The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[John Dyson]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

Sure, just like any business does.  Just like all politicians do.  I did use the word collectively, because there is this idea future generations won't forgive past generations.  I'd think that includes more than just execs and gov't officials.  

 

I think most people were going about their daily lives like anyone does and weren't thinking about screwing up the environment so they sure weren't thinking of I'll screw it up now, profit, and let the future take care the effects of that.  

 

So here is something I'd like to know, it is 1970.  The environmental movement which mostly was established in the 1960's was on lots of peoples minds, and politically could have a good effect.  So in broad outlines what could have been done differently so that we weren't in this rock and a hard place situation now with 10-30 years to make drastic changes.  You'll have the benefit of hindsight.  However I don't mean something ridiculous like, "suddenly in 1970 everyone would have seen how important being green was and would only have supported sustainable business or done without".  No that won't cut it. Because there was no chance that was going to happen.

 

Go ahead and dazzle me with how some of you would have fixed things starting then.  

 

There were of course some who knew about warming and sea level rise prior to 1970.  It wasn't generally linked to increased carbon emissions until the late 1950's though knowledge of carbon in the greenhouse effect was known long ago.  Lyndon Johnson was the first US president to mention sea level rise and the use of fossil fuels being linked.  So I think 1970 is a good starting point for how it could have been done differently and done better.  So I'd really like to see how the generations since WWII could have done far, far better. 

 

And once you've convinced me you could have done it right starting in 1970, you can outline viable ways to make it happen between now and 2050.  

 

Before reading all of this -- remember that the big thing here is POLITICAL POWER, where the energy issues(CO2, warming, etc) are secondary to the ACTUAL goals.  Of course, the 'peons' in the struggle believe in their goal -- that is GOOD.

 

If you remember -- the big thing in the past was GLOBAL COOLING...  Since the scientifically incompetent environmentalists (and the more competent scientists) have learned more, now the terminology is 'warming' or 'change' to avoid terminology  problems in the future.  Frankly, some of our extremists will try to figure out how to blame the sun for the biggest change in global temperatures, and outlaw the sun!!?!?!

 

Where are the growing CO2  problems coming from?  If the US/EU stopped ALL carbon output, the problem is not solved.

 

China would have to start fixing the problem NOW.  So far, the US is doing something (not so much blathering with silly treaties that aren't followed.)  Step by step from dirty Coal (like China & India) to less dirty natural gas (esp if we sell more of it to help others), then another step later on.  Flash cut isn't going to work.

 

A defective treaty that doesn't *really* cover China and India is simple nonsense.  That is the major motivation for the US not to tie itself down, but still decreasing CO2.

 

It is very reasonable and rational to state -- no matter if humanity stops producing any CO2, the global warming will continue.  There are numerous reasons, and the world will also start cooling soon (it is a cycle also.)  Too many variables, and too few/inaccurate models to understand REALLY what is going on.  Of course, there are those tryign to grab political power (the leaders of the environmentalists.)  Most likely they are just as power mad as the evil corrupt capitalists -- they are just too weak to expose themselves yet.

 

It is insane to assume that windmills can replace a quick start natural gas power plant, and I'd suspect that most people in the US won't tolerate losing most of their freedom.  Think about energy storage -- that is a major technology -- think also about exploding Lithium cells.  Do you know why they can explode? -- LOTS of energy storage.   There is the need for HUGE amounts of research...  Do we want our expensive research towards CO2 and other pollution reduction to be stolen by China?  That stuff is called IP.

 

The US/EU are doing lots of research towards CO2 goals, China is building more and more Coal plants.  Our money and resources MUST go where the good (or attempted good) is being done.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

10 hours ago, esldude said:

I started to mention the Koch Brothers, but figured it would lead to even more needless knee jerk reactions.  I think they are on the other side, and bad for the country as a whole.  And yes at least in my circle of acquaintances you would hear people complain about the Koch Brothers effect on politics.  

Any stupiditity, closed mindedness, true racism, corruption, and substantial lies are bad for the poltical system.   Minor lies and political garbage will always happen, but that isn't the problem.

