 'the West' should do is lead the way and once we figure this shit out they will quickly follow. Until then, I say we let them burn away (which they could do in a carbon neutral way if we invested some in that.)
The one advantage of fossil fuels is that they, essentially, can be turned on and off at a moment's notice (not literally, but in the context of how energy generation and transmission actually works). That's the whole idea of peaking generation, and it's how energy trading systems actually work in real life - the more expensive power comes into the grid when necessary as the market demands, while essentially "free" power (in a marginal cost context) like solar and wind acts as baseload. Utilities don't like running their grids that way because it means they don't make as much money, but it's not a technical problem, it's one that comes back to profit. Hydro, geothermal and biomass can also fill that role, but long term it will be filled by battery technology. Again, we're not talking 70 or 80 years - we're talking next decade. The investments made in battery technology in the last 5 years will be game changers once they hit commercial scale. Put it this way - Telsa are commercially viable now and they're using (highly refined) 25 year old tech. The technologies that are hitting commercialisation now are already better than that, they just don't have scale yet.
Best practice now is localised solar except in high density or high use communities (ie. cities and industry). You can build solar for much, much cheaper than you can build centralised fossil fuel generation and a huge distribution network, especially in poorer communities where daylight electricity is vastly, vastly more important than 24 hour electricity.
We're not talking about a 50 year time scale for renewable energy. Solar PV is cost competitive *now*. So is greenfield wind, waste biomass, geothermal and hydro, albeit that you need the right environmental/fuel conditions. The only thing that's stopping clean energy from being dominant is storage for consistency, but that's almost entirely a concern that only affects developed countries - rolling out clean intermittent energy in the developing world for a similar or lower cost to fossil fuel is an absolute quality of life game changer, and then building the storage for consistency of supply when battery technology is ready in a decade gets them to the same point we are at now, cheaper and much faster. It's a far better option than going to the large cost of building obsolete fossil fuel generation and tying that to an inefficient distribution network, even ignoring the environmental damage of that option. Building all those plants and a big distribution network will probably actually be slower than just going straight to localised generation.
And I'm sorry, but the science and economics for "carbon neutral" fossil fuel just doesn't stack up. The cost of building it into new power generation absolutely destroys the one advantage of fossil fuels - they're supposed to be cheap. Even if the infrastructure could exist in developing countries to handle immense quantities of concentrated carbon waste, which it doesn't and never will, the cost of doing it would make fossil fuels uncompetitive even for a high density centralised distribution model of energy.
I would call it more ramp it up and down, but sure. Doesn't change the fact that you'll need to burn them as a 'backup' unless:
Hydro is a great thing, if you were lucky enough to have the proper terrain nearby (we use it extensively in Mexico.) Guess the same could be said about geothermal. Biomass is fine if you have plenty of wood waste lying around, otherwise you're just replacing a high energy density fuel for a low density one. As for batteries:
I really, really hope you're right and the people that sit next to me everyday who do battery materials research are wrong, because the stuff they're working on, which two of the three top materials manufacturers in the world have come to check out in the past few years, is an improvement but hardly a 'game changer.' Still, I hope it takes ten years (heck, lets make it two) but even when the technology is there, the scale needed will prove to be an absolute nightmare and I have a hard time believing things will move particularly quickly, although I certainly hope they do.
Notice that I never mention cost. If there was a better way I would fully support it even if it costs more (nuclear anyone?) I agree with you with the localized solar, and I hope it becomes common practice both in the developing and developed world, but progress without industrialization is not that much progress. You seem to have a lot of faith than in ten years we will be able to store massive amounts of energy in batteries, and that we will be able to charge them and recharge them at extremely fast rates. I hope you're right but I am not as hopeful because thermodynamics are a bitch. We've been 'ten years away' for about forty years now.
You're right about the economics of CCS. It will bring the cost up. That's a good thing. Eventually when/if renewables turn into a viable alternative (only ten years to go!) then there will be no reason not to move towards them. To suggest that the one advantage of fossil fuels is cost though, that is just scientific ignorance.
Look, I am not some sort of global warming denialist or a 'big oil' shill. I really want us to minimize our fossil fuel energy consumption and I even think cost should be damned, we should do it even if it is more expensive. All I want is for there to be an in-between solution so that we're not pumping up all that CO2 in the time (10 years!) it takes for us to fully embrace alternatives. I would like for current fossil fuel plants to have very stringent CO2 emission requirements, which they'll only be able to meet updating their rather antiquated technology and adopting new methods, CCS being one. Will that make energy expensive? Sure, but I'm cool with that. Will only promote conservation and make the transition easier/faster. If in the end we can go full renewable then that would be great, but I believe fossil fuels will still be part of our energy generation for a very long time (and that is ok,) so might as well use them in a 'cleaner' way.
