Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Muda69

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

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, gonzoron said:

I imagine the aliens who seeded humans here originally could probably answer those questions. I wonder if they also seeded other worlds? If they had an environmental "package" they used to determine where to begin?

71azht1WUpL._SY606_.jpg

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

1. I don't.  You made that up.  It is a weak rhetorical technique

2. Corporations are not human, they don't have morals.  They exist to maximize profits.

3. My 2018 Chevy Bolt is outstanding.

1.  Good to know.

2.  Is willingly polluting a river, lake, the atmosphere, etc.  an immoral act?

3. How many EV charging stations are there in Tiny Argos?

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/05/15/are-electric-cars-worse-for-the-environment-000660

Quote

...

All of this might make sense if electric vehicles, as their supporters claim, were truly likely to reduce air pollution and tackle climate change. But are they?

...

What I found is that widespread adoption of electric vehicles nationwide will likely increase air pollution compared with new internal combustion vehicles. You read that right: more electric cars and trucks will mean more pollution.

That might sound counterintuitive: After all, won’t replacing a 30-year old, smoke-belching Oldsmobile with a new electric vehicle reduce air pollution? Yes, of course. But that’s also where many electric vehicle proponents’ arguments run off the road: they fail to consider just how clean and efficient new internal combustion vehicles are. The appropriate comparison for evaluating the benefits of all those electric vehicle subsidies and mandates isn’t the difference between an electric vehicle and an old gas-guzzler; it’s the difference between an electric car and a new gas car. And new internal combustion engines are really clean. Today’s vehicles emit only about 1% of the pollution than they did in the 1960s, and new innovations continue to improve those engines’ efficiency and cleanliness.

And as for that electric car: The energy doesn’t come from nowhere. Cars are charged from the nation’s electrical grid, which means that they’re only as “clean” as America’s mix of power sources. Those are getting cleaner, but we still generate power mainly by burning fossil fuels: natural gas is our biggest source of electricity, and is projected to increase. And coal, while still declining, will remain the second largest source of electricity for some time. (Third is nuclear power, which doesn’t generate emissions but has other byproducts that worry some environmentalists.) Even with large increases in wind and solar generation, the EIA projects that the nation’s electric generating mix will be just 30% renewable by 2030. Based on that forecast, if the EIA’s projected number of electric vehicles were replaced with new internal combustion vehicles, air pollution would actually decrease—and this holds true even if you include the emissions from oil refineries that manufacture gasoline.

...

So, if electric-vehicle subsidies don’t help the environment, what—or who—do they help? Most electric-vehicle buyers are far wealthier than average Americans. A nationwide survey in 2017 found that 56% had household incomes of at least $100,000 and 17% had household incomes of at least $200,000. (In 2016, median household income for the US as a whole was less than $58,000.) So it’s fair to say the subsidies disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor, who cannot afford to buy even subsidized electric vehicles or live in their own homes to take advantage of residential chargers or solar panels.

Not only that, the wires and charging stations needed to charge all those electric vehicles will be paid for by all ratepayers, further raising electric rates. And as more wealthy customers install solar panels to charge their electric vehicles, the costs to provide them back-up power will fall on those who cannot afford to do so.

In effect, the wealthy owners of electric vehicles will enjoy the benefits of their clean, silent cars, while passing on many of the costs of keeping their vehicles on the road to everyone else, especially the poor.

....

 

Edited by Muda69
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


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

you could have easily clipped the statement under the graph indicating sea level change for the past 100 years.  Don't be a pompous jerk....you're not the only one that can read a graph and do some basic math.  

In typical fashion, you tried to prove SF wrong....the statement under the graph indicates 0.65mm change per year with 10% +/- which = .21 ft (2.52") over 100 years....guess you really proved him wrong.  

The graph also shows a steady, very slight increase over that 100 years....including the last 50 years.  

BTW...you could have gotten to your final number a little easier....

Then why are you giving me so much grief over it if everyone can read a graph and do basic math?  And why am I the jerk for not including everything that you would have posted or would like to have had posted?  @swordfish posted a picture and I posted one too, with a couple of links.  Mine just happened to have a different take on the subject than the one that he presented. 

And why the name calling?  I merely posted an item that showed the details behind the fact that the picture posted was in error.  I also posted the specific data, in total, along with the reasoning and support behind it.  I also posted another article that actually speaks directly to potential climate change implications in that harbor and specifically Fort Denison which is the structure in the picture.  So we can't have discussions or disagreements anymore about data without it turning into a shouting match with insults?  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

1.  Good to know.

2.  Is willingly polluting a river, lake, the atmosphere, etc.  an immoral act?

3. How many EV charging stations are there in Tiny Argos?

 

 

2. Not really germane to the conversation.  You are still trying to make this a good vs. evil/moral vs. immoral issue and I have never engaged in this issue at that level.

