Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Muda69

"Green New Deal" - needs it's own thread

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

You cited one source that appeared to quoting a source from 1929.  Every other source I saw said between 20-30 million.  Your citation is by definition, an outlier.

What the heck does "directionally correct" mean?  

Sounds like "alternative facts".  

If you agree with the message, the hell with the facts.

That is not what your article says at all.  The title of your article literally says that the livestock industry affects the environment.  Dr. Mitloehner provides data that says it does not have the level the affect some previous studies had reported  (Several other scientists have real problems with his methods) but nonetheless he ends his article by saying:

"Climate change demands urgent attention, and the livestock industry has a large overall environmental footprint that affects air, water and land.

These, combined with a rapidly rising world population, give us plenty of compelling reasons to continue to work for greater efficiencies in animal agriculture.

I believe the place to start is with science-based facts."

AOC would agree.

Dr. Mitloehner, the author of article you cited has his work critiqued in this study:

https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/_pdf/about_us/FSPP/letter-policymakers/20160512_Mitloehner_Response12.pdf



 

BarryO,

Directionally correct......easy to find with your favorite search engine....and a pretty common term in business.  Have heard it used personally many times over my 30 year + career.

http://jargonism.com/words/90

Directionally correct refers to something that may not be an ultimate answer or solution, but it is headed in the right direction.Oct 26, 2017

just like your Hawk days, you tend to read only what tends to align with your thoughts.  You should have kept reading.  Bottom line, if one agrees with his data, livestock is not the place to begin tackling the GHG issue.

Giving up meat won't save the climate

Many people continue to think avoiding meat as infrequently as once a week will make a significant difference to the climate. But according to one recent study, even if Americans eliminated all animal protein from their diets, they would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by only 2.6 percent. According to our research at the University of California, Davis, if the practice of Meatless Monday were to be adopted by all Americans, we'd see a reduction of only 0.5 percent.

Moreover, technological, genetic and management changes that have taken place in U.S. agriculture over the past 70 years have made livestock production more efficient and less greenhouse gas-intensive. According to the FAO's statistical database, total direct greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. livestock have declined 11.3 percent since 1961, while production of livestock meat has more than doubled.

Demand for meat is rising in developing and emerging economies, with the Middle East, North Africa and Southeast Asia leading the way. But per capita meat consumption in these regions still lags that of developed countries. In 2015, average annual per capita meat consumption in developed countries was 92 kilograms, compared to 24 kilograms in the Middle East and North Africa and 18 kilograms in Southeast Asia.

Still, given projected population growth in the developing world, there will certainly be an opportunity for countries such as the United States to bring their sustainable livestock rearing practices to the table.

Removing animals from U.S. agriculture would lower national greenhouse gas emissions to a small degree, but it would also make it harder to meet nutritional requirements. Many critics of animal agriculture are quick to point out that if farmers raised only plants, they could produce more pounds of food and more calories per person. But humans also need many essential micro- and macronutrients for good health.

It's hard to make a compelling argument that the United States has a calorie deficit, given its high national rates of adult and child obesity. Moreover, not all plant parts are edible or desirable. Raising livestock is a way to add nutritional and economic value to plant agriculture.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-meat-affects-environment-cows-climate.html#jCp

BTW, other sources identifying 60MM or more buffalo.....not an outlier....just search a little harder  (hardly an outlier)

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/article/viewFile/11258/10531

https://medium.com/@davbunnell/once-there-were-50-to-100-million-buffalo-they-were-the-most-numerous-large-mammals-to-ever-exist-e01a5bca9ed8

https://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/oldzephyr/archives/buffalo.html

 

Edited by TrojanDad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2019 at 2:14 PM, BARRYOSAMA said:

The evidence is that the meme is directionally incorrect.

Says the person who doesn't read the entire article or take a few extra minutes searching sources.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey BarryO, DE, and Gonzo!  Not just the cows in focus now. Squeeze those cheeks and hold it in....if not, you just may be targeted.....

1C274740-3B23-4C62-89B5-88E6D32D815C.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Hey BarryO, DE, and Gonzo!  Not just the cows in focus now. Squeeze those cheeks and hold it in....if not, you just may be targeted.....

