Also when methanol became a popular fuel over gas SO got the government to ban it via prohibition. It was never the church that banned alcohol, it was a monopolist.
Really?
Is that why Standard Oil was broken up in 1911 and Prohibition started in 1920?
"Not so simple!!! C14 spiked with atmospheric atomic testing conducted since 1945 and has been declining since the atmospheric test ban. This effect is dominating any decline observed in C14.
What is a layperson to believe? The person who wrote the linked article makes his living off global warming, so he is biased, but that doesn't mean he is wrong automatically.
Depends on what that means. If it means reducing CO2 output to the same level it was a few decades ago, the risks are minimal.
That seams like a reasonable statement... I don't know if it is true or not, I don't know if the increase in CO2 is really our doing, or if there is another cause...
---
But lets say for a second that it is our fault, that it would be best if we reduced CO2 to what it was a few decades ago.
What is the chance of that actually happening?
I've looked at the charts, the numbers, and the world. I would submit that the chance is approaching 0%. It just isn't going to happen.
This isn't an academic debate about what we "should" do, rather it is an acceptance of what we "will" do, as a species. You just aren't going to get the type of cuts that would be required to actually stop the rise of CO2. You'd start WWIII trying...
My hope is that our leaders are wise enough to understand that...
All we can do at this point is prepare for the changes that are coming and try and spread those changes out over as long a period of time as possible.
Looking at the graph of the CO2, http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c... I don't see any signs of slowing down thanks to the changes we've already implemented. Clearly, it's not enough.
I actually agree with you, the changes won't really alter the outcome.
I've come to the conclusion that the increase is irreversible, at least within our lifetimes. All we can do is slow the increase and make long term plans for it.
---
The changes required around the world to actually stop, then reverse, the increase, simply aren't going to happen. One could argue and debate all day long about if they "should" or not, but in reality, it simply isn't in the cards.
Americans can cut all we like, right now Americans produce more than 10 times more CO2 per person than people in India. But given the huge number of people there, it wouldn't take much of an increase to swamp anything we do. We could cut our CO2 to nothing, and they could increase by just 20% and the total CO2 output would be higher than it is today.
Also by assigning property rights to off planet resources, its making a pretty big attempt to extend its soverign juristiction. Who gave the US ownership of the universe.....
Two thoughts...
1. The old "finders keepers" rule would seem to apply...
2. We have 11 aircraft carriers, about as many as every other nation combined...
If you don't like it, change #2...
BTW, I'm not saying it is "right", I'm saying what "is".
When 300 million Americans head for the hills and you're living in the hills, how do you plan to deal with that?
When the oceans rise 6 inches, you won't have 300 million Americans headed for the hills. Even if you did, America is big and the open spaces are vast...
The well-known CAFE standards? Phased-in. Light-bulb ban? Not an immediate ban, but also phased in. CFC ban? Also phased in. HVAC standards? Phased-in. Vacuum cleaner standards? Phased in. Need I go on?
I don't have a problem with any of that... The issue is that the extremist AGW people want to triple all of it and do it tomorrow at any cost...
Or at least that is how it comes across sometimes...
I've read comments on Slashdot in the past from people saying that any car that doesn't get 50 MPG should be illegal, or that we should make trucks get the same MPG as light small cars (which simply isn't realistic).
HVAC is currently at 13 SEER and has been there for awhile. The price difference between 13 and 16 is pretty small, perhaps it is time for an increase in that one. Of course, part of the challenge isn't just new installs, it is the 20 year old units still running and getting about 7 SEER, those are the ones so badly in need of replacement.
As a professional stats guy, let me just say that "correlation doesn't imply causation" is important to keep in mind for any scientist. However, it's also the laziest, most transparent tool used by idiots on the internet to discard any facts or information that they find inconvenient for their cause. Correlation doesn't NECESSARILY imply causation, but when you have strong reasons to expect a causal relationship based on first principles, and when correlations back that up, that is decent evidence that your hypothesis is correct. Correlations are what underpin about 99% of our scientific understanding of the world, and when you chuck them aside as evidence so glibly, you show only that you are biased and completely ignorant of the scientific process.
All fair points, I would say that is a reasonable reply.
My concern is that the "the world is ending" people are just as nuts as the "CO2 isn't a problem, drill baby drill" people...
