Reagan was the worst thing to happen to conservatism. Nixon was dope as shit and Reagan fucked it all up.

and god appointed the condensation to rain his dew drops of wisdom on a parched world :(

Dude, you spend way more time here spouting your life stories than I do.

"It's funny because the people RESPONSIBLE for global warming and the such ARE the big cities."

VERY mixed research assessments on this as far as I can tell. See e.g. the below:

http://www.livescience.com/13772-city-slicker-country-bumpkin-smaller-carbon-footprint.html
http://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/suburban-sprawl-cancels-carbon-footprint-savings-of-dense-urban-cores/
http://www.zdnet.com/article/un-cities-contribute-70-percent-of-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/23/city-dwellers-smaller-carbon-footprints
https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/the-comparatively-green-urban-jungle/

www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/3/8/1234/pdf

condensation dude you have no life story.

@lethologica

I don't care about where the gases are coming from, I care about who is demanding the energy the gases are a byproduct of.

Energy costs: predominantly urban

Rather, non-rural

Brad: brags about how old and mature he is

spends hours arguing with people he calls children

the absolute madman

@lethologica

That last link is VERY interesting, high income consuming LOTS of energy... Makes sense too, but the super high income usually are business owners, which rely off of concentrated urban masses for business or consumer goods, factories for production as well

Most analyses of carbon footprints do not naively say "the emissions were produced in this place ergo this place is responsible for emissions," Yanik. They're, y'know, consumption-based?

the absolute madman ...
i never claimed sanity. and this is my current obsession. eventually i will tire of it and move on to something else. and condensation will continue to fantasize in his parents basement dreaming of phantom wealth and internet fame

@CAPT_Brad: "In this present crisis..."
There wasn't a present crisis until Trump took office. He's creating the crisis.

This actually proves the flaws of communism. People are selfish by nature and will abuse what is given to them. That is why you can't have commons, which are communistic by nature.

http://www.nardep.info/uploads/Brief17_RuralEnergyConservation.pdf
http://urban.ias.unu.edu/index.php/cities-and-climate-change/

Yes, but they separated urban, semi-urban and metropolitan. for the sake of argument, I am going to put these in the class of "non-rural"

the one advantage the non-rurals have are public transportation, which isn't even all cities. London is a stellar example of city starting to transition, but unfortunately this doesn't seem to be catching on everywhere else.

More importantly, the waste is still coming from non-rural households. rural households are "30% larger but use only 10% more energy." the efficiency is in the rural setting, and also 90% are in an urban area, so the vast majority are responsible for the major inefficiencies.

@Lethologica

that one was for you, I'm sorry you had to scroll past leon's ravings to see my response

More efficient per square foot is not more efficient per person. That's just efficiency rebound. As there is only 1% more people per household and 10% more energy used per household, according to the source you cite, it's at the least unclear whether rural areas are actually more efficient.

Also worth noting: according to that source, rural homes use 50% more electricity, which kind of ruins your claim about urban homes having 'the most massive electricity costs'.

Meanwhile, since we're acknowledging that the impacts of utility-scale renewables on birds and bats is a problem that people have to work on (and are working on), it should at least be noted that fossil fuels aren't exactly great for the local wildlife either.

But of course you make your intentions clear--this is all just an excuse to indulge your hate-on for urban life. Pardon me if I don't want to help you pump it.

@Lethologica

Don't misquote me

I never said "urban homes having 'the most massive electricity costs'."

I said

"It's funny because the people RESPONSIBLE for global warming and the such ARE the big cities. They have the most massive electricity costs,"

big cities DO. If you're talking about energy consumption and who is the one controlling it, corporations in big cities. Urban housing does make up some of it, but industrial areas (which can be rural or urban, but that has nothing to do with rural housing) make up massive amounts of it too! PLUS you're not taking into account cities that have Factories OVERSEAS which produce CO2.

Apply that same argument to the rural area, and i don't see many fortune 500 companies set up in some small town.

"Meanwhile, since we're acknowledging that the impacts of utility-scale renewables on birds and bats is a problem that people have to work on (and are working on), it should at least be noted that fossil fuels aren't exactly great for the local wildlife either."

well of course not, they've kill millions of HUMANS in pollution alone. I'm not some big oil guy.

"But of course you make your intentions clear--this is all just an excuse to indulge your hate-on for urban life. Pardon me if I don't want to help you pump it."

i don't like urban life, that's a personal preference. When I say Urban Life can be BAD, i mean it. If a city develops because a community has radical technological development and a thriving city economy can unfold, i'm fine with that. London is one such example coming off of WWII, and it is a city that I actually would enjoy living in.

But cities that only develop because of pure consumption of non-renewable goods? We've seen what happened to boom towns centuries back, but these cities become the framework for our economy. These generally turn out to be high crime high pollution, or at least in SOME of the city.

If you're someone who likes cities, the suburbs, or the country, that's all fine. It's when you've created a consumerist glut on our economy and then demand federal subsidies and healthcare for the massive poverty rates to fix up the shambles, i like it less.

still, #notallcities i'll concede that to you

@lethologica

on my previous post

"Urban housing does make up some of it, but industrial areas (which can be rural or urban, but that has nothing to do with rural housing) make up massive amounts of it too!"

i should have added a stipulation that the industrial areas whether they're urban or rural generally are controlled by large corporations, generally in cities.

Nonetheless, the amount of production they send overseas for creating products/capital and carbon emissions is also massive

I did misread, my mistake.

I don't disagree that a lot of business and industry is in some way ultimately urban, but at that point your advocacy against having cities risks a baby-bathwater issue.

People are not all selfish. But selfish people think everyone else is selfish, so hard for them to understand that there are many who are not.

absolutely fair

my rant was VERY over the top i apologize on that account

"Literally everything you need to know about why your economic theory is bunk."

Actually, the Tragedy of the Commons is a fantastic argument for privatizing everything, and against socialism.

Resources are well husbanded by people or organizations who own them and have a stake in their continued productivity. You may want to read Mises' "Human Action" (for starters) before you make smug and childish comments like this that make you look stupid.

There exist commons for which the entire planet has a "stake in their continued productivity". Hence why we cannot privatize them. I am not against corporations.

Classic conservatives not interpreting opposing arguments charitably.

Don't worry, Trump will fix it, so stop talking you commy pigs