1C274740-3B23-4C62-89B5-88E6D32D815C.jpeg

Showed this to my spouse.  She just rolled her eyes then let loose with a good loud crackler.    I was impressed.

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Showed this to my spouse.  She just rolled her eyes then let loose with a good loud crackler.    I was impressed.

 

 

She told you what's up.......

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess what: Energy production is getting better and cleaner, and not as a result of the fiat of some central-planning committee.: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/natural-gas-energy-production-cleaner/

Quote

...

The United States is, at the moment, pumping out natural gas faster than you can make related Taco Bell jokes. The United States is by far the world’s largest natural-gas producer, head and shoulders above No. 2, Russia. The growth in U.S. gas production — not the total output, just the growth alone — since the turn of the century is, as energy journalist Robert Bryce runs the numbers, equal to about twice the annual output of Iran, the world’s No. 3 gas producer.

 

Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have been around for a long time, but it’s only recently that we’ve become really, really good at it, as a result of which long-neglected deposits of oil and gas written off as too expensive to economically extract have come on line in a big way. This has transformed local economies in places such as Midland, Texas, and the Marcellus shale country, but it also has transformed the U.S. economy in ways that are not widely appreciated.

While the amateur schemers in Washington dream of a “Green New Deal,” the people who actually know what they’re doing have achieved a reduction of nearly a third in carbon-dioxide emissions related to electricity production — and not at great cost and inconvenience but while reducing expenses as cheap, abundant, and relatively clean (there isn’t any such thing as “clean energy,” only relatively clean energy) natural gas displaces coal. That wasn’t the result of the fiat of some central-planning committee with godlike powers over the economy; it was the result of innovation, competition, and market choices. That hard work was done while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was still trying to figure out how to change the margarita mix at Flats Fix.

In fact, U.S. emissions from energy consumption were lower in November 2018 (the most recent figures from the U.S. Energy Information Administration) than they were 20 years ago (in November 1998) in spite of all the economic growth and population growth we’ve seen since then. Coal emissions are down by more than a third in that period. And those are just the gross numbers. Consider emissions per unit of energy output (or per unit of GDP), and the numbers are even better.

New York and Massachusetts would love to have some of that. But you can’t get a gas hookup in the New York City suburbs. As I wrote earlier, this is a political choice, not a matter of scarcity. New York has gas of its own that could be developed, providing energy, jobs, and tax revenue — but Governor Andrew Cuomo has effectively forbidden it. Likewise, gas could be brought in from Pennsylvania and West Virginia — if Governor Cuomo would allow new pipeline capacity to be added. But he won’t.

Why?

Here’s a little political inside baseball for you. In spite of all of the breathless nonsense from dress-over-the-head second-raters such as Chris Hedges, the Christian Right has never had the kind of influence inside the Republican party attributed to it by its critics. And, if you’ve ever worked inside conservative activism, you know exactly why: They’ll pray for you, but God Himself has a hard time getting any of His biggest fans to write a check. It’s a different story for the Pagan Left. (Too much, you think? Let’s see: apocalyptic narrative, punitive floods inflicted by an angry somebody, reformist social agenda, obsession with other people’s sinful lifestyles, indulgences for the likes of Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, zany fundamentalists who turn up their noses at science in defense of the scriptures — tell me environmentalism isn’t a quasi-religious movement.) The Pagan Left will write a check, a big honking one, a flood of them — consult Tom Steyer. As a consequence, it has a far bigger cultural and political footprint inside the Democratic party than the issues alone would merit.

And it has declared war on energy infrastructure from gas pipelines to power plants to depots receiving coal for export. If your belief is that the production and consumption of energy is an activity that comes with inevitable environmental consequences that have to be mitigated, then natural gas looks like a win: In nine-tenths of political disputes, the most relevant question is: Compared with what? And natural gas looks pretty good compared with the current alternatives: fossil fuels that pollute more, alternative sources that are more expensive and that require backup from conventional sources, etc. Not to say that something better might not come along: There are some guys down in Houston right now operating a natural-gas facility that releases no emissions at all into the atmosphere.

