Dog

Green new deal

Recommended Posts

While some of the specifics need to be ironed out, the plan’s authors assure that this “massive transformation of our society” needs some “clear goals and a timeline.” The timeline is ten years. Here are some of the goals:

·         Ban affordable energy. GND calls for the elimination of all fossil fuel energy production, the lifeblood of American industry and life, which includes not only all oil but also natural gas — one of the cheapest sources of American energy, and one of the reasons the United States has been able to lead the world in carbon-emissions reduction.

·         Eliminate nuclear energy. The GND also calls for eliminating all nuclear power, one of the only productive and somewhat affordable “clean” energy sources available to us, in 11 years. This move would purge around 20 percent of American energy production so you can rely on intermittent wind for your energy needs.

·         Ban cars. To be fair, under the GND, everyone will need to retrofit their cars with Flintstones-style foot holes or pedals for cycling. The authors state that the GND would like to replace every “combustion-engine vehicle” — trucks, airplanes, boats, and 99 percent of cars — within ten years. Charging stations for electric vehicles will be built “everywhere,” though how power plants will provide the energy needed to charge them is a mystery.

·         Gut and rebuild every building in America. Markey and Cortez want to “retrofit every building in America” with “state of the art energy efficiency.” I repeat, “every building in America.” That includes every home, factory, and apartment building, which will all need, for starters, to have their entire working heating and cooling systems ripped out and replaced with…well, with whatever technology Democrats are going invent in their committee hearings, I guess.

·         Eliminate air travel. GND calls for building out “highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Good luck Hawaii! California’s high-speed boondoggle is already in $100 billion dollars of debt, and looks to be one of the state’s biggest fiscal disasters ever. Amtrak runs billions of dollars in the red (though, as we’ll see, trains will also be phased out). Imagine growing that business model out to every state in America?

·         A government-guaranteed job. The bill promises the United States government will provide every single American with a job that includes a “family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and a pension.” You can imagine that those left in the private sector would be funding these through some unspecified “massive” taxation. On the bright side, when you’re foraging for food, your savings will be worthless.

·         Free education for life. GND promises free college or trade schools for every American.

·         A salubrious diet. The GND promises the government will provide “healthy food” to every American (because there are no beans or lettuce in your local supermarket, I guess).

·         A house. The GND promises that the government will provide, “safe, affordable, adequate housing” for every American citizen. I call dibs on an affordable Adams Morgan townhouse. Thank you, Ocasio-Cortez.

·         Free money. The GND aims to provide, and I am not making this up, “economic security” for all who are “unable or unwilling” to work. Just to reiterate: if you’re unwilling to work, the rest of us will have your back.

·         Bonus insanity: Ban meat. Ocasio-Cortez admits that we can’t get zero emissions in 10 years “because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.” The only way to get rid of farting cows is to get rid of beef.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/07/ten-most-insane-requirements-green-new-deal/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dog said:

While some of the specifics need to be ironed out, the plan’s authors assure that this “massive transformation of our society” needs some “clear goals and a timeline.” The timeline is ten years. Here are some of the goals:

·         Ban affordable energy. GND calls for the elimination of all fossil fuel energy production, the lifeblood of American industry and life, which includes not only all oil but also natural gas — one of the cheapest sources of American energy, and one of the reasons the United States has been able to lead the world in carbon-emissions reduction.

·         Eliminate nuclear energy. The GND also calls for eliminating all nuclear power, one of the only productive and somewhat affordable “clean” energy sources available to us, in 11 years. This move would purge around 20 percent of American energy production so you can rely on intermittent wind for your energy needs.

·         Ban cars. To be fair, under the GND, everyone will need to retrofit their cars with Flintstones-style foot holes or pedals for cycling. The authors state that the GND would like to replace every “combustion-engine vehicle” — trucks, airplanes, boats, and 99 percent of cars — within ten years. Charging stations for electric vehicles will be built “everywhere,” though how power plants will provide the energy needed to charge them is a mystery.

·         Gut and rebuild every building in America. Markey and Cortez want to “retrofit every building in America” with “state of the art energy efficiency.” I repeat, “every building in America.” That includes every home, factory, and apartment building, which will all need, for starters, to have their entire working heating and cooling systems ripped out and replaced with…well, with whatever technology Democrats are going invent in their committee hearings, I guess.

·         Eliminate air travel. GND calls for building out “highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Good luck Hawaii! California’s high-speed boondoggle is already in $100 billion dollars of debt, and looks to be one of the state’s biggest fiscal disasters ever. Amtrak runs billions of dollars in the red (though, as we’ll see, trains will also be phased out). Imagine growing that business model out to every state in America?