 

The only reason why special interests get control is that people just don't know what/who they are really voting for.  We do have bad agents in our political system someone like Soros/Koch/etc, and liars who use 'parodies' because the transcript doesn't really say anything seriously bad,  people who claim that we can police a treaty when it was known that we could not, XXXcare when instead it is a poor catastrophic insurance policy -- NOT "care",  and numerous other substantial lies and liars -- they are BAD for the system (I mean, we had a relatively recent President waggle his personal parts at reporters -- Presidents have strong personalities.)   Someone who says that I have the 'orangest face' or the 'biggest thing to waggle' -- they aren't important things in politics.

 

We simply have too much lack of integrity -- I about cried and barfed (at the same time -- too sick for the stress, but I care about people and the USA)  when watching this sad comedy in the USA politics right now -- one side is clumsy, and the other side is an absolute liar - you pick your side, but the worst was the specific side that lies/condems activities in a transcript -- but nothing illegal is manifest in the transcript.  The integrity in our mainstream press is little better than the MQA advocacy -- mixing opinon & news, conflating both (people can easily believe opinon as fact.)    Neither side is good.  It makes me want to cry, but cannot do anything about it.

 

Dont get me wrong -- there is plenty of failed integrity to go around -- but when there isn't enough evidence and lies are being told to back accusations, that is the worst.  (Akin to claiming a person is a molester when they are not.)

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

On 5/28/2020 at 5:04 PM, sphinxsix said:

Some more good news from EU.

 

EU pledges coronavirus recovery plan will not harm climate goals

 

 

I must admit that IMO also making 10% of all the countries richer and thus further away from the so called '3rd' world may and probably will not work. Maybe what the coronavirus crises should have showed us is the fact that we live in a world that is so interconnected and so interdependent that thinking in terms of 'us' and 'them' simply may not work anymore 

 

 

The problem about 'us' and 'them' is that the standards are so varied.   Some cultures tend to create improvement without international regulation, and others will not improve, even when they have created fake-laudible goals.

 

We have much more immediate risk that the environment culture seems to totally ignore:  mismanagement of biological pollution.  All of the world just  get damaged by environmental/biological malfeasance, the results of such misbehavior appears to be getting worse.  The whole world just got damaged by either: filthy wet markets, or intentional husbanding of an insidious virus?  What kind of regulation is in place for this more terrible, immediate threat to humanity (and potentially many mammal species?)  What kind of international tribunal for the intentional repression of warnings to the rest of the world?

 

There is a much more immediate potential fatal (at least damaging) risk that appears to be ignored for political reasons and business greed.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

41 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

@John Dyson Sorry, I actually didn't answer your questions, I can only say that IMO also in this case we need an international, world wide cooperation, I'm not an expert on that topic (nor any other that is discussed here for that matter), I can only suggest checking out e.g. the first link from this post:

 

 

Looking at it realistically, we have had pandemics far in the past -- they are caused more by travel & ignorance instead of destruction.  Perhaps this time, we have purposeful malfeasance in the mix -- akin to, but with even more destructive intent to the pox infested blankets here in the early Americas.

Frankly, I see the current pandemic more a matter of biological warfare (the spread was entirely voluntary -- willfull 'ignorance'.)

In either case though, whether we are speaking about incedental environmental destruction, or intentional pandemic -- there needs to be standards, and egregious malfeasance/misbehavior should be amenable to a world court.

 

All too often, we see these laudible goals, but seldom met.  Likewise, when the goals are less formalized, then we have successful management...  What is the right solution to the problem (if real?)   The correct solution is to solve the problem, as methodology is less important than solving the real problem.

 

Unfortunately, we are headed for a cold cycle in world temperatures -- what is the correct management solution, when short term there might be a heating issue?

 

Likewise, we don't need 'yet another 5yr plan' or similar.   In history, there have been a lot of laudible goals, but talk is cheap.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

21 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

I very much doubt it.

 

I don't think so. At least not in the time perspective we should be really interested in right now.

 

Let me ask a different question - what if short term is all we have and possible consequences of 'incorrect management' could much worse than what's going on now around the world in connection with the pandemic.?

 

 

About the temperature rise -- yea, we still have some increases before the dip into another cold wave -- the temperatures are still rising a bit because of the plant's orbit, but decrease in sunspots have suppressed some of the rise.  We have very substantial aspects of the planet's orbit that we cannot control, and are in the midst of some orbit dependent increases.   Gotta separate the variables, to get a correlatiot.  (Sunspot variations, orbit variations -- there is even a multi 100k year cycle that really enlongates the orbit more-- can get really cold than just the ice age variations.)  And, yes, the pollution coming from countries who haven't even slowed down their CO2 increases, even MORE coal plants -- it is a real mess.   There are LOTS of variables and even more politics, before a good set of choices can be made.   Just willy nilly twisting the economy of country A, while country C keeps on polluting worse and worse -- gotta make the right decisions.

