Jump to content

ruraljuror

Members+
  • Content Count

    522
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

ruraljuror last won the day on September 15 2014

ruraljuror had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1287 Excellent

About ruraljuror

  • Rank
    Hamlet

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Nashville

Recent Profile Visitors

3791 profile views
  1. I haven't heard of the Azolla Event. Before diving in, I'm curious how you think the data sufficiency and breadth/quality of the research surrounding this Azolla event compares to the data sufficiency and breadth/quality of research on anthropogenic climate change. You know, just to make sure that you're applying the same scrutiny so we can talk apples to apples here. Can you give me an example of what living under an authoritarian green regime looks like? As I'm sure you're aware, there are a lot of authoritarian regimes already in power in the world as well as a lot of authorita
  2. This is a true statement, but it completely ignores the scale of the impact that humans have had on the environment. Has there ever been another species on the planet that has had 5% as much of an impact on the chemical composition of the atmosphere as humanity? Correct me if I'm wrong of course, but it seems to me like your argument here is pretty hollow. Yes, there would be a negative feedback loop and I am totally comfortable framing humanity as a part of the environment that is living in it and changing it. No complaint here except that it completely ignores what I said in
  3. These arguments about Venus and the composition of the Earth's atmosphere 50mm-400mm years ago would make sense if the goal of reducing CO2 emissions were simply to preserve life on earth in general, but I hope it's clear that the goal is to preserve human life. Even more specifically the goal is to minimize the human death and suffering that will inevitably result from climate migrations, food shortages, adverse weather events, economic contraction, and other negative consequences that will make the world less habitable for human life as we know it. Life on Earth will almost certainly s
  4. If there are no safe harbor regulatory thresholds, then how can I drive a non-electric car or cook on an outdoor grill without emitting pollutants that I could potentially be held legally liable for? Given the joint and several nature of the liability as you've defined it, and given the evidentiary standard you've defined which requires only that you prove that I indeed did emit such pollutants and that those pollutants did affect the property of others, am I then potentially liable for damages caused by pollution anywhere in the US if not anywhere around the globe just by cooking some burgers
  5. Ann Patchett is what makes Parnassus special.
  6. What you've described sounds pretty much exactly how common civil law has developed, except you're choosing to codify norms and promote consistency/predictability via insurance policy terms instead of through legislation. I'm not sure what exactly that accomplishes besides introducing a new middle man into the mix who can sell a bunch of new insurance policies. Can you give an example that shows a situation in which current law would lead to a worse/unjust result, while the system you describe would lead to a better, more just outcome? Those crazy tin foil hat people are currently free
  7. Just getting back to this. First, I want to note that I really respect your environmental concern and passion on this issue. Very admirable. That said, a good bit of what you're saying here doesn't add up for me in terms of practical application. Maybe you can fill in some of the gaps. Based on your parenthetical there, it seems like you're aware that under current law that nobody actually owns the river - people who own property adjacent to rivers just own the banks but not the water itself, which is why it's illegal to damn them up or divert all the water thereby preventing
  8. You might be right, but Oracle didn't close on the land purchase until the beginning of June, so being tight-lipped for 2 and a half years before the deal was finalized is pretty irrelevant. Most companies don't make any formal announcements until deals are closed, so that's to be expected. Once the land and incentive packages had been secured, however, Oracle immediately sent a couple of employees back to Nashville later that same month with the stated purpose of prepping for the formal Oracle/Nashville announcement in mid-August. The period in which Oracle was operating in "silent mode"
  9. Where did you get this idea from? Seems to me that the opposite is actually true because of the way courts look at causation, specifically proximate causation. Similar to the impossibility of "proving" that any given hurricane, flood, or other adverse weather event was "caused" by CO2/climate change, it's very difficult to prove that any given environmental impact (or health impact experienced by someone occupying that environment) was directly caused by any given defendant. For example, let's say a chemical plant is dumping waste into a river, and a bunch of people in the town downstream get
  10. I think you misspelled 'natural disaster'
  11. Based on the quality of these diagrams, I think the people on this message board have spent more time thinking about this proposal than these developers have, which is a good sign that it's hopefully half-baked and subject to major revision. The Broadwest view preservation argument doesn't seem too realistic to me (though you never know), but a corporate relocation with a specific campus layout in mind could make sense. That said, I think it's more likely that these developers have limited capital secured already and spent a disproportionate amount of it acquiring the property in the
  12. As I'm sure y'all recall, it was just a few weeks before Oracle's mid-August announcement goal whenTennessee was making waves in the national news for a few consecutive cycles after we fired the top vaccine-related health official at the Tennessee Department of Health for encouraging teenagers to get vaccinated and then followed that up by doubling down and ending state backed outreach efforts for any/all vaccines to minors across the board. I figured at the time that would create a wrinkle in Oracle's announcement timeline and might even lead to a much smaller announcement/PR blitz whenever
  13. The NBA won't say a negative word about China because the NBA owners make a ton of money from the Chinese market and don't want their access to that market to go away. The Chinese government has complete control over Chinese media of course (including whether NBA games are televised), but it's a really big leap to assume they have similar or even substantial influence in the American media market. I don't know much about the Guardian's ownership group, but there are only a very small number of media conglomerates that own the vast majority of media outlets in the US at this point, and I
  14. The point of the second sentence is that all defense and infrastructure spending that occurs in Tennessee, Texas, or any other state should be counted as welfare spending because most of the infrastructure spending that occurs in any state is either an accident of geography or could have just as easily be constructed in other states instead, therefore it shouldn't count toward the state's GDP. If Texas remained a part of Mexico, for example, all the military bases and national infrastructure spending that occurs in Texas would simply be in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and New Mexico instead. Those
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.