As for what the developing world should or shouldn't do, I say let them do as they please. If it is true that wind/solar is as cheap/cheaper today then I don't know what we worry about.
Trump looks set to lose tonight's slate of states, albeit to the probably even worse Ted Cruz. Will that make any difference?
Only if it encourages Kasich or Rubio to drop out, which it won't.
Rubio's fall from grace.
Rubio's done in terms of delegates, he's 250 behind Trump. Realistically the only one who can catch Trump for the nomination outright is Cruz. Ironically, the prospect of a brokered convention is what's keeping Kasich and Rubio in it, but it's because they're still in it that Trump's winning so much and a brokered convention would even be necessary in the first place.
Rubio needs to hang in and keep winning what he can, particularly in proportional states. If he lets Cruz and Trump split it, there's no chance of a brokered convention. Given that he's the establishment darling, it's what he has to be aiming for.
Kasich will rise and fall on Ohio. Would be amazing if he stayed in all the way to a brokered convention though.
This is an interesting take on it: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...ald_trump.html
I was minding my own business watching the golf - Sky's own coverage no less, not borrowed from America - and who should rock up and start spouting off next to the 'Sky cart' in a MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN hat.
He also sounds very shrewd about golf, which is a bit of a shame.
From what I understand, that's his game plan. Win Ohio and then work on being everyone's second choice and being someone who could oppose Clinton without having too many weaknesses that she can take advantage of.
Interestingly I've also read that Clinton is scared of facing Trump, and with good reason. Whether or not it's true (and let it not be said that Trump supporters have ever let truth get in the way) Trump gives off the impression of being a winner. In addition, how do you combat someone who has no establishment ties and basically doesn't know what he's going to say on a day to day basis?
To be fair to Clinton, she does have the 'credentials' to be President - she's a two-term senator (granted she resigned during the second term) and Secretary of State. You're not doing much better than that outside governorship of one of the 'big' states (e.g. California).
You question how much the e-mail scandal might harm her, particularly given the continued threat of indictment which the Republicans will, no doubt, continue to raise to try damaging her credibility.
Nobody really has the credentials to run a country. Governors, senators... What do they know that qualifies them to be Commander-in-Chief? Four years as the crappest Secretary of State in recent history isn't worth anything.
'Well he's an actor really, but he's run California for eight years, so...'
Well, it's as good as you're going to get unless you're a Grover Cleveland or Teddy Roosevelt trying to win an additional, non-concurrent term.
I think it's all irrelevant. I suppose if you know your way around Washington it could help you get things done, but nobody can ever really know what they're doing at that level, so the best you can hope for is that they know what they don't know, surround themselves with the right people, and act with some sort of self-awareness.
Well, if you have experience in the legislative branch you'll have a solid understanding of what the current 'feeling' is on certain topics in the Senate, who the key players are on specific bills or issues, what the drivers are for decisions in the various committees and the best way to achieve the things you actually care about. It would also, no doubt, be important for assessing likelihood of your appointments being confirmed.
Similarly, if she has been Secretary of State (shit or not) she'll at least have some understanding of current foreign policy, who decides what, how the Pentagon interacts with the White House, with the Cabinet, how the CIA etc. link in and so on and so on.
Plus she'll have plenty of contacts and understand the personalities involved when she needs to bring people into the fold to get things done.
You can denigrate it all you want, but it's clearly as good a grounding as you're going to get. Plus as First Lady she's probably get some idea of how the White House works beyond watching the West Wing.
Donald Trump knows how to make deals, and he knows how political processes work (he openly admits to have lobbied politicians). You can't buy that sort of experience.
Trump v Clinton is going to be a right laugh, particularly when the feminist vote inevitably derides anyone voting for Trump as 'misogynists' and 'haters of women'.
If he calls Bill Clinton 'one of the great women abusers of all time' in the debate (like he did in January) it will be the greatest moment in American politics since the Truman Doctrine went live.
Trump's as short as 9/4 now.
I'd say there are a lot of parallels between Trump and Leicester City.
Bernie won Maine, which is good. The debate tonight has been pretty good as well.
I think that was the best debate so far. Stark contrast from last Thursday's lolfest.
What do we think of this?:
http://www.thenation.com/article/dem...f-400-billion/
It's better than Activision over spending on Candy Crush using offshore cash instead of just keeping it there I guess.