 

About the pandemic:

 

The pandemic could have been better controlled (like on the west coast), if we knew about the spread ahead of time.  We didnt' realize (because of a lack of transparency from the source country) that Europe had already been terribly infested.  The US only protected itself from direct China travel to some extent at first.

 

Social distancing is super effective, and the strongest social distancing is limiting travel.

 

China's intentional behavior and lack of willingness to gather info by the WHO (because of political ties to China) is what let the pandemic go totally haywire.  Now, it is fully inserted itself into human population.  If one suggests, oh well, it would have happened anyway -- please refer to Ebola.   Think about the China behavior, but instead the virus was Ebola...  Thank God the filthy wet markets (or screwed up research -- either one) didn't create something as bad as Ebola.  China took advantage of the situation.

 

The big tell about the PRC virus  control in China -- look at the huge amount of international travel to/from Wuhan (but travel not allowed to domestic China).  This is targeted germ warfare.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

27 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

@John Dyson I'm sure China can be blamed for some cover ups in particular during the initial stages of the pandemic. At the same time it can not eclipse the fact that in many countries (IMO also in the US) dealing with the disease was and in many cases still is very incompetent and political goals proved to be more important than people's health and lives.

I think I will stop here. 

 

The problem with the US is that the Federal government has so little power...  Each state interacts with the people.  Note the pushback in the states against even the Federal government protecting its own buildings in the violence afflicted areas.

Almost all interactions with the people directly are under state control.

The US is so inconsistent from one area to another, and with mostl of the authority about people/health/schools (except under insurrection) is in the states.

The best that the Federal government can do is to advise the states and support their needs with resources (note the super fast rampup of ventilators after all of the supplies in the country were not replenished in the past.)  The country was left naked, and has had to catch up realizing our stupid historical foreign policy.

Should a rancher area in the middle of no-where follow the same rules as NYC?  Nope.

The US is so heterogenious that a single rule doesn't fit all, along with the states having all of the authority -- and the extreme hatred and emotional dissolution in some cities -- ALL of the problems exist in the localities.  The US per-se has done what it can do, other than take over with full police powers (there are some laws that allow a take over, but that would be another can of worms.)

 

People who don't understand how the US works could certainly be confused, but the US is, in a way, 50+ countries or one country.  It is more like Britain with Wales, Scotland, and England than it is like England being split into 'shires.'.    Where Britain might be split into several 'countries', the US has 50+ (incl Puerto Rico/Washington), and the US counties have varied kinds rules when it comes to Federal vs State control/sovereignty.

The other problem is the political manipulation going on, the lack of proper control of borders, etc.  It was designed from the start that the federal government is relatively weak.  It is even weaker with the emotional problems in certain big cities and irrational/irresponsible local politicians.

It is time for the American people to get more serious about electing competent local leaders.   A city leader should be more competent than how they are acting nowadays.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

46 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

The cost of preventing further pandemics over the next decade by protecting wildlife and forests would equate to just 2% of the estimated financial damage caused by Covid-19, according to a new analysis.
Two new viruses a year had spilled from their wildlife hosts into humans over the last century, the researchers said, with the growing destruction of nature meaning the risk today is higher than ever. It was vital to crack down on the international wildlife trade and the razing of forests, they said.
The key programmes the scientists are calling for are: much better regulation of the wildlife trade, disease surveillance and control in wild and domestic animals, ending the wild meat trade in China, and cutting deforestation by 40% in key places. There was a clear link between deforestation and virus emergence, they said, with forest bats the likely reservoirs of the Ebola, Sars and Covid-19 viruses, and tropical forest edges a “major launchpad” for new viruses infecting humans.
“It’s naive to think of the Covid-19 pandemic as a once in a century event,” said Prof Andrew Dobson at Princeton University in the US, who led the analysis. “As with anything we’re doing to the environment, they’re coming faster and faster, just like climate change.”