·         A government-guaranteed job. The bill promises the United States government will provide every single American with a job that includes a “family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and a pension.” You can imagine that those left in the private sector would be funding these through some unspecified “massive” taxation. On the bright side, when you’re foraging for food, your savings will be worthless.

·         Free education for life. GND promises free college or trade schools for every American.

·         A salubrious diet. The GND promises the government will provide “healthy food” to every American (because there are no beans or lettuce in your local supermarket, I guess).

·         A house. The GND promises that the government will provide, “safe, affordable, adequate housing” for every American citizen. I call dibs on an affordable Adams Morgan townhouse. Thank you, Ocasio-Cortez.

·         Free money. The GND aims to provide, and I am not making this up, “economic security” for all who are “unable or unwilling” to work. Just to reiterate: if you’re unwilling to work, the rest of us will have your back.

·         Bonus insanity: Ban meat. Ocasio-Cortez admits that we can’t get zero emissions in 10 years “because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.” The only way to get rid of farting cows is to get rid of beef.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/07/ten-most-insane-requirements-green-new-deal/

That's a satirized interpretation - I think that many of the "Green New Deal" objectives are simply silly - this isn't what the platform says. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That's a satirized interpretation - I think that many of the "Green New Deal" objectives are simply silly - this isn't what the platform says. 

It’s WAY beyond simply silly.  While what Dog posted may be satire, what is in the plan illustrates how completely insane the proponents of it are.  They should never be allowed anywhere near the levers of power in this country.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, J28 said:

It’s WAY beyond simply silly.  While what Dog posted may be satire, what is in the plan illustrates how completely insane the proponents of it are.  They should never be allowed anywhere near the levers of power in this country.

Ya mean, like Donald Trump, and his band of merry thieves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, J28 said:

It’s WAY beyond simply silly.  While what Dog posted may be satire, what is in the plan illustrates how completely insane the proponents of it are.  They should never be allowed anywhere near the levers of power in this country.

Ya see - that's where I disagree - in the house?  That's where the pie-in-the-sky ideas are supposed to be floated.  Of course, I'd prefer that the ideas have SOME basis in reality before they're put to a policy vote, but each of these, in and of itself, isn't a terrible objective - the problem comes if the objective isn't coupled w/performance objectives.  Get rid of IC engines?  Cool - I'd be OK with that as long as something else exists to fulfill the requirement that IC engines currently do.   Updating every building w/modern energy efficient stuff?  Again, Ok - as long as the way that happens can be demonstrated to be viable, effective and result in an actual improvement.  

The banning meat part?  Fuck no - someone tries to outlaw bacon - I'm starting a black market, with well armed security.  You ain't touching my pig! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

  Get rid of IC engines?  Cool - I'd be OK with that as long as something else exists to fulfill the requirement that IC engines currently do. 

that's not pie-in-the-sky that's already happening now. people are hung up on the word "ban" but a bunch of this stuff (like meat, pure ICEs, inefficient homes) is going to get more expensive and the market will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

that's not pie-in-the-sky that's already happening now. people are hung up on the word "ban" but a bunch of this stuff (like meat) is going to get more expensive and the market will change.

They're hung up on the word "ban" because taken at face value - "ban" !=  "replace when a viable alternative is available"   Words and messaging matter, and the idea that we're gonna get rid of IC fueled aircraft, trucks, boats, trains in 10 years with no explanation of HOW that's going to happen, or provisions should the alternatives not be available make it "pie in the sky".    If those considerations have been made, and are part of the plan, then they should be communicated as such.  Absent that?  It's not practical to think that "it's in there somewhere", is it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Ya see - that's where I disagree - in the house?  That's where the pie-in-the-sky ideas are supposed to be floated.  Of course, I'd prefer that the ideas have SOME basis in reality before they're put to a policy vote, but each of these, in and of itself, isn't a terrible objective - the problem comes if the objective isn't coupled w/performance objectives.  Get rid of IC engines?  Cool - I'd be OK with that as long as something else exists to fulfill the requirement that IC engines currently do.   Updating every building w/modern energy efficient stuff?  Again, Ok - as long as the way that happens can be demonstrated to be viable, effective and result in an actual improvement.  

The banning meat part?  Fuck no - someone tries to outlaw bacon - I'm starting a black market, with well armed security.  You ain't touching my pig! 

we  can have an East Coast pig ring ;-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Ya see - that's where I disagree - in the house?  That's where the pie-in-the-sky ideas are supposed to be floated.  Of course, I'd prefer that the ideas have SOME basis in reality before they're put to a policy vote, but each of these, in and of itself, isn't a terrible objective - the problem comes if the objective isn't coupled w/performance objectives.  Get rid of IC engines?  Cool - I'd be OK with that as long as something else exists to fulfill the requirement that IC engines currently do.   Updating every building w/modern energy efficient stuff?  Again, Ok - as long as the way that happens can be demonstrated to be viable, effective and result in an actual improvement.  