It reminds me of talking to people about politics, "your guy" can do no wrong" and "their guy" is evil incarnate. People who say things like "Republicons" and "Dumbocrats" really add nothing useful to the conversation. So it is true with global warming/climate change. When it became about money and politices, a lot of truth went out the door.
Honestly it doesn't matter to me if this is being caused by use Humans or not. The real question is should we attempt to do something to slow down or stop the global warming?
If it is caused by humans, it seems to me that we should do something about it.
If it isn't, I'd be really cautious before trying to engineer the planet.
It goes through cycles, it has many times. We might make the problem worse by trying to control something that we don't understand nearly as well as we might think we do.
Quick, we need everyone to pile on for why this proves catastrophe is imminent and favored policy changes must be passed. Then the other half can pile in and explain why this means nothing and the next ice age is still coming...
Why can't we have a middle ground?
How about we set reasonable targets to improve our overall energy efficiency, without being so drastic that we hurt people in the process?
Of course, the whole world has to do it, just one nation won't be enough...
Eh, it still works without any issues, it's in the bedroom, and really only used when we're too sick to walk downstairs. Why get rid of a perfectly working TV?
Because staring at an electron gun shooting at your eyes is bad for you?
CRTs always gave me headaches, the flicker and refresh of the screen. The move to LCDs was very welcome.
Eventually, we'll replace the lowly 39" LCD downstairs with something larger, move that one into the bedroom, and move the CRT into the kids' room with the NES, SNES, and Wii.:)
Oh goodie, ruin the kid's eyes!:)
At that point, I'll have to replace the Athlon64 with something that can handle 720p or 1080p. Until then, we'll just keep on rocking.
And that was the point, you said your old Athlon was just fine, and I was simply pointing out for everyone else who isn't running a CRT that your statement had a catch to it.:)
In the first world is actually the opposite around. You are required to have paper records and keep them for at least ten years, depending on business.
Umm, no, you're not...
You're required to keep records, they do not have to be on paper. In fact, many paper records are turned into digital copies and then the paper copies destroyed to save on storage space.
Bring in a form and they use their photocopier to make a copy and their typewriter to fill in the needed information. Records are in the files on the wall, and safe from all digital hacking.
He/she won't be able to keep doing that for much longer, at least not in most of the first world...
The requirement to maintain digital records is growing... Currently if you take insurance, you more or less have to go digital. If you're an all-cash practice, you can do it the old way for awhile...
But if you honestly think that will be allowed forever, I've got a bridge to sell you.:)
That is a complete lie. I just did a search and found only one mention of the words SmartCar or Prius, and they were written by you.
Um, no it isn't, and that just shows how far away your world is from this one.
A normal intelligent person would have understood that I meant ALL of Slashdot, not this specific article.
Now that sounds very alarmist.
No, it is a well known truth. When the economy turns south, the poor are hit the hardest. This has nothing to do with the environment, it is basic economics.
plus, if your only choices are "fuck up the environment" and "fuck up the economy", then you're doing it wrong.
You assume that those AREN'T the only two choices...
What if they are?
Now if they are and you say "pick the environment", well... I can respect that... but at least be honest about it.
---
It is also possible there is a middle ground, but there may not be. Not everything has a nice happy middle ground where all is well.
If you're flying from LA to Hawaii, you either have enough fuel or you don't. There is no middle ground.
When do you accept that the ocean is your landing field? Do you want to hit the water under control, ready for it, at a time of your choosing, or do you want to push and push and push, and go crashing into the ocean when the plane runs out of fuel?
---
It is quite possible that the alarmists are right, that we've passed the point of no return, that CO2 will continue to grow and that the climate will change more quickly than in the past, faster than we're used to.
Fine, so be it... What shall we do to try and adapt as best we can to the new world? It might be unavoidable.
Well tell you what, we've got a whole thread which will likely be long. If I see an honestly skpetical response, then I'll post it here. Feel free to do the same.
I'm skeptical that the changes in the future will be nearly as bad as the doomsayers predict.
I think they are picking out the worst possible outcomes and spreading fear.
That being said... I also think that pollution sucks and we're stupid if we just make a mess, so going "green" is a good long term plan.
In the past, factories would just dump toxic waste into the rivers, today that is supposed to be illegal. (I say supposed to be, I'm sure it still happens, just less so).