 

Cost of preventing next pandemic 'equal to just 2% of Covid-19 economic damage'

 

                             

Deforestation or not, with the wet markets as they are, and the super fast travel to/from the wet-market areas -- the pandemic would likely have happened.  It is all about novel pathogens being introduced into the human population.  Many of the pathogens have existed a long time, and virus especially mutate all of the time.

 

I really do worry about those researchers with special funding interests doing an 'adjustment' to the problem so that they might increase the liklihood of new grants.   Too many interests appear to defocus the public attention by being too creative doing advocacy for their own selfish reasons.  (Altruism?  heh...)

 

Tp avoid the spread of the 'now-plague', hygiene and proper sanitation are most important.   'sanitation' includes all aspects (including restricing movements when appropriate.)  (Mask are part of that, along with travel restrictions when beneficia.)

 

Imagine if it was Ebola instead of COVID in Wuhan...   China was wise enough to practice some sanitation for their own people/economy (by local travel controls.) for the other areas of their own country, but didn't reasonbly quickly  disclose the information needed for other countries.

 

So, I see these results created by a lot of contributing causes.  Destructive political decisions, along with political advocacy taking advantage are certainly a contributing cause of part of the actual damage, along with the original sanitation and definitely irresponsible human encroachment into nature.  Perhaps most disgusting  are a lot of dirty players trying to take advantage, making the situation worse than it really needed to be.  Obviously, something bad was likely to happen, but there are some truly evil 'players'  out there.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

On 8/12/2020 at 11:40 AM, sphinxsix said:

Back  on topic.

 

In July 2020, Kiwibank announced a policy that rules out any future lending or investment in fossil fuels. This makes them the first bank in New Zealand to commit to being Fossil Free, and the first bank in the world that has committed to withhold banking services from coal, oil and gas companies – they won’t even take fossil fuel companies on as customers!

 

 

 

 

 

Without the recent investment done by the US, we wouldn't be using natural gas as often.  Also, without previous investment, we'd still be using coal and other such horrible sources of energy like some other countries are still probably increasing (e.g. coal.)

There is a balancing act on the investment thing, and there is a time for bridging.   Investing in more coal plants -- probably very bad, changing from coal to natural gas -- a good step.   Moving to oil from natural gas -- a bad thing.  Getting natural gas for free during pumping oil -- good thing.   Eventually, there will be less need for fossil fuels.

 

It is not an all or nothing thing, but there needs to be SOME movement, especially movement away from coal plants and burning refuse without proper measures.   Building new coal plants is probably a sin (but sometimes the entire circumstance isnt known by the rest of us.)

 

To me, it isn't a religion, nor should it be -- but it should be a change.

The thing that bothers me most are 'pledges' that are missed.   Best not to misinform or be misguided -- try to do things that are real.

Frankly, I don't like the idea of no electricity when there is no wind -- and perhaps storage might be the best place to invest.

Also,  would love to see more investment in studying Thorium -- but I am so far outside of my area of expertise, don't know if that is a dry well.

 

John

 

 

[John Dyson]

26 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

 

I don't think I'm religious.. I just post some links every now and then here because I think it's important.

One more thing, IMO it wouldn't necessarily be that bad if being engaged in the environmental field replaced some religions.

Especially for our children.

 

Religions aren't really the problem, but using them as weapons against other people -- political, economic, etc -- that is where misuse of religion or metaphysics becomes problematic.   Many of our current 'problems' are caused by twisting society movements and corrections into a'war' (class war, economic war, etc...)  of some kind.

 

Religions tend towards 'faith' and not 'intellect'.   We already have too many emotions going on out there!!!   There is a place for religion, but maybe not so much in an intellectual/physics realm.

 

Emotions even pop up when trying to stay in the intellectual realm.  Metaphysics and faith are really confusing factors -- aren't we already very confused?  Even our supposed 'intellectuals' often become overly emotional, sometimes becoming blind to facts.

 

We are truly irrational creatures, aren't we? :-).

I have no solutions -- just observations.   I don't participate anymore - it is a jungle out there.

Darn'it -- just fix the problem :-).

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

This whole CO2 thing is complex..   Some countries do regulation different than others.  Some countries succeed by different kinds of regulation...

 

I just recently started looking at the CO2 stats, and the information is *interesting.*   Even though the one of the major polluters (US)  hasn't been pushing international regulation, they have generally been in a montonically downward per-capita usage.  The closest country to compare with (a nearby neighbor) hasn't had a monotonic decrease.  A lot of EU countries have a wobbling per-capita, sometimes decreasing, sometimes increasing.   There are other countries who are effectively ballooning, and that is where the squeeky wheel is.  This shows me that talking/rhetoric about a problem is not the same as being effective at solving it.