3. I have a level 2 charger at home and top off the charge every night.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

2. Not really germane to the conversation.  You are still trying to make this a good vs. evil/moral vs. immoral issue and I have never engaged in this issue at that level.

 

b6219298e12bf5a26a9846df8d5caa6bb2b358e9

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Five Bucks More Than a Nissan Leaf, You Can Get a Hellephant Instead: https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2019/04/for-five-bucks-more-than-a-nissan-leaf-you-can-get-a-hellephant-instead/

Quote

MP018_003MBdbbm9bs94736q5310bgd4kbn3q-e1

Apparently, today is Hemi Day in our vast autoverse, though Twitter tells me it’s also Lesbian Visibility Day, while Wikipedia informs me that John Wilkes Booth was shot through the neck in a Virginia farmhouse on this day in 1865.

But yes, Hemi Day. April 26th … 4/26. Get it?

Appropriately, Fiat Chrysler waited for choose this calendar date to open pre-orders for its monstrous “Hellephant” 426 crate engine, a 1,000-horsepower, 950 lb-ft beast of an powerplant designed to turn your pre-1976 Mopar into an object of fear and testosterone-fueled lust. It now has a price tag.

Officially named the Mopar “Hellephant” 426 Supercharged Crate HEMI Engine, the retro-themed tribute mill can be had for $29,995, which happens to be just five dollars more than the pre-destination price of an electric Nissan Leaf S.

Oddly, just last night a friend was mulling the feasibility of shoehorning an 8.0-liter Magnum V10 into a Leaf out of spite for the green crowd.

Available starting today via the Mopar brand’s crate engine site, the engine pairs with a $2,265 plug-and-play kit containing: a powertrain control module (PCM), power distribution center, engine wiring harness, chassis harness, accelerator pedal, ground jumper, oxygen sensors, charge air temperature sensors, fuel pump control module, and CAN bus interface device.

The Hellephant sits atop of mountain of muscle in the Mopar catalogue. Beneath it resides the 707 hp, 6.2-liter Hellcrate motor, a recent option for enlivening tired old iron. With the new 426, the company borrowed valve covers from the Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat Redeye and a valve train from the Demon, then mated the all-aluminum engine with an improved supercharger. Metric displacement is a bored-and-stroked 7.0 liters.

Of course, the expense in replacing that smog-strangled 318 doesn’t end there. You might want that front end accessory drive kit, exhaust manifold kit, rear sump oil pan kit, and oil filter adaptor. Maybe a Tremec transmission, too.

Should you choose to drop money on the Hellephant, just know that you can’t boast of those 1,000 horses without 93-octane gas.

Probably work great in a Chevy Bolt.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, foxbat said:

Then why are you giving me so much grief over it if everyone can read a graph and do basic math?  And why am I the jerk for not including everything that you would have posted or would like to have had posted?  @swordfish posted a picture and I posted one too, with a couple of links.  Mine just happened to have a different take on the subject than the one that he presented. 

And why the name calling?  I merely posted an item that showed the details behind the fact that the picture posted was in error.  I also posted the specific data, in total, along with the reasoning and support behind it.  I also posted another article that actually speaks directly to potential climate change implications in that harbor and specifically Fort Denison which is the structure in the picture.  So we can't have discussions or disagreements anymore about data without it turning into a shouting match with insults?  

You were condescending in your response...about the ability to read graphs, etc.  You were attempting to disprove SF's meme....and whether it was intentional or not, you left out a key part of your graph that spoke directly to the "growth" over the 100 year period.  No shouting match as all...just challenging what you posted and how you chose to respond to that challenge.

My wording was bad...and I own that.  My apologies.

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

Ha ha. You got roasted and immediately went with name calling.  

Disagree....I can read graphs and can hang with the math.  Trust me.  

BTW, if you think that type of stuff is a roasting...you live in a very sheltered world.

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wind farms banned in rural Tippecanoe County, as environmentalists grumble: https://www.jconline.com/story/news/2019/05/06/wind-farms-banned-rural-tippecanoe-county-environmentalists-grumble/3660870002/

Quote

As protests mounted Monday about the message being sent to the rest of Indiana and world about Tippecanoe County’s commitment to green energy, the biggest turbines and commercial wind farms were banned from rural land around Lafayette and West Lafayette.