But not everybody sees this as a question of tradeoffs. Some people have an ideological-bordering-on-metaphysical belief that more energy consumption is bad, full stop, and that what the human race really needs is less: less consumption, less production, less energy — and, preferably, fewer people, too. That isn’t really environmentalism, exactly. (Whose environment?) It’s a different kind of creed. If that’s your thing, it’s a free country, but spare me the lectures about how much you “f*****g love science.”

The above-mentioned Robert Bryce, and Mike Somers of the American Petroleum Institute, will be joining me for a discussion of the gas boom at the National Review Institute Ideas Summit this week in Washington. There’s a lot more to the story.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Study Estimates the Green New Deal to Cost $93 Trillion — That's a Conservative Estimate: https://mises.org/wire/study-estimates-green-new-deal-cost-93-trillion-—-thats-conservative-estimate

Quote

Both fans and foes of the so-called Green New Deal (GND) agree that it is a wildly ambitious set of proposals, which—by design—will involve the federal government spending boatloads of money. In fact, the GND is so expensive that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has cited the inflationary doctrine of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) to deflect the issue; we don’t need to worry about the cost of the Green New Deal, so the argument goes, because the Federal Reserve can create an unlimited number of dollars.

Even so, more sober-minded policymakers, as well as the general public, should be aware of just how ludicrously expensive the GND really is. A recent analysis by the American Action Forum puts the initial 10-year cost at a staggering $93 trillion. Although the reader might understandably assume that this is an inflated figure designed to discredit the GND, it actually rests on a few conservative assumptions. The figure of $93 trillion is admittedly absurd, but that’s only because the planks of the GND are absurdly expensive. The American Action Forum estimate is entirely fair.

The Major Components of the Green New Deal

The American Action Forum is headed by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who—among other positions—was the director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) from 2003 to 2005. One can of course disagree with his team’s analysis, but their approach to “budget scoring” the GND is entirely conventional in DC circles.

For their analysis, the AAF team focused on six major planks of the GND that they considered tractable for quantification. The table below summarized the various cost estimates for each of the six items:

summary-table1-768x397_0.png
Source: American Action Forum

Notice that there are many items listed in the GND documentation that are not included in the table above. This is one reason that I have called their cost estimate conservative.

Another important point is that the absurd $93 trillion figure is not driven by one particular modeling choice. On the contrary, five of the six components studied by the team have a (10-year) cost exceeding $1 trillion. So even if it turns out that, say, the AAF team is totally wrong on the cost of Universal Health Care and Guaranteed Green Housing, then the cost would still exceed $50 trillion for the first decade, because of the other components.

...

The Green New Deal contains a wish list of progressive social and economic goals that come with a staggering price tag. A recent estimate from the American Action Forum puts the 10-year cost at an incredible $93 trillion. Yet as we have explained above, this estimate is conservative because it leaves out many practical considerations. It’s difficult to be precise, however, because the plan’s authors have been (deliberately?) vague on the details.

In reality, the Congress will not be so foolish as to attempt an undertaking so ludicrously expensive. Yet even if they implement a Green New Deal “lite,” the package would still add many trillions in government debt, while making energy and transportation more expensive for American households and businesses.

So, using the above chart and averaging out the three goals that have a variable cost, I come up with $507,010 per house hold over 10 years,  or $50,701 dollars a year.  I'm sure all of us have this kind of cash laying around,  especially elderly households.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-impossible-foods-ceo-burger/vegetarian-patty-gets-the-burger-king-whopper-test-idUSKCN1RD1WO

To mark the launch on April Fool’s day, the burger giant released a hidden-camera-style promo video showing the serving of plant-based Whoppers instead of meat to customers who marvel that they cannot tell the difference.

 

“We wanted to make sure we had something that lived up to the expectations of the Whopper,” said Burger King’s North America president, Christopher Finazzo. “We’ve done sort of a blind taste test with our franchisees, with people in the office, with my partners on the executive team, and virtually nobody can tell the difference.”

The Impossible Whopper comes at an extra cost - about a dollar more than the beef patty Whopper. But Finazzo said research shows consumers are willing to pay more for the plant-based burger.

Plant-based meat has been gaining popularity as more attention is focused on the environmental hazards of industrial ranching. Finazzo said his research shows customers mainly like it for the health benefits. The Impossible Burger patty has zero cholesterol.