I've said before, I'm happy to move at a slow and steady pace towards being more green. Things like raising the SEER rating required of new HVAC units, raising the required fuel economy of vehicles over time, etc. These things are in all our best interest.
But you can't demand too much, too soon, or you disrupt the system.
So what is "too much"? Now that is the really fun question...:)
Summary: The way we are living is completely unsustainable.
Correction: The way we're living is unsustainable for 7 billion people.
It is probably totally sustainable for 350 million people. So if the people in the US were the only people on Earth, I suspect everything would be fine.
---
I fully expect this to end in war, simply because at the end of the day, it is going to come down to one group of people trying to tell another group how to live, and that never ends well.
Are those really the only two possibilities that occur to you?
No, those are the only two options I see presented from the AGW camp.
I'm perfectly happy to make reasonable and steady progress towards a better world. I'm actually not convinced it will make much difference mind you...
What the scientists ARE telling us is that the coming climate changes (which can't now be prevented completely but CAN certainly be mitigated) will have significant costs - economic and humanitarian.
They may very well...
But what isn't being discussed is this: Will it cost more to try and prevent something that appears to no longer be preventable, or would it be cheaper to adapt to the coming changes?
It is entirely possible that the outcome won't change regardless of what we do, and if so, we are just wasting our time on dreams and hopes.
If you're on the Titanic and it is sinking, forming a bucket brigade and hoping you can toss enough water out to keep it afloat is likely a fools errand. The ship is going to sink, it will sink, it is just a matter of time. Accepting that and moving on is actually in everyone's best interest.
The question becomes, how can you save as many people as possible in the 2 or 3 hours you have left? If you run around trying every little thing to save everyone, you might actually lose everyone because you're not focused on reality.
---
Can we cut CO2? Sure. Will it be enough? That is a more interesting question...
If we can't cut it by enough to change the outcome, why are we trying so hard? Perhaps we're better off accepting that we've lost that battle and focus on the way the world will change around us because of it?
Yes, it will cost money to move our energy infrastructure away from fossil fuels. No, it won't derail the economy (the average estimate from the World Bank and many others is about 0.5-1% of GDP).
Myself and a lot of other people think numbers from the World Bank are hogwash, they have an incentive to make it sound "not so bad", then it becomes rational escalation as the number grows and grows, people won't notice that. If they came out and said 10% tomorrow, everyone would scream and run away.
I could of course be wrong, my crystal ball is on the fritz, but I don't blindly trust the government, any government, to be honest about any of this, it is way too political.
We don't have to cut our energy usage to the bone, we just have to invest in carbon-neutral energy generation - then we can easily support our lavish lifestyles with zero carbon cost, and save money in the process.
That sounds really, really nice... but sounding nice doesn't make it true...
Tell me, what would it cost to replace all the fossil fuel in the US with solar and wind? And by all, I'm including the gas burned in cars. If we shut down every coal, oil, and natural gas power plant and replaced every gas car with an EV, what would that cost?
Slashdot Mirror
The rubber in contact with the road should not matter.
What kind of nonsense is that?
Of course it does, each square inch of rubber has only so much traction, only so much friction, before it breaks loose.
The energy should instead be dissipated in the braking system.
You can easily apply enough brake force to lock up the wheels.
The tires are the only thing actually slowing down the truck.
The bigger the tires are, the more of them you have, the quicker you can stop.
Also when methanol became a popular fuel over gas SO got the government to ban it via prohibition. It was never the church that banned alcohol, it was a monopolist.
Really?
Is that why Standard Oil was broken up in 1911 and Prohibition started in 1920?
Try again...
That all sounds quite reasonable...
I did some searching and came across this:
http://oilprice.com/The-Enviro...
And it makes a very compelling argument...
Then you read the comments below...
"Not so simple!!! C14 spiked with atmospheric atomic testing conducted since 1945 and has been declining since the atmospheric test ban. This effect is dominating any decline observed in C14.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Sorry to burst your carbon bubble."
---
What is a layperson to believe? The person who wrote the linked article makes his living off global warming, so he is biased, but that doesn't mean he is wrong automatically.
Depends on what that means. If it means reducing CO2 output to the same level it was a few decades ago, the risks are minimal.
That seams like a reasonable statement... I don't know if it is true or not, I don't know if the increase in CO2 is really our doing, or if there is another cause...