Tippecanoe County commissioners – arguing that a growing county couldn’t afford to hamstring other kinds of development with long-term leases tying up tens of thousands of acres around Lafayette and West Lafayette – voted 3-0 for a zoning ordinance that prohibits 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 effectively shut out commercial turbines, which can range from 300 feet to as much as 600 feet, for newer models, as seen in neighboring Benton and White counties.

The ordinance, driven by several dozen residents primarily in the southern part of the county, has been in the works for several months. In April, the Tippecanoe County Area Plan Commission – a body made up of representatives from government bodies in Lafayette, West Lafayette, Tippecanoe County and three towns in the county – recommended the language in an 11-4 vote.

That night in April, though, a number of people told APC members that the county was making a mistake by shunning renewable energy and essentially casting a vote for the coal and fossil fuel industries.

That litany continued Monday morning, this time as a last-ditch plea to the three county commissioners.

“When you’re in a community hosting Purdue University, an education institution renowned worldwide in engineering, here our county commissioners are going to vote to accept a ban limiting innovation (and) growth,” said Derek Reuters, a Lafayette resident.

“If we want to send a message around the world that Purdue’s a great institution, if we want to send a message that we’re a community that accepts innovation and growth in renewable, safe, healthy energy production, and we want to be a community that looks out after our future generations, I think you should vote no,” Reuters said.

Susan Schechter, a Lafayette resident, said she couldn’t understand the county’s motivation.

“We’re dependent on an old, dirty technology to support our economy,” Schechter said. “Why would we say we’re not going to support a clean solution that would benefit us in terms of clean jobs and income from a generation of clean energy? I’m just like, Why? Why are we taking this step?”

Tim Strueh, who lives near Linden, close to the Montgomery County line, was among residents who pushed for the ordinance – the second in the past dozen years aimed at wind turbines. In 2007, Tippecanoe County set zoning restrictions that demanded setbacks of 750 feet from neighboring properties without turbines and at least 1,200 feet from dwellings.

“This is not about alternative energy,” Strueh said. “What this ordinance is about is proper siting for power plants.”

Proponents also argued about the potential harm to property values for homes that wind up in the shadows of wind turbines.

Commissioner Tom Murtaugh sided with residents, saying the ban was not a county statement against sustainable energy. In fact, he said, the county and the Area Plan Commission were getting set to come up with zoning guidelines in anticipation of a growth in solar energy.

“What comes out of this is that renewable energy is important, but it all needs to make sense,” Murtaugh said. “In the case of these giant wind farms, it doesn’t make sense. In Benton County, it does, because you don’t have the population growth like we do here. … It’s irresponsible to tie up 30,000 acres for decades in a county that is growing the way we are.”

Commissioners and county planners say they haven’t heard recently from wind farm companies, including Invenergy, a firm that, at one point, had been working to sign land leases in Tippecanoe County.

Clark Howey, a farmer in West Point, southwest of Lafayette, said the ordinance was going to hurt farmers looking for supplemental income on land in parts of the county never going to be targeted for industrial development.

“It just looks to me like the farmers down there have farmed this and farmed it for generation after generation after generation,” Howey said. “And now, all of a sudden, we’re too stupid to run the farm. It’s beyond me how this has happened.”

Commissioner David Byers, a dairy farmer, commiserated, saying he was torn over a measure that would restrict the agriculture community looking to stay afloat with lease payments for turbines. Still, he voted for the ordinance.

The commissioners’ vote effectively put the ordinance on the books for all unincorporated areas of Tippecanoe County, outside Lafayette, West Lafayette, Battle Ground, Dayton and Clarks Hill.

Lafayette was expected to consider the ordinance Monday night.

But the West Lafayette City Council tabled discussion and a potential vote Monday night, at the request to Mayor John Dennis.

NIMBY's win,  property owners and their freedoms lose.  Gee, I did't know 30k acres of land was de-facto owned by Tippecanoe County.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The New Green Serfdom: https://reason.com/2019/05/13/the-new-green-serfdom/

Quote

"Until you do it, I'm the boss," said Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist congresswoman from the Bronx, responding to critics of her Green New Deal in February. Later that night, the freshman congresswoman doubled down on her comment, tweeting that people who "don't like the #GreenNewDeal" should "come up with your own ambitious, on-scale proposal to address the global climate crisis. Until then, we're in charge—and you're just shouting from the cheap seats."

Much has rightly been made of the Green New Deal's fuzzy-headed utopianism and its impossible goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero in 10 years. But we should also pay close attention to the plan's authoritarian impulses, particularly in light of its historical inspirations: Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and the command economy he established during the Second World War.

If proponents of the Green New Deal are serious—and there's no reason to doubt them—then they're proposing a return to a militaristic America where Uncle Sam's heavy hand intervenes in all aspects of life, curtailing individual freedom in pursuit of their collectivist goals. And like the planners of the Roosevelt years, their intentions are clear and grandiose: They want the power to regiment a society of nearly 330 million people in pursuit of a pipe dream they liken to a war for survival.

....

But then, the Green New Dealers seem to see that war as a model for domestic policy. In a widely lampooned FAQ document that an Ocasio-Cortez advisor erroneously claimed was a hoax, the Green New Deal is called a "10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and create economic prosperity for all."

Americans should pay attention to what the country was like on the homefront during World War II. Prosperity it was not.

Unemployment did come down—to less than 2 percent—though that's largely becausemore than a fifth of the U.S. workforce was conscripted and sent overseas to sacrifice life and limb. The workers who remained were focused on producing military goods, such as guns and ammunition, while consumer goods were either underproduced or not produced at all. Other goods—such as gasoline, tires, nylon, shoes, bicycles, sugar, meat, canned fish, cheese, and canned milk—were strictly rationed. Income tax rates applied to more and more people, including lower-income earners; hit confiscatory levels, with the highest marginal tax rate rising to 94 percent; and were rigorously enforced by the IRS through a new system of automatic payroll deductions.

American people did extraordinary things to win World War II, but it took an authoritarian society to achieve it—one that nobody should want to return to.

When the United States goes abroad to do widescale social engineering, that's rightly called imperialism by libertarians and socialists alike. But when widespread social engineering is done at home through the federal government, people like Ocasio-Cortez call it progressivism and point to the New Deal and World War II to sell the plan.

When she says "I'm the boss," pay attention. She's describing America under a Green New Deal: a place where you'll do as you're told.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Disdain 1
  • Kill me now 1

Share this post


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

Image may contain: text

When the same folks spew the same fake news when it is so easily debunked, you can see why any rational person would be skeptical of either their intelligence or motivation for lying so blatantly.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/time-magazine-cover-global-cooling/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-coming-ice-age/

As noted by Time itself in 2013, the 2006 image on the right is an authentic cover, but the 1977 image is a doctored version of an 9 April 2007 issue which actually featured an article titled “The Global Warming Survival Guide”:

Share this post


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

Facts seem to do that to ya....

I was referring to you sir.....

Image may contain: text

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, swordfish said:

I was referring to you sir.....

Image may contain: text

If debunking your trash lies is being triggered, I will gladly bear that cross.

This one is even more whacky.

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


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

Found another Trigger.......

LIke I said, if debunking trash is triggered, I will own it.  Just own your trash

  • Sit and spin 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Environmentalist Says Only Nuclear Power Can Save Us Now: https://reason.com/video/this-environmentalist-says-only-nuclear-power-can-save-us-now/

Quote

Calling climate change an existential threat to humanity, congressional Democrats have proposed a policy package called the Green New Deal. It would mandate that 100 percent of U.S. energy production come from "clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources" like wind and solar by the year 2050.

But some environmentalists say Green New Dealers are neglecting one obvious source of abundant clean energy already available: nuclear power, which the Green New Deal FAQ wants to phase out along with such fossil fuels as oil, gas, and coal.

"It's when the conservationists became environmentalists that everything went bad," says Michael Shellenberger, founder and president of Environmental Progress, a pro-nuclear research and advocacy nonprofit based in Berkeley, California. "It stopped being about the environment. It became about controlling society."

Shellenberger started his career in energy advocating for more government subsidies to wind and solar. He pushed for a new Apollo Project of $300 billion in federal research and development funding to make renewable energy sources cheaper than coal within a decade.

From 2009 to 2015, the Obama administration took up that call and put billions of dollars into renewable energy subsidies. That, Shellenberger says, opened his eyes to the fact that no amount of government funding can overcome the inherent drawbacks of renewables.

When California invested heavily in wind and solar, Shellenberger says it led to energy price increases at a rate about six times faster than the national average, despite the falling cost of solar panels.

Shellenberger says that the allure of nuclear power is its "energy density"—he estimates that the energy consumption of the average human being from birth to death can be provided by a single 12-ounce soda can's worth of uranium. He believes a nuclear renaissance could unlock a world of clean energy abundance, an idea he explores further in a document he co-authored, titled "An Ecomodernist Manifesto."

He contrasts his pro-growth, urbanist "ecomodernism" with the Malthusian, neo-primitivist "dark green" environmentalism that he thinks motivates many proponents of the Green New Deal.

"If you want to save the natural environment, you just use nuclear. You grow more food on less land, and people live in cities. It's not rocket science," says Shellenberger. "The idea that people need to stay poor…that's just a reactionary social philosophy that they then dress up as a kind of environmentalism."

.....

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...