Impossible Foods, based in Redwood City, California, launched its first faux meat patty over two years ago. A genetically modified yeast creates the key ingredient, called heme, which makes the patties appear to bleed and taste like real meat.

OK - This is going too far......Messing with the Whopper........Stop the insanity................

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swordfish said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-impossible-foods-ceo-burger/vegetarian-patty-gets-the-burger-king-whopper-test-idUSKCN1RD1WO

To mark the launch on April Fool’s day, the burger giant released a hidden-camera-style promo video showing the serving of plant-based Whoppers instead of meat to customers who marvel that they cannot tell the difference.

 

“We wanted to make sure we had something that lived up to the expectations of the Whopper,” said Burger King’s North America president, Christopher Finazzo. “We’ve done sort of a blind taste test with our franchisees, with people in the office, with my partners on the executive team, and virtually nobody can tell the difference.”

The Impossible Whopper comes at an extra cost - about a dollar more than the beef patty Whopper. But Finazzo said research shows consumers are willing to pay more for the plant-based burger.

Plant-based meat has been gaining popularity as more attention is focused on the environmental hazards of industrial ranching. Finazzo said his research shows customers mainly like it for the health benefits. The Impossible Burger patty has zero cholesterol.

Impossible Foods, based in Redwood City, California, launched its first faux meat patty over two years ago. A genetically modified yeast creates the key ingredient, called heme, which makes the patties appear to bleed and taste like real meat.

OK - This is going too far......Messing with the Whopper........Stop the insanity................

 

I understand the concern, but they aren't replacing the Whopper, just giving another option.  They already had a veggie burger on the menu for a long while now, so it's not surprising that they'd also move to a Whopper version since it's the most popular item.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, foxbat said:

I understand the concern, but they aren't replacing the Whopper, just giving another option.  They already had a veggie burger on the menu for a long while now, so it's not surprising that they'd also move to a Whopper version since it's the most popular item.

Jeez man......It's the WHOPPER!! - Let it be.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Jeez man......It's the WHOPPER!! - Let it be.....

Another (sometimes rare) instance of SF and me being completely aligned in our views. Call it something else, man. The Whopper is sacred!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

Another (sometimes rare) instance of SF and me being completely aligned in our views. Call it something else, man. The Whopper is sacred!

That - and the Big Mac......Although the bacon add-on is a little tempting......

Burger-Bros.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, swordfish said:

That - and the Big Mac......Although the bacon add-on is a little tempting......

Burger-Bros.....

Do it!  It's amazing when the bacon's done right, but it tends to be inconsistent in the texture ... when it's crispy it is very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2019 at 10:06 AM, Wabash82 said:

Another (sometimes rare) instance of SF and me being completely aligned in our views. Call it something else, man. The Whopper is sacred!

 

On 4/1/2019 at 10:55 AM, swordfish said:

That - and the Big Mac......Although the bacon add-on is a little tempting......

Burger-Bros.....

Of all the hamburgers on Earth, you are defending the two trashiest? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

 

Of all the hamburgers on Earth, you are defending the two trashiest? 

A hamburger elitist! 

Keep your pinkies in the air, Dante.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2019 at 10:30 PM, gonzoron said:

Image result for cow fart

image.png.ec6460da834928745059e61889c4d4bd.png

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Renewable energy supporter lose, NIMBY's win in southern Tippecanoe County:  https://www.jconline.com/story/news/2019/04/17/over-objections-wind-farm-ban-recommended-tippecanoe-county/3504763002/

Quote

Wind farms in Tippecanoe County took a blow Wednesday, as planners from across Greater Lafayette recommended an ordinance that would effectively ban commercial turbines.

The vote came after a half-dozen people derided the idea, saying that banning wind farms would make Tippecanoe County appear backward at a time when energy sustainability is vital.

The argument in return, including from nearly two dozen residents of southern Tippecanoe County – thought to be a prime spot for potential wind farms – was that turbines belonged in counties that weren’t growing the way this county is.

The ordinance would prohibit wind turbines taller 140 feet. That would leave the possibility for smaller turbines, similar to ones that power CityBus offices along Canal Road north of downtown Lafayette. But it would shut out commercial turbines, which can range from 300 feet to as much as 600 feet, for newer models.