---
But lets say for a second that it is our fault, that it would be best if we reduced CO2 to what it was a few decades ago.
What is the chance of that actually happening?
I've looked at the charts, the numbers, and the world. I would submit that the chance is approaching 0%. It just isn't going to happen.
This isn't an academic debate about what we "should" do, rather it is an acceptance of what we "will" do, as a species. You just aren't going to get the type of cuts that would be required to actually stop the rise of CO2. You'd start WWIII trying...
My hope is that our leaders are wise enough to understand that...
All we can do at this point is prepare for the changes that are coming and try and spread those changes out over as long a period of time as possible.
Looking at the graph of the CO2, http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c... I don't see any signs of slowing down thanks to the changes we've already implemented. Clearly, it's not enough.
I actually agree with you, the changes won't really alter the outcome.
I've come to the conclusion that the increase is irreversible, at least within our lifetimes. All we can do is slow the increase and make long term plans for it.
---
The changes required around the world to actually stop, then reverse, the increase, simply aren't going to happen. One could argue and debate all day long about if they "should" or not, but in reality, it simply isn't in the cards.
Americans can cut all we like, right now Americans produce more than 10 times more CO2 per person than people in India. But given the huge number of people there, it wouldn't take much of an increase to swamp anything we do. We could cut our CO2 to nothing, and they could increase by just 20% and the total CO2 output would be higher than it is today.
Also by assigning property rights to off planet resources, its making a pretty big attempt to extend its soverign juristiction. Who gave the US ownership of the universe.....
Two thoughts...
1. The old "finders keepers" rule would seem to apply...
2. We have 11 aircraft carriers, about as many as every other nation combined...
If you don't like it, change #2...
BTW, I'm not saying it is "right", I'm saying what "is".
When 300 million Americans head for the hills and you're living in the hills, how do you plan to deal with that?
When the oceans rise 6 inches, you won't have 300 million Americans headed for the hills. Even if you did, America is big and the open spaces are vast...
The well-known CAFE standards? Phased-in. Light-bulb ban? Not an immediate ban, but also phased in. CFC ban? Also phased in. HVAC standards? Phased-in. Vacuum cleaner standards? Phased in. Need I go on?
I don't have a problem with any of that... The issue is that the extremist AGW people want to triple all of it and do it tomorrow at any cost...
Or at least that is how it comes across sometimes...
I've read comments on Slashdot in the past from people saying that any car that doesn't get 50 MPG should be illegal, or that we should make trucks get the same MPG as light small cars (which simply isn't realistic).
HVAC is currently at 13 SEER and has been there for awhile. The price difference between 13 and 16 is pretty small, perhaps it is time for an increase in that one. Of course, part of the challenge isn't just new installs, it is the 20 year old units still running and getting about 7 SEER, those are the ones so badly in need of replacement.
As a professional stats guy, let me just say that "correlation doesn't imply causation" is important to keep in mind for any scientist. However, it's also the laziest, most transparent tool used by idiots on the internet to discard any facts or information that they find inconvenient for their cause. Correlation doesn't NECESSARILY imply causation, but when you have strong reasons to expect a causal relationship based on first principles, and when correlations back that up, that is decent evidence that your hypothesis is correct. Correlations are what underpin about 99% of our scientific understanding of the world, and when you chuck them aside as evidence so glibly, you show only that you are biased and completely ignorant of the scientific process.
All fair points, I would say that is a reasonable reply.
My concern is that the "the world is ending" people are just as nuts as the "CO2 isn't a problem, drill baby drill" people...
It reminds me of talking to people about politics, "your guy" can do no wrong" and "their guy" is evil incarnate. People who say things like "Republicons" and "Dumbocrats" really add nothing useful to the conversation. So it is true with global warming/climate change. When it became about money and politices, a lot of truth went out the door.
Truth, and reality, are often in the middle.
Honestly it doesn't matter to me if this is being caused by use Humans or not. The real question is should we attempt to do something to slow down or stop the global warming?
If it is caused by humans, it seems to me that we should do something about it.
If it isn't, I'd be really cautious before trying to engineer the planet.
It goes through cycles, it has many times. We might make the problem worse by trying to control something that we don't understand nearly as well as we might think we do.
Gee, it's a good thing Anthropogenic Global Warming is just a Big Leftist Conspiracy, or imagine how bad things would be!