The banning meat part?  Fuck no - someone tries to outlaw bacon - I'm starting a black market, with well armed security.  You ain't touching my pig! 

WRT the part you bolded in my post, levers of power meaning the ability to actually effectuate the changes proposed in the GND via government power.  I’m all about the free market responding to the will of the people regarding climate change.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 Words and messaging matter

except of course when it's Donald Trump, then we can't listen to the words, messaging, or take anything at face value.

for pretty much everything you mentioned except aircraft (dunno there) there are commercially available non-ICE solutions. Now. For somethings like rail - there've been electrified lines for over a century. It's not new technology. People are musing whether china may have seen peak-ICE car this past year. the worlds changing - you'll be able to buy a full electric plugin pickup in a couple years from Ford. if you follow automakers they, across the board, refer to pure-ICE cars as deadends. the future is hybrids or pure electric to them.

look - the implicitly subsidized fossil fuel lifestyle of the past century is going to change. accept and manage, or fight and face immense disruption eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

the implicitly subsidized fossil fuel lifestyle of the past century is going to change.

But we need to acknowledge that this transition is going to be immensely disruptive.  The US hegemony is/was founded on the growth of oil as a world energy source as coal (England) started fading. England had taken the reins from the Netherlands (wind) so a shift in control of energy WILL shift the worldwide balance of power. Just as it was obvious coal was going to supplant wind and oil supplanted coal, it's obvious that oil will be supplanted by something, probably distributed power generation.  Think of all the disruption, from oil companies to the local 7/11, that will occur. We need to plan something to cushion that shock but putting our heads in the sand about the change coming is as wrong as trying to do too much too soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

But we need to acknowledge that this transition is going to be immensely disruptive.  The US hegemony is/was founded on the growth of oil as a world energy source as coal (England) started fading. England had taken the reins from the Netherlands (wind) so a shift in control of energy WILL shift the worldwide balance of power. Just as it was obvious coal was going to supplant wind and oil supplanted coal, it's obvious that oil will be supplanted by something, probably distributed power generation.  Think of all the disruption, from oil companies to the local 7/11, that will occur. We need to plan something to cushion that shock but putting our heads in the sand about the change coming is as wrong as trying to do too much too soon.

you are full of shit....errr millennial babble 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the term Green New Deal but I didn't recognize anything from the Federalist troll bait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally.  Before we compelety fuck over the US economy, I’m gonna need a whole lot more convincin’ there is a climate crisis.  And IF there is, how the GND is going to fix it, when most of the pollution in the world comes from other countries, cough (China) cough who  destroy their economies in search of some Ill-defined, elusive goal.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

except of course when it's Donald Trump, then we can't listen to the words, messaging, or take anything at face value.

for pretty much everything you mentioned except aircraft (dunno there) there are commercially available non-ICE solutions. Now. For somethings like rail - there've been electrified lines for over a century. It's not new technology. People are musing whether china may have seen peak-ICE car this past year. the worlds changing - you'll be able to buy a full electric plugin pickup in a couple years from Ford. if you follow automakers they, across the board, refer to pure-ICE cars as deadends. the future is hybrids or pure electric to them.

look - the implicitly subsidized fossil fuel lifestyle of the past century is going to change. accept and manage, or fight and face immense disruption eventually.

We're not arguing - aside from the fact that any suggestion of a ban, or elimination of ICE w/out the caveat of a substitute being available is a non-starter.  Edited to add: There's a LOT of product  and infrastructure development that's necessary before electric vehicles are viable as replacements for the ICE powered fleet. 

There are several ideas that could be possibilities - but a declaration of "make it so" doesn't.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

They're hung up on the word "ban" because taken at face value - "ban" !=  "replace when a viable alternative is available"   Words and messaging matter, and the idea that we're gonna get rid of IC fueled aircraft, trucks, boats, trains in 10 years with no explanation of HOW that's going to happen, or provisions should the alternatives not be available make it "pie in the sky".    If those considerations have been made, and are part of the plan, then they should be communicated as such.  Absent that?  It's not practical to think that "it's in there somewhere", is it? 

"if we force it, they will build it" 

or something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get with it folks, it's coming. As a landlocked salt here in the West Virginia coal fields that once powered the U.S. Navy I envisione this entire state as a major center of power production. 

It's centrally located between the North and South. Scarcely populated with a histrionic work ethic. Wind, solar ,storage all is possible. 

Like an Avalanche coming down the mountain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jzk said:

Anyone here support this plan?

