The article you linked is a misleading op-ed with no references to support its facts.

Germany and France sell electricity to each other based upon varying demand; however France has been the larger exporter of electricity over the last 10 years.

I say this not to defend plantation slavery as anything objectively good, but to note the irony that someone who defends FoxConn's treatment of workers while holding views antagonistic toward actual plantation slavery is being very hypocritical because on balance, these workers have it even worse. I'm white and if I had to choose between being a field slave in the South vs working under the conditions the FoxConn workers do with the sort of future that awaits them, hands down I'd choose to be a slave. At least then the master's tyranny would end at sun down.

You're very mistaken about the relative conditions of plantation slavery compared to developing countries' low-wage labor. Plantation slaves made no money whatsoever, and their imputed income from consumption was certainly less than 10% of the $400/mo which Foxconn workers earn. In addition, plantation slaves were frequently beaten severely for non-performance. Most of the slaves did not even survive the journey to the new world, because of harsh conditions on the slave ships. Those who did survive and had the misfortune to end up in the Carribean, usually lived about 5 additional years because of overwork.

Your notion that plantation slave owners "cared more" about their slaves is absurdly incorrect. In many places of the carribbean, the ratio of freemen to slaves was something like 1:10, which posed the constant risk of violent slave rebellion, so violent suppression was necessary and continuous. The slave owners did not "care" about their slaves as they generally worked them to death within 5 years.

As an aside, I've noticed that much criticism of the industrial revolution and of industrial development more generally, is based upon extraordinary over-estimation of the quality of life before the industrial development. There is a great deal of romanticizing (especially on the far left) of subsistence-farming life, of medieval conditions, of village agriculture, and (in this case) of plantation slavery, of all things. All of those modes of life imply an annual income of $300-$400 and severe back-breaking physical labor.

On every step of the way to industrial development, conditions for workers are better than they were previously. The Chinese people lining up for these jobs are not stupid. They are aware that the alternative is village agriculture, and that village agriculture work is harder and far worse paid.

Urine is natural. Do you want to swim in it? Poop is natural. Do you want to live in it?

I'm a coprophile, you insensitive clod!

It appears to me that the problem here (wrt to both economics and climate models) is the assumption that we cannot predict anything if we cannot predict everything. That is all wrong. Although it is impossible to model any complex system in all its attributes with precision, that doesn't imply that we can't make any precise predictions whatsoever or that we're reduced to statistical guesses as Loki_1929 claimed. Even in complicated systems, there are some inferences which are non-obvious and which offer precise, accurate predictions, even if they do not predict the entire future state of the complex system.

For example, it may be impossible to predict weather because of its chaotic features, but this does not imply that there are no precise and regular features of climate. For example, the Earth will maintain an energy balance in the long run despite irregularities caused by weather. Although we cannot predict the weather, we can make some predictions about climate with near certainty.

Similarly with economics. It cannot be predicted when a recession will occur, or what the stock market will do tomorrow. But some things can be predicted with certainty. For example, it can be predicted with absolute precision that the purchase of T-Bonds by the Chinese government will cause the trade deficit to increase also and by the same amount, provided that other international debt purchases remain constant. Also, it can be predicted with certainty that a decrease in the bank reserve ratio will cause a proportional increase in the general price level. Also, it can be predicted with certainty that an increase in labor productivity will cause wages to rise and not unemployment. These predictions are highly accurate, and are not at all obvious (in fact the last one is actively disputed by many people).

The problem with both economics and predictions of future temperatures, is that theorists will attempt to make predictions even of things which they know can't be predicted with certainty. They figure that their guess is better than nothing. Thus economists will attempt to predict recessions, and weather forecasters will attempt to predict tomorrow's temperature. When the predictions fail, people unfamiliar with those disciplines will jump to the conclusion that "well the whole thing is just fucked then; it's too complex" and that we know nothing about either economies or future temperatures. But that is all wrong. Unfortunately those same people will subsequently ignore predictions which really are quite certain. At least with weather and climate, the disciplines are separated. With economics, predictions about recessions are grouped under the same label as (for example) trade theory.

Comparing economics to a real science is almost a mortal insult due to the lack of rigor in economics.