 

As long as there is ongoing decrease -- not just dependent on economic variations -- then something is being done correctly.  Where there are increases -- there AT LEAST should be local tweaks to help push downward.   (For example, instead of new coal plants, go to natural gas.)   Where I live, I see windmills all over the place where the wind is 'right', and those nations going to that level of even frustratingly marginal benefit -- that is a good thing.  Some nations don't have the much of the right kind of interface between land and water -- but some places can do well by taking advantage of tides, some nations have easy access to geothermal.   IMO, almost any situation that is using new coal (legacy is less to be criticized, but needs to eventually change) is going backwards.

 

There are all kinds of things that go into needed energy usage, including lots of legacy industry and different sizes of the countries requiring more travel (less important recently because of COVID.)   Trending down is good -- any nation that maintains a monotonic trend downwards just needs encouragement.  Nations that bounce around need to better understand the problem, and work to solve it.   Nations that are simply grossly increasing need STRONG encouragement that they will notice.   Emerging nations actually have a real advantage -- because they can make the right choices NOW.   On the other hand, even with the cost of change, many of those already with infrastructure are working the issue, and those with downward numbers show that.

 

IMO -- just look at the recent numbers, work on the problem where usage & per-capita usage are going up, and make the changes (actual changes) that work well within the local culture and governmental scheme.   Edicts will never work and will not optimize the results.

 

There is always the pressure of economic forces -- if you work to save CO2, then someone else will do the 'easy thing' and simply generate more.   There CAN be some economic advantage to that -- perhaps some kind of tax on coal might be a good thing.  That will not destroy current coal industries, but will push back to find better forms of energy that are easy to manage the CO2.  (A general tax on CO2 won't fix the problem -- it will just generally raise the cost/overhead until technology has caught up -- still have some years before that scheme would be beneficial, but maybe not all that many decades.)

 

As you can tell -- my thinking is evolutionary but not revolutionary.   Revolution creats chaos and will definitely hurt the most vulnerable now.   There is a happy medium, and the best way to fix software bugs, or fix other bugs -- look at the data, see where the increases are.   (The static values are also important, but as long as there are decreases, there is progress being made.)   Doesn't take a lot of regression to totally undo all of the other peoples progress.

 

The  most efficient way to make progress on the problem, because of the resource and inability to focus globally, is to focus where the growth problem is.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

23 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Has the montonically downward per-capita usage in the US dropped to or below average EU wobbling per-capita usage levels?

 

How does it compare?

Per-capita is higher, but the US has lots of disadvantages, including old & original  infrastructure.  Progress is being made monotonically  though.

The nearby neighbor, with less industry does have similar per-capita.  The nearby neighbor has much stronger policies than the US, but not monotonic decrease.

 

I am NOT claiming that the US is some perfect use of CO2, but instead that political command regulation itself doesn't solve the problem.   The best way to do things is in an ORGANIC approach rather than command economy.

 

I am pretty sure that if the US took the command approach, many events would not have happend, and there would not have been a monotonic decrease.

 

So, I am not arguing virtue of pre-existing conditions.  I am arguing for the virtue of organic/semi-free market approaches instead of political, command decision approaches   This is especially true when there are political  'punishers' in this world, and those who take advantage of false-status (those strong economies, INCREASING pollution more than we all could decrease, increasing the use of coal, but still  claiming third world status.)

 

Command approaches create non-productive forcing functions, but a strong guidance with an 'organic' system doesnt' distort progress with strange driving functions.

 

Here is another example -- the US has massive natural gas that does NOT need development of new resources - it is the side effect of other energy product.  Instead, there are countries who are purchasing natural gas from political/strategic enemies who are developing new resources.   That 'command'/political decision instead of optimizing the problem at hand creates inefficiency and needless excess production.

 

Organic approaches, with decreasing CO2 production has allowed the US to be able to economically defend itself better from external entities who had effectively forced it to do things that are contrary to their interests.   The ultimate inefficiency is being twisted into external political/military conflictcs -- but the independence removes that distortion.  Basically, this has opened up more freedom to be free.