How much evidence is required before denialist clowns will be convinced that Global Warming is a thing, and it is almost certainly Our Fault?
Explain how this has anything to do with AGW?
Correlation doesn't imply causation.
Quick, we need everyone to pile on for why this proves catastrophe is imminent and favored policy changes must be passed. Then the other half can pile in and explain why this means nothing and the next ice age is still coming...
Why can't we have a middle ground?
How about we set reasonable targets to improve our overall energy efficiency, without being so drastic that we hurt people in the process?
Of course, the whole world has to do it, just one nation won't be enough...
Eh, it still works without any issues, it's in the bedroom, and really only used when we're too sick to walk downstairs. Why get rid of a perfectly working TV?
Because staring at an electron gun shooting at your eyes is bad for you?
CRTs always gave me headaches, the flicker and refresh of the screen. The move to LCDs was very welcome.
Eventually, we'll replace the lowly 39" LCD downstairs with something larger, move that one into the bedroom, and move the CRT into the kids' room with the NES, SNES, and Wii. :)
Oh goodie, ruin the kid's eyes! :)
At that point, I'll have to replace the Athlon64 with something that can handle 720p or 1080p. Until then, we'll just keep on rocking.
And that was the point, you said your old Athlon was just fine, and I was simply pointing out for everyone else who isn't running a CRT that your statement had a catch to it. :)
In the first world is actually the opposite around.
You are required to have paper records and keep them for at least ten years, depending on business.
Umm, no, you're not...
You're required to keep records, they do not have to be on paper. In fact, many paper records are turned into digital copies and then the paper copies destroyed to save on storage space.
My dentist doesn't have a computer.
Bring in a form and they use their photocopier to make a copy and their typewriter to fill in the needed information. Records are in the files on the wall, and safe from all digital hacking.
He/she won't be able to keep doing that for much longer, at least not in most of the first world...
The requirement to maintain digital records is growing... Currently if you take insurance, you more or less have to go digital. If you're an all-cash practice, you can do it the old way for awhile...
But if you honestly think that will be allowed forever, I've got a bridge to sell you. :)
http://www.policymed.com/2009/...
Read the IPCC reports. Your argument would make a lot of sense if the reports don't exist, but as they do, you sound very unreasonable indeed.
Ahh, but there is the problem.
I simply don't believe the UN has my best interest at heart and I do not believe they are able to put out such a report in an unbiased fashion.
So those reports are tainted and not worth reading.
Would you accept climate reports from Exxon/Mobil? Neither would I, they are completely biased and can't see the situation objectively.
The UN can't either because the majority of the member states want money from the few rich nations, so all their "solutions" involve wealth transfer.
All of your questions have already been answered.
So in other words, you don't want to bother and don't have a reply that favors you, so you give that response.
It is truly amazing that you parade your wilful ignorance around as if it's something to be proud of.
I could say the same about you. Frankly, you speak with an elitist attitude that turns a lot of people off.
You're so convinced that you're right, you have decided to ignore everything else.
The irony is that you've posted the above more than once, it doesn't become more true the more you say it.
That is a complete lie. I just did a search and found only one mention of the words SmartCar or Prius, and they were written by you.
Um, no it isn't, and that just shows how far away your world is from this one.
A normal intelligent person would have understood that I meant ALL of Slashdot, not this specific article.
Now that sounds very alarmist.
No, it is a well known truth. When the economy turns south, the poor are hit the hardest. This has nothing to do with the environment, it is basic economics.
plus, if your only choices are "fuck up the environment" and "fuck up the economy", then you're doing it wrong.
You assume that those AREN'T the only two choices...
What if they are?
Now if they are and you say "pick the environment", well... I can respect that... but at least be honest about it.
---
It is also possible there is a middle ground, but there may not be. Not everything has a nice happy middle ground where all is well.
If you're flying from LA to Hawaii, you either have enough fuel or you don't. There is no middle ground.
When do you accept that the ocean is your landing field? Do you want to hit the water under control, ready for it, at a time of your choosing, or do you want to push and push and push, and go crashing into the ocean when the plane runs out of fuel?
---
It is quite possible that the alarmists are right, that we've passed the point of no return, that CO2 will continue to grow and that the climate will change more quickly than in the past, faster than we're used to.
Fine, so be it... What shall we do to try and adapt as best we can to the new world? It might be unavoidable.
