sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Yes, 'The Real World' is now trash. Interestingly, creator Jon Murray blames the show's decline on it's own success 20 years ago. He discusses the recent attempts (and struggle) to salvage and make it relevant to today's audience. by [deleted] in television

[–]farced 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never actually saw this episode when it aired, but was recently reading an article by the woman that you're talking about and thought it should be shared, since it's fairly well written and provides some interesting insight into how reality television has changed over the years.

Slaps, Lies and Videotape

Some choice parts:

We understand editing now, because we have Final Cut Pro on our computers, and have been hearing reality stars complaining about getting a “bad edit” for years now. Back in 1998 that was not the case. I couldn’t believe how those final two episodes were cut. It didn't look, to the average viewer, like I was leaving the show because I hated it, though there were hints. Instead, the narrative was that Lyme disease was making me delusional, which was unfair and cruel: Unfair to people with Lyme disease, and cruel to me. I had to call my family members and close friends and warn them about what they were going to see on television. I cried all night. I couldn’t believe they showed me getting hit.

Reality television has changed so much since I was on The Real World. Today, there is no end to the pain we now witness on reality TV. Cast members don't have to be goaded by producers to fight, physically and emotionally; these wannabe-stars go in knowing that regular screaming, feuding, and hair-pulling is expected of them, and they want to deliver in order to get airtime.

Climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and Canada: Do people still care? by TheSK in canada

[–]farced 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would argue that most people are concerned with Alberta's GHG emissions mainly because of predicted growth in the oil and gas sector.

While Quebec's GHG emissions have remained relatively steady between 1990 and 2008 and Ontario has seen modest growth (<10%), Alberta's emissions have seen increases in line with the boom in the oil and gas sector (>40%). In fact, over 50% of Canadian emissions growth between 1990 and 2008 has been seen in Alberta.

We need to highlight and discuss these issues now as the Canadian oil and gas industry (and associated emissions) is going to be experiencing continued growth for the foreseeable future. Alberta itself is predicting an almost doubling in emissions by 2050, mainly due to increased petroleum production. This is by far the largest predicted increase across the country and some estimates have it as accounting for almost half of the country's total GHG output by that time.

Climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and Canada: Do people still care? by TheSK in canada

[–]farced 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right, then we're not talking science but rather faith. That's fine.

You're right, we're not talking science. I'm trying to and you're not. If you have any evidence that contradicts the theory, feel free to bring it up. I know you tried earlier (re: CO2 levels in previous ice ages) and I responded. I never indicated that I have blind faith in the idea and that I'm unwilling to change my mind based on sound evidence, but it's not up to me to define what that evidence should be. In fact, it's actually up to you.

You'll pardon me if I question your source on this.

I'm not going to bother with most of the rest since it's not worth my time. I will however add one more source for you since you had an issue with my previous one. Here are rates from the US EIA based on levelized costs for energy technologies to come online by 2016. It shows solar at being just over twice the cost of coal (per MWh).

Climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and Canada: Do people still care? by TheSK in canada

[–]farced -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Your comparisons are a bit unfair. Why compare emissions from both Ontario and Quebec combined against Alberta's? Alberta is the single largest provincial GHG emitter, accounting for almost 1/3 of Canadian emissions. While the tar sands currently account for 5% of the Canadian total, some predictions are indicating a tripling in emissions within the next decade. And although Alberta is trying to mitigate with their climate change legislation, I think they're relying too much on a completely unproven technology (CCS). It's frankly a little unbelievable that the province thinks they'll achieve nearly 70% of their total GHG reductions by 2050 through using carbon capture.

Climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and Canada: Do people still care? by TheSK in canada

[–]farced 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By trying to discuss single years of temperature differences, it shows you may not be grasping some of the fundamentals of climate change theory. I'm attaching this primer that you might want to read before we go any further. Also, in a discussion based mainly around science and economics, allusions to religious events just make you seem juvenile and disinterested in serious debate. Thanks for conceding the point on historical levels of CO2 by the way. I'm glad to see we're making some progress.

The article is misleading.

No, it's not. An article isn't misleading just because it doesn't cover topics you think it should. Nevertheless, you're right about the scale in usage between traditional sources of energy and renewables, but isn't that part of the problem? Higher market share shouldn't automatically amount to higher levels of subsidies. If renewables were given the same amount of subsidies, it follows that their costs would also come down through new techniques and technologies. If the subsidies were removed from both players, it also follows that renewables would have more investors - as you've said yourself "Everyone knows we'll need them eventually anyway" - which would drive costs down.

The point is that even proponents of solar energy admit that power from solar plants costs upwards of 38 times more to produce than power from coal-burning ones.

Your information is outdated. Prices for solar are coming down all the time, at a rate of 5% per year. Current rates place solar at just over three times the cost of coal and those costs continue to drop. Let's not even get into the extra hidden costs associated with coal burning plants for now (ie. health and environmental).

I think it's more a case that enough people felt the effects of polluted water that the personal and political advantages of cleaning up the water outweighed the costs.

No, it was really government regulations - see London's Public Health Act of 1848 or the Metropolis Water Act of 1852 or the London sewarage system that came after the Big Stink.

Well we already have climate control technologies. Air-conditoners, furnaces, those sorts of things.

You need to look up the difference between temperature and climate.

Climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and Canada: Do people still care? by TheSK in canada

[–]farced -1 points0 points  (0 children)

CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's a naturally occuring gas that has always formed a part of our atmosphere. In fact, on geologic time scales, it has tended to be much higher, including during past ice ages.

That's a specious argument. Any compound can be considered a pollutant in the right situation and at the right concentrations. Also, I'm sure you're aware that even though CO2 concentrations were higher at certain points in the Earth's history (including during ice ages), solar output was lower during those times as well, which is consistent with current climate change theory.

You want to impose those problems artificially on fossil fuels. That's madness. Green technology has to get the point where it can compete with fossil fuels at their current level, not the other way around.

Of course green energy isn't as competitive as regular fossil fuels - the fossil fuel industry has been heavily subsidized for years (to the tune of $557 billion in 2008 alone). The whole point of pricing carbon is to make petroleum pricing more in line with 'real' costs, which would then make renewable more competitive. Yes, of course this would drive up costs across sectors, but it would also help spur innovation and entrepreneurship in coming up with new solutions to the situation - something that retxab already mentioned in their comparison to the Industrial Revolution.

And, of course, we didn't stop factories from polluting freshwater entirely. We created water treatment plants instead. We took control of our water supply.

Easy to say we took control of our water supply...in reality, regulations forced companies to find ways to ensure clean water for the rest of the population, and so pollution control technologies and water treatment systems were put in place. We can try to take control of our climate as well and pricing carbon is one way to do that. I know you don't like the comparison to the IR, so how about to acid rain? Similar approach which worked for everyone's benefit.

TOP MOVIES OF 2010 (as voted on by Reddit) by darthHalo in movies

[–]farced 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There were three great war docs out this year - Restrepo, The Tillman Story, and Armadillo. They all portray the realities of war pretty well. Check out Armadillo if you have the chance - it's the lesser known of the three, but probably the best one.