This is totally wrong. Economics is definitely a real science and is extremely rigorous. The problem is that economists have not successfully communicated which things they really know with certainty and which they're guessing about. With climate, climatologists have not successfully communicated the difference between weather (which cannot be predicted well) and climate (which can). In both cases, they have not successfully communicated that they do know some things with great precision even about very complex systems.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148745/political-ideology-stable-conservatives-leading.aspx

Self-identified conservatives outnumber liberals in the USA by a ratio of about 2:1, and this has been stable for decades. Moderates also outnumber liberals by almost 2:1. People on the liberal end of the spectrum make up only about 20% of the population.

The USA is a center-right country.

And forgive me, but recycling is detrimental to the environment, are you fucking daft?

Nope, read it again. I said that recycling of paper and glass has no value. In fact it has very little value, because recycling paper and glass uses almost as much energy as manufacturing new paper and glass.

I said that biofuels, local food, and organic food are positively harmful.

Aluminum recycling matters, but it's an exception.

See I can make lots of assertions too.

Yes, but the trick is to make true assertions.

2) Really? There's no shortage of land? Right, let me magic up some more land out of nowhere that nobody lives near.

How about the Sahara as a landfill for Europe and Africa? Or the high desert in the American southwest? Or northern Canada? Or the desert in the middle of Australia? Or vast areas of central Asia as in Mongolia?

Bear in mind that garbage in landfills is not spread out evenly over a wide land area. Garbage is compacted and stored as a large cube.

If we took all the wastes from all people in the USA for 1,000 years, it would occupy about 1.8 cubic miles. Of course, we couldn't have a cube going up into the air for 1.8 miles, so we would likely spread it out over an area of 20 square miles or so. This would occupy about 0.0007% of the land area of the US for 1000 years' worth of garbage.

Those food scraps in the landfill become permanent volume. Ever higher mounds.

If this were true, then throwing your organic garbage into the landfill would be effective carbon sequestration and would reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.

The small amount of attrition that occurs is into methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas.

Since 1996, the EPA has required all large landfills to capture and burn landfill gas, thereby converting it into CO2, just the same as if it had been composted.

Tiny bit of effort, huge benifits to everyone!

Nope, there are no benefits to anyone from composting. Whether you throw your organic garbage in the composting bin or the trash, it just ends up as CO2 in the atmosphere. It makes no difference.

Since 1996, the EPA has mandated that all large landfills have gas recovery and burning mechanisms which convert landfill methane into CO2. The result is that greenhouse emissions are CO2 in both cases, and are the same whether you compost something, or throw it in the garbage.

As a Canadian, the standard selfish American "fuck that shit" response to this kind of stuff is always humorous.

I would laugh at Canadians and Europeans (and American liberals) if it weren't so sad. Whereas typical Americans are selfish and say "fuck that shit," Europeans and American liberals actually care about the issue, but then engage in worthless symbolic gestures like mandatory composting, recycling, local food, organic food, etc, which either have no effect or make the problem worse.

It makes no difference whether you put something in the garbage or the compost bin. In both cases the organic garbage ends up as CO2 in the atmosphere. Although the garbage is converted into methane (not CO2) within the landfill, that methane is captured and burnt, and thereby converted into CO2. Since 1996, the EPA has mandated that all larger landfills must capture and burn methane (google the "Landfill Rule" and look at the EPA site). As a result, it makes no difference whether you compost or not. Nor does it save landfill space, since the organic garbage is converted to a gas which then escapes.

Composting is not the most efficient way to prevent methane emissions. It's almost certainly more cost-efficient to burn landfill gas, since that accomplishes the same thing without costly human labor spent on sorting and inspecting garbage. Even if you live in a country that does not burn landfill gas, you should support landfill gas burning rather than mandatory composting.

Composting has no value. It's like local food, organic food, recycling of paper and glass, biofuels, and so on. They make no difference to the environment, or are positively harmful to the environment (local food, organic food, biofuels). (In fact, organic food and biofuels would be catastrophic to the environment if used extensively). The purpose is to give hippies the feel-good, low-tech, back-to-the-land lifestyle which they always wanted, and to impose that lifestyle upon others. Whether it helps the environment is irrelevant and ignored.

The two most important things you can do to help the environment are: 1) live in a high-rise apartment building in the densest urban area possible, since urban dwellers emit a small fraction of the CO2 as suburban and rural dwellers; and 2) support nuclear power. Both of these are vehemently opposed by greenies who spend their time on worthless symbolic activities like composting. This shows that they either don't know what will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or they just don't care.