....

Hmm.  so within the next 20 years Tippecanoe county will be nothing but a large urban and industrial  sprawl?  The county ranks 11th of out 92 in total square miles.   Also wonder what county ordinances are currently in place regarding the rezoning of current agricultural land  to residential or industrial?  I know in Clinton county it is pretty restrictive,  with actual land owners in certain situations not being able to give land to a child in order for them build a house.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Green New Deal Will Hit the Poor With Higher Energy Costs: https://reason.com/2019/04/24/the-green-new-deal-will-hit-the-poor-with-higher-energy-costs/

Quote

The Green New Deal's goal is to move America to zero carbon emissions in 10 years.

"That's a goal you could only imagine possible if you have no idea how energy is produced," James Meigs, former editor of Popular Mechanics magazine, says in my latest video.

"Renewable is so inconsistent," he adds. "You can't just put in wind turbines and solar panels. You have to build all this infrastructure to connect them with energy consumers."

Because wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, "renewable" energy requires many more transmission lines, and bigger batteries.

Unfortunately, says Meigs: "You have to mine materials for batteries. Those mines are environmentally hazardous. Disposing of batteries is hazardous."

"Batteries are a lousy way to store energy," adds physicist Mark Mills, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Also, the ingredients of green energy, like battery packs, are far from green.

"You have to consume 100 barrels of oil in China to make that battery pack," he explains. "Dig up 1,000 pounds of stuff to process it. Digging is done with oil, by big machines, so we're consuming energy to 'save' energy—not a good path to go."

Still, wind turbines and solar batteries are 10 times more efficient than when they were first introduced! That's not good enough, writes Mills, to make "the new energy economy" anything more than "magical thinking."

"They hit physics limits. In comic books, Tony Stark has a magic power source, but physics makes it impossible to make solar 10 times better again."

The dream of "green" causes us to misdirect resources. Even after billions in government subsidies, solar still makes up less than 1 percent of America's energy—wind just 2 percent. And even that energy isn't really "clean."

"We use billions of tons of hydrocarbons to make the windmills that are already in the world, and we've only just begun to make them at the level people claim they would like them to be built," says Mills. "Pursue a path of wind, solar and batteries, we increase how much we dig up and move by a thousand-fold."

"You gotta clear-cut the forest. These machines kill a lot of birds," says Meigs. "I agree that we should bring down our carbon emissions…but we should also make sure we're spending money on stuff that really works."

There is one energy source, though, that efficiently produces lots of power with no carbon emissions: nuclear.

But people fear it. They point to the Chernobyl plant accident in Ukraine, and Fukushima in Japan.

"The Chernobyl plant design was idiotically bad," says Meigs. They don't make nuclear plants like that anymore.

What about Fukushima?

"Fukushima helps prove how safe nuclear power really is. No one was killed."

I pointed out that people were killed during the evacuation.

"Fear of radiation killed people," responded Meigs. They evacuated older people who didn't need to go.

People fear what they don't understand and what they can't see.

"A dam breaks, and hundreds of thousands of people die. Nuclear plants, their safety, ironically, is actually evident in their accidents!" says Mills.

"More people have fallen off of roofs installing solar panels than have been killed in the entire history of nuclear power in the U.S.," adds Meigs.

Yet after Fukushima, Germany shut down its nuclear plants. That led to higher electricity prices and increased carbon emissions because Germany burned coal to make up for the loss of nuclear power.

Likewise, "in Bernie Sanders' home state of Vermont, they shut down their nuclear plant. Guess what happened? Carbon emissions went up," recounts Meigs. "This supposedly green state, ultra-liberal Vermont, went backwards."

If a Green New Deal is ever implemented, says Mills, it would rob the poor by raising energy costs, while "giving money to wealthy people in the form of subsidies to buy $100,000 cars, to put expensive solar arrays on their roofs or to be investors in wind farms."

"It's upside-down Robin Hood," he adds. "That's a bad deal."

Yet a majority of Americans—including Republicans surveyed—say they support some version of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

Good to see David Koch is so concerned about the poor.

Keep in mind that to several on this Forum it's important that the world we leave for our children and grandchildren insures that they have money as they roam a desolate barren landscape searching for food, water and breatheable air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...