Why not just remove the 'loophole'? Tax Apple on the profits they make everywhe... What? They've moved to Holland?
Good riddance.
Alright, getting all ethical on your keyboard soaked in Palestinian blood.
I have a free trade keyboard made of locally sourced redwood mate.
To be fair this is exactly what they do to their citizens. An American in the UK has to pay income tax to the UK and the U.S.
How the fuck does Washington work, exactly? That article mentions 1,500 lobbyists. Where the hell do they put them all?
I know (phonics), and it's mental.
Not so much according to my experience living in London in the early 2000's. I did not have to pay US taxes at all if I made less than $75,000 at the time. You only had to pay taxes on the income over that amount. May have changed. But I agree, companies should only have to pay taxes where they make the profits, who cares where the head office is.
Except that a big chunk of that profit is made in the US, and much of the profit made elsewhere is not paid in those countries either (wasn't the UK chimping out about Starbucks recently?)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/bu...anted=all&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/bu...omy/25tax.htmlApple’s domestic tax bill has piqued particular curiosity among corporate tax experts because although the company is based in the United States, its profits — on paper, at least — are largely foreign. While Apple contracts out much of the manufacturing and assembly of its products to other companies overseas, the majority of Apple’s executives, product designers, marketers, employees, research and development, and retail stores are in the United States. Tax experts say it is therefore reasonable to expect that most of Apple’s profits would be American as well. The nation’s tax code is based on the concept that a company “earns” income where value is created, rather than where products are sold.
However, Apple’s accountants have found legal ways to allocate about 70 percent of its profits overseas, where tax rates are often much lower, according to corporate filings.
General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.
The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.
Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.
I'm not saying it is not shit. It is, but what happens when they then just incorporate offshore? Unless every country plays along they will still find a way. I'd prefer losing most of Apple's tax revenue than losing Sillicon Valley to Ireland. The jobs matter more to me than the revenue. It is better to live in the Bay Area where most big companies avoid taxes than Toadsuck Arkansas where every company can't.
The jobs wouldn't go anywhere. As you say, it is nicer to live in San Francisco, so the idea that they would just grab their stuff and move elsewhere is nothing but an empty threat. But of course that's what they'll have you believe, the tax cuts are for the good of the people! We'll create jobs!
If they do move to Ireland then I would be happy for Boydy and his newfound wealth.
I'm not sure what the rates are but as someone who knew many people educated in the U.S. and then coming over to here (Switzerland) and hitting these caps and struggling to pay their student fees + rent + living. It's absolutely mental.
To the point where I knew people who would barely jaywalk for fear of being caught by the police who were sending 9990 CHF home (to pay student loans and stuff)at a time as that wouldn't get flagged by the companies looking for that sort of tax fraud.
Obviously, they are not moving overnight. They will eventually incorporate and put up a token office. Slowly some jobs will go. You likely still won't get much more revenue over time because too many other countries will offer a better deal. Even if you do, it really is not enough money to care about. 5 billion in profit sounds like a lot but compare it to the national debt. I get and concede your point but it just seems like too much work for too little gain. The value of the companies is in the jobs not the taxes.
I work in VC / private equity and you will never hear the inane job creation line from me. None of us create jobs because none of us run non-profits. Paying consumers create every single job so I'd rather spend time and capital on income inequality.
Phonics, my clearly poorly expressed point was meant to be that it is a stupid practice. We should not do it for either. People will get screwed and companies will just find another way to avoid it.
And as you can see above I think it would be perfectly fine if those companies were paying the correct tax for either the US or whichever country it establishes as a home base (I don't like offshore companies bought for relocating or tax avoidance) but it seems they claim the U.S. as a shareholder base for maximum stock return while not paying tax in the UK/France/Germany etc. because they're based in the U.S. meanwhile it all ends up as 'offshore cash'. Meanwhile everyday U.S. citizens have hundreds of millions (at least) of dollars spent on chasing them down to find that they have a hundred thou in a Swiss bank.
Do it the same for citizens as you do corporations if Citizens United is fair game.
Bernie's won Michigan, where Nate Silver had him with a less than 1% chance of winning and down by 21% in the polls. Another guy on FiveThirtyEight called it "one of the greatest shockers in presidential primary history."
Fuck yeah. It'll still be pretty difficult to catch up with the delegates but it means that the race isn't over like people thought it was a week ago.
Sanders still won less delegates than Clinton on the night, amusingly.
But if he keeps outperforming his polls by that sort of margin, it's definitely game on.
Reply With Quote