Judging by the attempted topic changes and messenger attacks, I'd say all the usual suspects support it.

Share this post


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

Get with it folks, it's coming. As a landlocked salt here in the West Virginia coal fields that once powered the U.S. Navy I envisione this entire state as a major center of power production. 

It's centrally located between the North and South. Scarcely populated with a histrionic work ethic. Wind, solar ,storage all is possible. 

Like an Avalanche coming down the mountain. 

Are you being sarcastic, or do you really believe that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bpm57 said:

Judging by the attempted topic changes and messenger attacks, I'd say all the usual suspects support it.

No one seems to be putting their hand up.  They support it, but are too embarrassed to admit it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, jzk said:

Anyone here support this plan?

What plan? Show me this plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

What plan? Show me this plan.

Should I show you google first, or the plan first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She claims that a 2 degree C rise above pre-industrialized levels will cause a loss of more than 99% of the world's coral reefs on Earth.  Interesting that she limits it to those coral reefs "on Earth."

Anyone believe this claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Olsonist said:

I like the term Green New Deal but I didn't recognize anything from the Federalist troll bait.

How about atr?

https://www.atr.org/green-new-deal-air-travel-stops-becoming-necessary

Or you can read the proposed res at npr

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729033-Green-New-Deal-FINAL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I thought they were talking about Shitstain’s infrastructure ‘plan’. I’ll read OC’s plan rather than Dog’s Federalist version or the ATR-ski op-Ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

There is also an overview that they released:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf

a guarantee for "Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work."

And this is my favorite:

"It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible."

So basically they are saying that it is unclear whether they are going to completely wreck civilization for us.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Sorry, I thought they were talking about Shitstain’s infrastructure ‘plan’. I’ll read OC’s plan rather than Dog’s Federalist version or the ATR-ski op-Ed.

OK - you’ve done a mediocre job of deflecting.  Time to sack up O - thumbs up or thumbs down on the GND?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thumbs up. I had to speed  read  it but thumbs up. I’m skeptical about carbon sequestration (other than trees). Still, it’s infinitely more detailed than your boy Shitstain’s infrastructure plan.

Share this post


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

She claims that a 2 degree C rise above pre-industrialized levels will cause a loss of more than 99% of the world's coral reefs on Earth.  Interesting that she limits it to those coral reefs "on Earth."

Anyone believe this claim?

No and I actually have a science degree with majors in biology & geography.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Awesome. BTW, OC doesn't make this claim in her Green New Deal but y'all can grasp at straws if you want.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coralreef-climate.html

Did you need me to teach you about google again?  How about this tip.  ctrl-F.  Once you clickity click that link that was provided to you, give the ctrl-f a try.  Type in "coral."  See what comes up.  Now, technically the claim is being made by the October 2018 "Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 "C".  But she is citing that claim as a foundation for her whole plan.  So she is making that claim.  See how that works?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

It's a fine line between making a claim yourself and calling someone else's a fact which you use as a foundation for your argument.

 

I wonder if someone cited the KKK's mission statement as the foundation of their plan, would they be able to claim that they aren't a racist?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious why the chose this language:

Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.

It's the only place in the document / FAQ that say's 'unwilling' to work.  I'm assuming that's some sort of "beltway-code" for single moms or people taking care of disabled folks that chose to stay home to provide care instead of working and trying to hire someone to do it.  Depending on your skill set, it's often better to stay home because of the costs.  Otherwise, it just sounds weird.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

No and I actually have a science degree with majors in biology & geography.

FKT

Corals can grow in a wide range of sea temperature...low 70's into the upper 90's in extremes....they are very adaptable especially over time...2 degree C ...is a massive temperature increase..is that air temp?...in that case it would not mean a 2 degree increase in water temps.anyway she and they are pulling this hypothetical shit out of each others ass....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the GND would solve our immigration crisis.  Who would want to move to a country with living conditions like Albania in the 1950s?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

except of course when it's Donald Trump

Not to mention Hillary. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Libgressives argue "where and how are you going to get the private land to build the Wall ?......how the fuck do the Greenweenies propose getting the land for the pie in the sky rail system that will replace airlines ?.....hmmmmmm 

Share this post


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

Most of the democratic presidential candidates have signed on   

 

Biting off more than they can chew.....wait until they learn will will have to exterminate all the wild grazing animals in Africa to cut down on methane gas....after all they are not contributing anything to the cause...just useless animals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The misses and I are going out for a steak dinner tonight while we still can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

The misses and I are going out for a steak dinner tonight while we still can.

Maybe you should fly somewhere to have that steak while you still can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

The misses and I are going out for a steak dinner tonight while we still can.