Well tell you what, we've got a whole thread which will likely be long. If I see an honestly skpetical response, then I'll post it here. Feel free to do the same.
I'm skeptical that the changes in the future will be nearly as bad as the doomsayers predict.
I think they are picking out the worst possible outcomes and spreading fear.
That being said... I also think that pollution sucks and we're stupid if we just make a mess, so going "green" is a good long term plan.
In the past, factories would just dump toxic waste into the rivers, today that is supposed to be illegal. (I say supposed to be, I'm sure it still happens, just less so).
I've said before, I'm happy to move at a slow and steady pace towards being more green. Things like raising the SEER rating required of new HVAC units, raising the required fuel economy of vehicles over time, etc. These things are in all our best interest.
But you can't demand too much, too soon, or you disrupt the system.
So what is "too much"? Now that is the really fun question... :)
Summary: The way we are living is completely unsustainable.
Correction: The way we're living is unsustainable for 7 billion people.
It is probably totally sustainable for 350 million people. So if the people in the US were the only people on Earth, I suspect everything would be fine.
---
I fully expect this to end in war, simply because at the end of the day, it is going to come down to one group of people trying to tell another group how to live, and that never ends well.
Are those really the only two possibilities that occur to you?
No, those are the only two options I see presented from the AGW camp.
I'm perfectly happy to make reasonable and steady progress towards a better world. I'm actually not convinced it will make much difference mind you...
What the scientists ARE telling us is that the coming climate changes (which can't now be prevented completely but CAN certainly be mitigated) will have significant costs - economic and humanitarian.
They may very well...
But what isn't being discussed is this: Will it cost more to try and prevent something that appears to no longer be preventable, or would it be cheaper to adapt to the coming changes?
It is entirely possible that the outcome won't change regardless of what we do, and if so, we are just wasting our time on dreams and hopes.
If you're on the Titanic and it is sinking, forming a bucket brigade and hoping you can toss enough water out to keep it afloat is likely a fools errand. The ship is going to sink, it will sink, it is just a matter of time. Accepting that and moving on is actually in everyone's best interest.
The question becomes, how can you save as many people as possible in the 2 or 3 hours you have left? If you run around trying every little thing to save everyone, you might actually lose everyone because you're not focused on reality.
---
Can we cut CO2? Sure. Will it be enough? That is a more interesting question...
If we can't cut it by enough to change the outcome, why are we trying so hard? Perhaps we're better off accepting that we've lost that battle and focus on the way the world will change around us because of it?
Yes, it will cost money to move our energy infrastructure away from fossil fuels. No, it won't derail the economy (the average estimate from the World Bank and many others is about 0.5-1% of GDP).
Myself and a lot of other people think numbers from the World Bank are hogwash, they have an incentive to make it sound "not so bad", then it becomes rational escalation as the number grows and grows, people won't notice that. If they came out and said 10% tomorrow, everyone would scream and run away.
I could of course be wrong, my crystal ball is on the fritz, but I don't blindly trust the government, any government, to be honest about any of this, it is way too political.
We don't have to cut our energy usage to the bone, we just have to invest in carbon-neutral energy generation - then we can easily support our lavish lifestyles with zero carbon cost, and save money in the process.
That sounds really, really nice... but sounding nice doesn't make it true...
Tell me, what would it cost to replace all the fossil fuel in the US with solar and wind? And by all, I'm including the gas burned in cars. If we shut down every coal, oil, and natural gas power plant and replaced every gas car with an EV, what would that cost?
Because the low hanging fruit isn't very plentiful. LED bulbs don't have much of an impact on overall energy consumption, for instance.
I challenge you to do the math...
If every home and business in the US replaced every incandecent bulb with an LED bulb, how much total power would it save?
What percentage of our power consumption is that and how many coal power plants would we not need because of it?
Or to put it another way, how many solar plants would we not need to build because of it?
What would those solar plants cost? What would just giving away LED bulbs to everyone cost?
Luckily some people are interested in the quality of life in the future, and have a desire to leave the world in a better state than they found it.
Be careful that you do not confuse what "is nice" with "what is".
Many of my posts deal with "what is".
I actually would be willing to spend more money and have a nicer environment, but I also understand the way the world really works.
If wishes were fishes we'd all eat for free, but it doesn't work that way.