 

This is not at all about the virtue of any one country, it is about the virtue of organic instead of political command decisions.  In a larger scale sense, the old command economies are an extreme case of the command folly.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

On 9/30/2020 at 7:19 AM, semente said:

As with Covid, will the Capitalist West prove less efficient at tackling Climate Change than Socialist China?

 

Has the world started to take climate change fight seriously?

A surprise announcement at this year's UN General Assembly has transformed the politics of cutting carbon, says the BBC's chief environment correspondent, Justin Rowlatt. As the meeting of the so-called "global parliament" comes to an end, he asks whether it might just signal the beginning of a global rush to decarbonise.

 

You probably missed the most important announcement on tackling climate change in years.

It was made at the UN General Assembly.

It wasn't the big commitment to protect biodiversity or anything to do with the discussion about how to tackle the coronavirus pandemic - vitally important though these issues are.

No, the key moment came on Tuesday last week when the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, announced that China would cut emissions to net zero by 2060.

The commitment is a huge deal on its own, but I believe his promise marks something even more significant: China may have fired the starting gun on what will become a global race to eliminate fossil fuels.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54347878

 

 

 

 

Communist countries have a history of not meeting their goals.   Sometimes, in other cases, lofty goals distort progress also.

It isn't that I am claiming that there is anything wrong with Chinas goals -- but it would be a 'great leap forward' if they did.  Maybe multiple 5 yr plans might allow changing some directions in the meantime?  (I am using some coded language here.)

 

Are they still building new coal plants?

 

When the US quits making progress, then maybe some careful nudges might be in order.  Same for other countries.

Even a few bounces in the CO2 production aren't all that bad, as long as the trend is in the right direction.

 

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

43 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

Let's just hope the new POTUS will follow the best tradition of 'underpromising and overdelivering' as far as environmental and other issues are regarded.

 

Joe Biden could bring Paris climate goals 'within striking distance'

 

 

It is a frightening thing for regulation to ensue -- the US will probably start falling behind, instead of making generally monotonically good progress.    Perhaps the US has moderately big numbers to begin with, but massive growth by more 'Paris friendly' countries is not acceptable either.

[John Dyson]

9 hours ago, PYP said:

interesting story about billionaires donating to causes meant to reduce global warming:  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-16/creo-syndicate-is-the-secret-club-for-billionaires-who-care-about-climate-change?srnd=premium&sref=u0jApUg1

 

You might have also seen that Jeff Bezos has allocated nearly $800 million of what he says will be $10 billion to address global warming.  

 

In the US, if Biden can establish subsidies, which should be able to be done without legislation (that is, Congress), that will help move consumer choices toward sustainable sources of energy.  The current thinking is that subsidies are a better sell than a carbon "tax".

Mildly off topic, but background for my worry in the final paragraph:

 

The problem about the US is that our politicians confuse what is good for their personal benefit instead of what is good for the country.  I sure hope that the new president corrects his previous 'profiteering' as a senator.   Maybe, the light of day will keep the cockroaches (on both sides - not intended as a partisan comment) from continuing to misunderstand that policy that 'makes them feel good' isn't always what is best for the US.

 

Even the delay of the pipeline was for the benefit of a major political supporter (who owned the major railroad in the area), NOT anything good for the envrionment (trains pollute and drop their cargo also.)   There are too many confused goals, and too many politicians who feel that they need to personally/pure-politically benefit (or non-constitutionally related 'feeling good') instead of doing good things for America (and SECONDARILY the world.)

 

Sorry for seeming to be cynical, but I do happen to both care and I have recently seen too much unveiled US political corruption.  It makes me sad.

 

Back on topic -- we cannot trust that decisions made for international benefit will not be corrupt.   There have *historically* been many decisions made that do not benefit the American people (or the world), but do benefit the politician in some way.   Sometimes, that benefit might be financial, but it might also be a policy that is idealogical but *seriously* damages the people in the longer term.

 

So -- bottom line -- I don't want the US to make any promises until it I can trust the politicians -- alas, given historical performance the politicians will do something politically expedient, but damage the ALREADY damaged (from previous trust of a bad-government) US (and worlds' people.)   Academic idealogical decisions can be very damaging, like we have recently seen manifest.

 

John

 

 

[John Dyson]

 

I decided to kill my post, because even if my opinion is correct (which it is), the risk/benefit of providing the practical insight would not really help anything WRT audio.