Bootleg underground market....it might be easier to eliminate the Greenweenies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

If the Libgressives argue "where and how are you going to get the private land to build the Wall ?......how the fuck do the Greenweenies propose getting the land for the pie in the sky rail system that will replace airlines ?.....hmmmmmm 

It's already owned by the railroads.  The government had a great time handing it out in the late 19th century.

From the cite:

The first large land grants originated with the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862

As best I can tell, the first major railroad land grants originated with the 1862 legislation that enabled the transcontinental railroad. At that time, the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads were granted 400-foot right-of-ways plus ten square miles of land for every mile of track built.

The Illinois Central had procured smaller land grants back in the 1850s. Small land grants were also offered in Ohio and Wisconsin in the late 1850s. The earliest land grant bonds in the database date from 1859. While those grants were helpful to the companies involved, they were small in scope, and very much unlike like the millions of acres of land given away for building transcontinental railroads.

The earliest grants offered ten square miles of Federal land for every mile of rail built.

On the surface, ten square miles seems like a HUGE amount of land for the government to give away. And it was. But we first need to consider that the land was ten contiguous square miles of land. Rather, land was purposely given away in a "checkerboard" pattern leaving Federal land in between. Let's go back in time a bit to understand how that was done.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more interested in what the payout is for those unwilling to work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saorsa said:

I'm more interested in what the payout is for those unwilling to work.

 

Count me in.  I am ready for my fair share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Awesome. BTW, OC doesn't make this claim in her Green New Deal but y'all can grasp at straws if you want.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coralreef-climate.html

This is climate clownery at its finest.  All the effects of climate change are bad.  None are good.  1890 experienced the optimal temperature of the planet, and anything else is a crisis.

Meanwhile, we have added 2 continental US's worth of vegetation due to human CO2 emissions.  There is more life on the planet than before humans walked the Earth.  Looks like we are good after all. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this shows where AOC is coming from.  She may be intelligent but by rolling out this plan she shows has the mentality of a teenager.  

I want it now  

I don’t care what it costs

 I don’t want to hear that it cannnot work, just do it.  

 

Part of the instant gratification culture   

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is hilarious, I will check back tonight after knocking back a few so I can really appreciate the intellectual fervor. 

Share this post


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

This is climate clownery at its finest.  All the effects of climate change are bad.  None are good.  1890 experienced the optimal temperature of the planet, and anything else is a crisis.

Meanwhile, we have added 2 continental US's worth of vegetation due to human CO2 emissions.  There is more life on the planet than before humans walked the Earth.  Looks like we are good after all. 

Cite?   I'm not aware of this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, Ocasio has the character assasins talking about climate change and its impact on our economy!

Gotta hand it to her, she really is impressive. I bet you guys didn’t know ya had it in you.

You’ve being suckered... for several minutes you were torn away from your usual idiotic postings about DNA, poor white boys getting in the face of annoying Native Americans, and defending the stable genius.

And it just took a vivacious Hispanic woman with new ideas to shake loose actual thoughts about policy! Well done, I’m proud of you, but you better return to your usual shit posting, otherwise you might have to think some more about our responsibility to the environment, the future of our country, and science.

Pretty soon, you’ll require your party to change its dependence on FIX News, and start listening to NPR. You’ll get annoyed by Trumps ignorance, and demand informed leadership.

WTF will Mitch and Co do then? They will have burnt their last bridge with minorities and you’ll be complaining about air quality!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

.

And it just took a vivacious Hispanic woman 

Misogynist!

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phillysailor said:

Man, Ocasio has the character assasins talking about climate change and its impact on our economy!

Hotta hand it to her, she really is impressive. I bet you guys didn’t know ya had it in you.

You’ve being suckered... for several minutes you were torn away from your usual idiotic postings about DNA, poor white boys getting in the face of annoying Native Americans, and defending the stable genius.

And it just took a vivacious Hispanic woman with new ideas to shake loose actual thoughts about policy! Well done, I’m proud of you, but you better return to your usual shot posting, otherwise you might have to think some more about our responsibility to the environment, the future of our country, and science.

Pretty soon, you’ll require your party to change its dependence on FIX News, and start listening to NPR. You’ll get annoyed by Trumps ignorance, and demand informed leadership.

WTF will Mitch and Co do then? They will have burnt their last bridge with minorities and you’ll be complaining about air quality!

Speaking of policy, I don't see that you have.

What are your thoughts on the policy she's proposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

Speaking of policy, I don't see that you have.

What are your thoughts on the policy she's proposed.

I think it has achieved its objective already. She (as the face of the Democrats) have changed the conversation. Committee hearings on climate change will continue the work. 

This is how a country changes its direction. Trump and his coal baron buddies have GOT to be pissed off, and that’s why all the numbnuts are coming out and attacking OC on every level, on every platform including this one.

Go the socialist! Bogeygirl  to the triggered!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It's already owned by the railroads.  The government had a great time handing it out in the late 19th century.

From the cite:

The first large land grants originated with the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862

As best I can tell, the first major railroad land grants originated with the 1862 legislation that enabled the transcontinental railroad. At that time, the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads were granted 400-foot right-of-ways plus ten square miles of land for every mile of track built.

The Illinois Central had procured smaller land grants back in the 1850s. Small land grants were also offered in Ohio and Wisconsin in the late 1850s. The earliest land grant bonds in the database date from 1859. While those grants were helpful to the companies involved, they were small in scope, and very much unlike like the millions of acres of land given away for building transcontinental railroads.

The earliest grants offered ten square miles of Federal land for every mile of rail built.

On the surface, ten square miles seems like a HUGE amount of land for the government to give away. And it was. But we first need to consider that the land was ten contiguous square miles of land. Rather, land was purposely given away in a "checkerboard" pattern leaving Federal land in between. Let's go back in time a bit to understand how that was done.

 

Yeah I understand the RR already own the existing lines....however they are woefully inadequate in scale and in horrible condition...so with AOC notion there would be MASSIVE eminent  domain acquisition to expand and supporting infrastructure....all that said I'd  love a better option to plane travel....ain't happening in my lifetime however 

Share this post


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

I'm more interested in what the payout is for those unwilling to work.

 

They'll be conscripted as in the communist model to build the RR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Man, Ocasio has the character assasins talking about climate change and its impact on our economy!

Gotta hand it to her, she really is impressive. I bet you guys didn’t know ya had it in you.

You’ve being suckered... for several minutes you were torn away from your usual idiotic postings about DNA, poor white boys getting in the face of annoying Native Americans, and defending the stable genius.

And it just took a vivacious Hispanic woman with new ideas to shake loose actual thoughts about policy! Well done, I’m proud of you, but you better return to your usual shit posting, otherwise you might have to think some more about our responsibility to the environment, the future of our country, and science.

Pretty soon, you’ll require your party to change its dependence on FIX News, and start listening to NPR. You’ll get annoyed by Trumps ignorance, and demand informed leadership.

WTF will Mitch and Co do then? They will have burnt their last bridge with minorities and you’ll be complaining about air quality!

you are a biter human being ...wow

Share this post


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

I think it has achieved its objective already. She (as the face of the Democrats) have changed the conversation. Committee hearings on climate change will continue the work. 

This is how a country changes its direction. Trump and his coal baron buddies have GOT to be pissed off, and that’s why all the numbnuts are coming out and attacking OC on every level, on every platform including this one.

Go the socialist! Bogeygirl  to the triggered!

Oh....I guess I misunderstood, I thought she was serious.

Share this post


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

I think it has achieved its objective already. She (as the face of the Democrats) have changed the conversation. Committee hearings on climate change will continue the work. 

This is how a country changes its direction. Trump and his coal baron buddies have GOT to be pissed off, and that’s why all the numbnuts are coming out and attacking OC on every level, on every platform including this one.

Go the socialist! Bogeygirl  to the triggered!

So - pointing out the fallacy in her policy suggestions is an attack, and that's only happening because Trump and his coal baron buddies are pissed?  Is this supposed to be an example of that "improvement speak" you were talking about? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - pointing out the fallacy in her policy suggestions is an attack, and that's only happening because Trump and his coal baron buddies are pissed?  Is this supposed to be an example of that "improvement speak" you were talking about? 

Huh? I haven’t said you are attacking Ocasio... except when I point out the taunts are silly: “She’s an idiot” adds nothing meaningful, and is, I think we can agree, juvenile. Even @Dogcan do better.

But to do better, his ilk is gonna have to stop doing character assasinatiin via FB meme and play on the Democrats new turf.

The Democrats, by bringing up such a debate, are starting a “policy discussion.” 

That changed the subject from “poor coal miners who need work”, which was always disengenuous, to scientifically defensible suggestions to “save the planet.”

By getting you to debate on the field of science and results, the standard GOP playbook is, at least temporarily, sidelined.

Youve been outflanked and didn’t notice it happen. I love it! (Notice I say this about starting a policy discussion, not about getting dirt on a GOP leader. That’s the difference between the parties, IMO)

There’s a new sheriff in town!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

27 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

that’s why all the numbnuts are coming out and attacking OC on every level, on every platform including this one.

No - I suppose you weren't saying that we were attacking AOC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember how pissed off the coal miners were when Hillary said she was going to take away their jobs?   Can you imagine how pissed off everyone associated with air travel, everyone who wants to travel overseas, everyone associated with energy production (except wind and solar), everyone associated with minor road and street construction and maintenance, and everyone who needs to stay warm in the winter and wants to stay cool in the summer will be when they hear AOC plans for them?

That’s just off the top of my head....

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deal to me means  you do something and I do something that is mutually beneficial. 

Returning to live in mud huts without  even a mastadon to chew on doesn't sound like much of deal to me. 

Question: Going to zero emissions is not feasable but how much do we need to reduce to come to some sort of any equilibrium? 

Anyone have  an idea and don;t tell me to do a Google search I am too lazy and must get back to polishing my Hummer and then get a 18 oz T-bone for dinner.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Edited to add: There's a LOT of product  and infrastructure development that's necessary before electric vehicles are viable as replacements for the ICE powered fleet. 

If we are arguing about this we are arguing about tense. there's lots of product coming on the market soon - as in this year - and lots more under development. Simple math suggests we can't replace the existing vehicle fleet by 2030 without massive increases in production volume (note: same reason everyone won't have a selfdriving car in 2030); that doesn't mean the new car mix sold in 2030 won't be dramatically different.

Like so many things this discussion shows the willingness of so called "conservatives" to preserve the present at the cost of greater change in a not-so-distant future. Some jackass rolling coal to "own the libs" isn't conservative at all, yet conservatives embrace such people in their movement as well as many other less egregious examples of unconservative consumption because "they aren't liberals".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 

No - I suppose you weren't saying that we were attacking AOC. 

Sorry, this thread was more a policy discussion, hence my reaction. Sorry I didn’t write the idea more clearly.

There wasn’t the poo flinging that has been filling Ocasios inbox with threats and racist diatribe, and the large number of character assasination memes that has been the usual.

Share this post


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

I'm personally glad that Elon just went out and did it with lots of taxpayer’s money and other benefits from the Fed and state governments, while not making a profit.

FIFY

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Sorry, this thread was more a policy discussion, hence my reaction. Sorry I didn’t write the idea more clearly.

There wasn’t the poo flinging that has been filling Ocasios inbox with threats and racist diatribe, and the large number of character assasination memes that has been the usual.

I think she and her elk have damaged the green movement with this idiocy.  It shows how extreme their beliefs are and the extreme measures they are willing to take to achieve them.  It is going to scare a lot of independents and moderate Democrats.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

If we are arguing about this we are arguing about tense. there's lots of product coming on the market soon - as in this year - and lots more under development. Simple math suggests we can't replace the existing vehicle fleet by 2030 without massive increases in production volume (note: same reason everyone won't have a selfdriving car in 2030); that doesn't mean the new car mix sold in 2030 won't be dramatically different.

Like so many things this discussion shows the willingness of so called "conservatives" to preserve the present at the cost of greater change in a not-so-distant future. Some jackass rolling coal to "own the libs" isn't conservative at all, yet conservatives embrace such people in their movement as well as many other less egregious examples of unconservative consumption because "they aren't liberals".

I didn't think we were arguing.  Brudda - I'd LOVE to see EVs reach the level of a practical commodity.  You ever drive one?  Full torque from ZERO RPM.  Quiet, no maintenance beyond the brakes/suspension - and they can be better for the environment ( but, we have to consider the totality of the equation, to include battery creation/disposal in making that comparison) 

Timeline?  yeah - and that's something that was explicitly defined in her proposal.   If there was ANY rational/scientific basis for that temporal target?  I certainly haven't seen it.  "this discussion shows the willingness of so called "conservatives" to preserve the present at the cost of greater change in a not-so-distant future."  If you got that from what I said, you need serious help with your reading comprehension.    Moving forward is great - wrecking industry and the economy in the interest of satisfying an arbitrary deadline?  Not so much.  

As to "embracing the jackass rolling coal because he's not liberal"?   Well - that's a tough decision to make, the liberal would have to be pretty cool to win that one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to reducing the quantity of meat consumed by Americans... it takes approximately 670 GALLONS of water to deliver 6oz of steak to a consumer, 52 gallons for an egg, but only about 20 gallons for a salad with a tomato, lettuce and a cucumber.

So it’s a worthy topic to explore, and coukd have significant beneficial health implications for our nation, with commensurate decrease in healthcare costs and increased workforce health and ability.

So sparking a discussion on the topic is much smarter than the shit posting that is our usual fare around here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EVs are a fine idea and i appreciate what Musk is trying to do.  The problem with 100% adoption isn't passenger cars in big cities.  In that driving profile, EVs are fine and are arguably a cost-superior solution.

Where they aren't fine is in the OTHER half of the road transportation world - namely Trucking.  The math just sucks.  The battery business is a brutal commodity business already.  Companies like Samsung are spending billions to build factories to reduce the fabrication costs by 5%.  Electric planes are far worse although electric dirigibles might actually make sense for some specialty cases.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

As to reducing the quantity of meat consumed by Americans... it takes approximately 670 GALLONS of water to deliver 6oz of steak to a consumer, 52 gallons for an egg, but only about 20 gallons for a salad with a tomato, lettuce and a cucumber.

So it’s a worthy topic to explore, and coukd have significant beneficial health implications for our nation, with commensurate decrease in healthcare costs and increased workforce health and ability.

So sparking a discussion on the topic is much smarter than the shit posting that is our usual fare around here.

Americans in general should eat less meat for about 1000 reasons, some of which are environmental.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I missed it reading the HR and the thread so far, but isn’t it all irrelevant until someone at least attempts to explain how it all gets paid for? Until then it’s all just a “wish list” with no substance. Irresponsible IMO, and conservatives have become just as guilty.

Yet another pointless thread not worth discussion. 

It would be nice if voters ever cared how anything gets paid for, instead of always voting for more bennies and lower taxes, but I’m not holding my breath. Politics remains bribing us with our own money, and voters are ultimately to blame - we get what we (collectively) deserve...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MidPack said:

Maybe I missed it reading the HR and the thread so far, but isn’t it all irrelevant until someone at least attempts to explain how it all gets paid for? Until then it’s all just a “wish list” with no substance. Irresponsible IMO, and conservatives have become just as guilty.

Yet another pointless thread not worth discussion. 

It would be nice if voters ever cared how anything gets paid for, instead of always voting for more bennies and lower taxes, but I’m not holding my breath. Politics remains bribing us with our own money, and voters are ultimately to blame - we get what we (collectively) deserve...

Paying for it?  It's like "The Wall".  Whatever it takes.  Money is no object.  That's New Conservative Fiscal Responsibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we are currently paying for a bunch of stuff that is less efficient which rent seeking industries would have us accept as the only way to live well.

Tesla has succeeded in making EVs cool, attainable and good business. Why fear changing other aspects of America if there are similar benefits?

Dont accept CONSOLs propoganda on clean coal, Tyson’s declaration of what you should eat, or Exxon’s lobbyists on our energy future. 

They have goals which don’t help you or our country. We can partner with them, but should resist giving them the keys to the EPA and the Department of the Interior, as Trump has done.

That’s like giving the CDC to a tobacco investor, or the Department of Energy to someone who wanted to dissolve it, or or the Departmrnt of Justice to someone recently under investigation for fraud.

Oh, wait.

Share this post


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

Huh? I haven’t said you are attacking Ocasio... except when I point out the taunts are silly: “She’s an idiot” adds nothing meaningful, and is, I think we can agree, juvenile. Even @Dogcan do better.

But to do better, his ilk is gonna have to stop doing character assasinatiin via FB meme and play on the Democrats new turf.

The Democrats, by bringing up such a debate, are starting a “policy discussion.” 

That changed the subject from “poor coal miners who need work”, which was always disengenuous, to scientifically defensible suggestions to “save the planet.”

By getting you to debate on the field of science and results, the standard GOP playbook is, at least temporarily, sidelined.

Youve been outflanked and didn’t notice it happen. I love it! (Notice I say this about starting a policy discussion, not about getting dirt on a GOP leader. That’s the difference between the parties, IMO)

There’s a new sheriff in town!

And as sooner that discussion persuades supporters of the GND that their plans is absolute drivel the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news the Buggy Whip Manufacturers have predicted the new fangled horseless carriages with their infernal combustion engines will destroy America.

Share this post


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

EVs are a fine idea and i appreciate what Musk is trying to do.  The problem with 100% adoption isn't passenger cars in big cities.  In that driving profile, EVs are fine and are arguably a cost-superior solution.

Where they aren't fine is in the OTHER half of the road transportation world - namely Trucking.  The math just sucks.  The battery business is a brutal commodity business already.  Companies like Samsung are spending billions to build factories to reduce the fabrication costs by 5%.  Electric planes are far worse although electric dirigibles might actually make sense for some specialty cases.

Tesla built its own battery factory outside of Reno.

https://www.tesla.com/gigafactory

In fact, Tesla is 100% American made mostly because the vast majority of the S and 3 is made by Tesla and that now includes the battery. This means the economics work for Tesla rather than against, although it took a $5B investment.

I'm a little skeptical (not a lot) about long distance trucking EVs but I'm not skeptical at all about local trucks. Port of Oakland has a ton of trucks to ferry shipping containers from cranes to the sorting yard for craning onto trains. Long idle times waiting in line. Those should be EVs on autopilot.

Planes, I dunno. But then I dunno planes. Trains on the other hand, have been hybrids for quite some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites