Another duck and cover post.....

[Sigma_Orionis]

Bill and Melinda Gates and 25 other thinkers on the misconceptions about the United States and the world that drive them crazy.

[Swift]

Bill and Melinda Gates and 25 other thinkers on the misconceptions about the United States and the world that drive them crazy.

An interesting piece.

I think a few of the so-called myths actually are true, or more particularly, have more truth than myth, and I think some of them reflect the political philosophy of the "thinker", but not a bad list.

I think the summary statement is that the reality of foreign policy is much more complex than any single sentence statement, and is a lot more grey than any myth that makes it black or white.

[Sigma_Orionis]

I think it also highlights something related to "'American Exceptionalism'".

Regardless of whether any of us furriners (and you gringos too) like it or not, the US is a giant in the international community. The direct consequence is that its fuckups are as far reaching as its accomplishments.

Having said that, I still prefer you guys to the Russkies or the Chinese. And IMHO, expecting a Multipolar world in the current situation is wishful thinking.

[Swift]

I think it also highlights something related to "'American Exceptionalism'".

Regardless of whether any of us furriners (and you gringos too) like it or not, the US is a giant in the international community. The direct consequence is that its fuckups are as far reaching as its accomplishments.

Absolutely. Thing is, it is a lot easier to fuck things up then to fix things. So I would actually say that generally our fuckups are more far reaching than our accomplishments. I think that's true for all countries.

[FZR1KG]

It's also a case of humans in general tend to remember the bad tings rather than the good.
Part of evolution I guess, you know, like, "damn! I won't wipe my ass with that plant again" but all the good plants fade in memory.

[SciFiFisher]

It's also a case of humans in general tend to remember the bad tings rather than the good.
Part of evolution I guess, you know, like, "damn! I won't wipe my ass with that plant again" but all the good plants fade in memory.

That's because any plant not on the list of "don't wipe" is OK.

[SciFiFisher]

As part of this topic I heard a clip about it. Essentially, Bill Gates was saying the optimists will win in the end because the pessimists give up too soon.

[code monkey]

Having said that, I still prefer you guys to the Russkies or the Chinese. And IMHO, expecting a Multipolar world in the current situation is wishful thinking.

he likes us! he really likes us!

[Sigma_Orionis]

Don't you just LOVE RealPolitik Mr. Mono?

[code monkey]

Don't you just LOVE RealPolitik Mr. Mono?

even more than you love us.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Love and Self-Interest went to the country one day and.......

[SciFi Chick]

That article pretty much lost me when I got to the part about how we're doing more to fight climate change than Europe because we're using fracking, and it costs less than what the Europeans are doing. Seriously? Fracking is a good alternative to fossil fuels?

Then again, I suppose if you make part of the U.S. uninhabitable, that will definitely lower our carbon footprint.

[Sigma_Orionis]

That's another example of RealPolitik. Obviously, the fossil fuel (gas, according to the article) gathered through fracking pollutes as much as the same fossil fuel gathered through other means. The article claims that by lowering extraction costs, it encourages the use of gas instead of coal, which SUPPOSEDLY is much less of a pollutant, as for the other environmental effects of fracking, there is plenty of debate about it (and no, I don't know who's right).

The RealPolitik part is IMHO that the main reason for fracking was to reduce the dependence of the US on foreign oil, particularly heating oil, (so it affects Venezuela's exports directly, as usual you, damned gringos are screwing US ). All the "environmental talk" is at best a secondary effect (if it were true).

[Swift]

That article pretty much lost me when I got to the part about how we're doing more to fight climate change than Europe because we're using fracking, and it costs less than what the Europeans are doing. Seriously? Fracking is a good alternative to fossil fuels?

Yes, sort of. Natural gas (which we can get more easily and more cheaply with fracking) is a better fossil fuel than coal or oil; you get more Joules per CO2 molecule (or however you want to look at it).

But no, I would not say the US is doing a better overall job than Europe on Climate Change.

[FZR1KG]

Yes, sort of. Natural gas (which we can get more easily and more cheaply with fracking) is a better fossil fuel than coal or oil; you get more Joules per CO2 molecule (or however you want to look at it).

Really?
Last I remember was that propane and natural gas weren't as efficient as petrol or diesel.
I had a car that ran on LPG and it was less efficient and the natural gas alternatives weren't even viable back then because of the huge loss of power and energy density was low. Could also be my fading memory though.

[Swift]

Yes, sort of. Natural gas (which we can get more easily and more cheaply with fracking) is a better fossil fuel than coal or oil; you get more Joules per CO2 molecule (or however you want to look at it).

Really?
Last I remember was that propane and natural gas weren't as efficient as petrol or diesel.
I had a car that ran on LPG and it was less efficient and the natural gas alternatives weren't even viable back then because of the huge loss of power and energy density was low. Could also be my fading memory though.

Sorry, my comparison was mostly of natural gas (methane) to coal, and mostly for stationary power generation (power plants). Transportation fuels get into energy density (Joules per kg of fuel) issues, and for that I think gasoline and diesel are the champions, and I suspect methane is pretty bad.

Almost all the natural gas in the US is either used for burning in stationary sources (power plants, home heating, combustion/industrial heating) or as a precursor for the production of certain chemicals.

Here is a website from the US EPA

At the power plant, the burning of natural gas produces nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide, but in lower quantities than burning coal or oil. >Methane, a primary component of natural gas and a greenhouse gas, can also be emitted into the air when natural gas is not burned completely. Similarly, methane can be emitted as the result of leaks and losses during transportation. Emissions of sulfur dioxide and mercury compounds from burning natural gas are negligible.

The average emissions rates in the United States from natural gas-fired generation are: 1135 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 0.1 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 1.7 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides.1 Compared to the average air emissions from coal-fired generation, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides at the power plant.2 In addition, the process of extraction, treatment, and transport of the natural gas to the power plant generates additional emissions.

From a different USEPA website I got these numbers for powerplants:
Natural gas: 1135 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide
Coal: 2,249 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide
Oil: 1672 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide