Utopia Talk / Politics / The green dream

obaminated Member	Thu Feb 07 16:15:05 And just like that. The lefts newest darling destroys her image with an utterly idiotic plan that will do away with planes and farting cows.
McKobb Member	Thu Feb 07 16:18:28 Whut?
obaminated Member	Thu Feb 07 16:23:22 http://www...-brainless-Green-New-Deal.html
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Feb 07 16:41:29 anything discussion is better than Trump's 'meh, i don't see it' sum-total zero-science response to his own administration's climate report (as well as him continuing to struggle to understand the difference between weather & climate even though it's noted every time he has a stupid 'it's cold out, where's global warming?' tweet)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Feb 07 16:43:21 and moving to renewable energy is beneficial beyond climate issues... see the word 'renewable'
Im better then you 2012 UP Football Champ	Thu Feb 07 16:55:50 "We believe government could screw up a two-car parade and only elect old white men that reinforce that fact" Republican platform
Rugian Member	Thu Feb 07 17:04:38 The Wall Street Journal had a pretty decent slam on this: "The Green New Deal. This idea, endorsed by 40 House Democrats and several Democratic presidential candidates, would require that the U.S. be carbon neutral within 10 years. Non-carbon sources provide only 11% of U.S. energy today, so this would mean a complete remake of American electric power, transportation and manufacturing. Oh, and as imagined by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, all of this would be planned by a Select Committee For a Green New Deal. Soviet five-year plans were more modest."
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Feb 07 17:30:44 That's a problem with a young representative: everything has to be done quickly.. not unlike Fyre Festival planning. "Nancy Pelosi Signals Support For Environmental Causes By Placing Green New Deal Directly Into Recycling Bin" [Onion: News in Photos] http://pol...ironmental-causes-b-1832437461
kargen Member	Thu Feb 07 18:32:18 Cute how tumbleweed thinks this proposal is about climate change. That aside yes you are correct that a move towards renewable energy would be beneficial. Thinking society and infrastructure can be completely restructured in ten years is beyond delusional. The really fun part is the idea that government should pay everybody a good wage even if they don't want a job. What should scare most people is this: "eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country" You city folk are going to have to start growing your own food. The idea also leans heavily on unions overseeing every aspect of the job market. Because the idea calls for the elimination of some of the largest job sectors in the country it will also be disastrously underfunded even with a 70% income tax. It is almost like they don't remember President Obama giving a few billion dollars to companies charged with developing green energy and those companies declaring bankruptcy. They topped it off by being unable to say where the money was spent. This is a fucking stupid idea and the only reason some Democrats have jumped on board is because Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a bit of charisma and is generating headlines.
McKobb Member	Thu Feb 07 19:20:14 When renewable energy becomes efficient it will be used.
hood Member	Thu Feb 07 20:29:57 Unless entrenched industries convince the government to prop them up through favorable legislation.
yankeessuck123 Member	Fri Feb 08 07:05:52 Cut all fossil fuel subsidies now. That would be a good start.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Feb 08 09:43:15 Lol aoc is a fucking retard. She should marry trump.
jergul large member	Fri Feb 08 09:51:22 Fossil fuels would die a cold death if subsidies and pollution exemptions ended.
kargen Member	Sat Feb 09 16:13:58 And a good portion of the population would shortly follow with their own cold death. Read yesterday that one of the recommendations for water conservation is to have people start drinking their own piss. To be fair I couldn't find anybody in congress that is advocating this but the direction this plan is leaning is to have all of us living in grass huts eating soy beans and turnips and drinking our own piss.
jergul large member	Sat Feb 09 18:01:01 Kargen Seriously? A new green deal would be far less traumatic than a wwii style rationing regime. Most of the issues relate to transition. Or are you philosophically against washing machines designed to last 30 years and be repaired by laymen? The question illustrating what a transition would entail.
kargen Member	Sat Feb 09 19:11:10 jergul have you taken the time to read what that deal includes? I have no problem with a simple long lasting washing machine but really what does that have to do with this proposal. You are trying to apply sensible ideals to a nonsensical proposal. I am all for reducing carbon emissions but this plan isn't the way to go. Concentrating on the United States right now renewable energy accounts for 12% of our energy use. The largest producer is hydroelectric energy. Hydroelectric energy isn't going to increase until technology comes up with a viable solution that uses the ocean currents and doesn't piss off environmentalists. There is a call now that is gaining support to remove some of the dams we have now and no new construction can happen because it might harm a snail with three stripes on its shell. Wind energy was given six billion dollars in 2013 and that has lead to about 3% increase in the amount of total electricity in the United States wind energy generates. Growth with wind farms is slow. First there has to be a minimum of five years of data measuring amounts of wind before a location can be considered. After that comes economic and environmental impact studies. Then comes the problem of infrastructure to transport and store the electricity generated. It is unrealistic to think any considerable advances in energy produced can happen in such a short amount of time suggested by the proposal. Sure we should continue to convert to wind energy but we need to be realistic about the pace. Next is solar energy and it has much the same concerns. Land use also is a concern for solar energy. It takes almost three acres of land to generate one 1 gigawatt-hour per year of electricity. Environmentalists are going to protest the use of federal land and private land owners will need to be compensated. It is still a good idea to move forward with solar power and I think within ten years or so requiring new buildings to use solar panels as shingling would be something to concentrate on. All these numbers are based on electricity use in the United States and do not take into account the amount of fossil fuels used as heating energy or transportation. Through those in the mix and even with the billions we have spent already in renewable energy has made less than three percent increase in total energy used in the US. That is just the energy part of the proposal. That alone is silly enough but you start throwing in the socialist agenda that is proposed and it becomes fucking ridiculous. Free everything including paying people who refuse to work will not work. It has never worked in any civilization of significant size. Making it worse is the lack of thought put into transportation. One aspect is trucking. Converting to electric powered trucks is a decent idea that is already happening but the timeline is decades not years. First problem is how long a semi truck is in service. It will take many years to start phasing out existing trucks. In that time we could start working on the infrastructure for recharging but again that is a long process that doesn't come close to fitting this proposals timeline. The United States because of the vastness of the continent has some problems in conversion that most countries don't face. Weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels is a good idea. What this proposal does though is scare people away from change by going way to far. It is a stupid package they put together. And your WWII argument is flat. WWII rations were a short and temporary sacrifice that were necessary at the time. Using less sugar and eating less meat for five years is nowhere near the same as never ever being able to eat a cheese burger again.
jergul large member	Sat Feb 09 21:04:51 Kargen The bill misses out on two factors that should be considered: Migration should be limited. Children should not be encouraged. Both go to limiting the absolutely worst thing that can happen: More people adopt a North American consumption pattern. It has to be said even if not politically correct. 1. Productivity gains continue. 2. Energy is virtually free. 3. Consumption fuels economies and employment. 4. Consumption fuels global warming. 5. Global warming must stop. How do you balance the equation in a timely manner? I am suggesting that a short and temporary sacrifice is necessary for a transition period. The end result might be a consumption pattern at a level consistent with the late 1940s or early 1950s. Equally divided, you might see an average work work decreasing to 15-25 hours. It would not mean people have less shit. It just means the shit they have needs to last longer. What you termed socialism, I just see as a stop-gap in a transition period where hopefully we all learn to value free time a lot more than we do today. My view is really that the world as we know it is going to end one way or another. I would prefer it ended in a way that gave me a lot more free time. The Green Deal is important as simply formulating such a plan normalizes change.
jergul large member	Sat Feb 09 21:05:11 A cheeseburger a week btw :-)
kargen Member	Sat Feb 09 21:10:50 When the 70% suggested tax rate will not pay for all the free things suggested in this proposal then yes it is socialism. I am not against transition but this plan is too aggressive and incorporates unrelated issues in ways that can be very damaging to the economy. People in the US were just beginning to warm to the idea of using less fossil fuels and this plan in my opinion will drive them back the other way.
jergul large member	Sat Feb 09 21:37:08 Kargen Consumption has to fall dramatically. Of course it will damage the economy. There is no green solution to Western consumption habits. Imagine buying a car and expect it own it for 35 years, a phone and expect it to last for 10, a new computer every 15 years? Knock yourself out. That kind of transition.
Rugian Member	Sat Feb 09 21:46:03 Jergul completely blew his chance to walk away from this thread before saying something completely fucking retarded. Nice job aligning yourself with the insane fantasies of a 29-year old bimbo, stupid.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Feb 09 22:04:46 for the record, the 70% tax was only on income OVER $10 million... does anyone really give a shit what that's taxed at?
jergul large member	Sun Feb 10 06:36:58 Ruggy Its a far less intrusive idea than fighting world war 2 was. Its ultimately all about rolling back the clock to a 1940s to 1950s kind of economy and taxation system. The glory days. But you do not really want to win the war on climate, do you?
jergul large member	Sun Feb 10 06:40:38 I don't really get it. Most of you have already cut your carbon footprint in half by opting to not have children. You have done your bit. The rest is just about compensating for immigrants and asshats like me who do breed.
jergul large member	Sun Feb 10 06:42:10 You would see my point if you calculated CO2 emissions by household instead of per capita.
jergul large member	Sun Feb 10 07:03:08 Since I checked. Not having kids for as long as you are alive saving CO2 (compared to replacement birth rates): 2 tons first 18 years 7 tons next 18 years 14 tons next 18 years Compared to your own emissions of 15 tons per year. You are in effect carbon neutral the day the grandchildren you did not have are move away from home.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Feb 10 10:12:33 60 tons per year here. Rofl!!!
jergul large member	Sun Feb 10 10:42:33 Sammy Outliers are irrelevant.
TJ Member	Sun Feb 10 11:10:31 "The rest is just about compensating for immigrants and asshats like me who do breed." I remember a discussion several years back about not having children is neglecting tax accountability because of the New Deal. Time does change the argument. I just read a 2013 article: "Roman Seawater Concrete Holds the Secret to Cutting Carbon Emissions" http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2013/06/04/roman-concrete/ Supposedly the planet is in crisis and knee jerk reaction appears to becoming the New New Deal. Howling wolves...
jergul large member	Sun Feb 10 12:29:08 TJ The argument was "not having children breaks the social contract Social Security is based on". Or indeed any pay as you go system. It works out nicely in this case however. It is more politically correct to pay people an old age pension than it is to introduce a citizens wage. The timing is a bit off is all. I would not be worried at all if we had 500 years to reduce our carbon footprint. I am not sure what to do with your use of the word "supposedly". It seems to fly in the face of science.
hood Member	Sun Feb 10 12:48:40 Oh don't worry. TJ would never imply a thing.
TJ Member	Sun Feb 10 14:09:32 jergul: I used supposedly as a neutral response. Science accountability crisis(supposedly with link presented)is working on reasonable solutions that won't create another crisis. Do you agree? Any sensible human would want to prevent a catastrophic upheaval. As presented, the New Green Deal, if implemented would create. Green is has been in the international conversation for a long time. I agree with reducing the carbon imprint. From what I've read science hasn't resolved major issues presently. Hood: I didn't imply in the other thread. I made clear and factual statements. I didn't undermine the fact about Trump. Are you making an attempt to undermine the fact that others lie? I'm getting the idea that only Trump lying is important from your perspective. I'm opposed to all lying and was targeting all politicians and media that lie. That isn't an implication.
hood Member	Sun Feb 10 15:00:53 You're reading far too much into a simple taunt. But one could sum it up fairly succinctly: If you try to ride the fence too long, you find your asshole impaled.
jergul large member	Sun Feb 10 15:14:06 TJ The solution is to consume less. Which is a crisis only if what is consumed is very unevenly divided. Less consumption means less production. Less production means less jobs unless productivity implodes. Less jobs means people who would otherwise have been employed will not be. "Green jobs" would in this sense represent productivity loss. CO2 is just another budget factor we should all be able to balance. And balance at significantly less cost than the greatest generation paid without hesitation.
TJ Member	Sun Feb 10 15:46:43 Hood: Taunt and riding a fence with your imaginary impalement is all you got? Thanks for the humor. Lulz Yep, I was the one reading too much into the discussion. jergul: To consume less is a captain obvious. Let me know when it happens. Oh wait! I'm pretty sure I'll recognize the hammer falling since I've experienced a number of them over the years. I won't let the door hit me in the ass on the way out. hahaha
jergul large member	Sun Feb 10 15:57:58 TJ Is it though? Everyone seems to think transition means replacing consumption with green consumption. Whatever that is.
TJ Member	Sun Feb 10 16:22:50 "Whatever that is." I think it is what it is. A slow or speeding locomotive toward a dead end. I'm kind fond of brakes. I'm old so I'll purchase a ticket for the slow locomotive. Whatever that mean... Few are fond of pain and suffering at any age. Now I need to get back out the door safely.
jergul large member	Sun Feb 10 16:36:41 TJ Pain and suffering would be by our own design. I frankly don't get all the drama. So what if we repair our washing machines and semi-follow a diet our doctors might recommend?
TJ Member	Sun Feb 10 18:27:33 It is extremely easy to understand the drama. We're all gonna die! As for the washing machine repair and following diets. Neither are unusual occurrences, but sure, it also, isn't unusual that people don't either. The means and time frame for the transition seems to be the hurdle this thread can't get over let alone 7.5 with a capital B. Transition is the dirty word. Tick Tock Tick Tock
kargen Member	Sun Feb 10 22:23:48 "for the record, the 70% tax was only on income OVER $10 million... does anyone really give a shit what that's taxed at?" point still stands. It would not come close to paying for all the shit this proposal wants.
CrownRoyal Member	Sun Feb 10 22:29:14 And? Looking at US budget deficit the revenues do not come close to to paying for all the shit that money is appropriated and spent by the Congress. Is that suddenly a problem?
jergul large member	Mon Feb 11 00:41:02 Kargen I am with Pelosi in "welcoming the enthusiasm". Defeatism is a huge problem. We can fix this. We can build from there once we acknowledge we can.
McKobb Member	Mon Feb 11 01:11:43 Never gonna happen so the point is moot.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Feb 11 01:23:56 at least the President wants to have a serious discussion on the issue " I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their Green New Deal. It would be great for the so-called “Carbon Footprint” to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military - even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant! " as to: "this plan in my opinion will drive them back the other way" Trump is driving people the other way... very openly promoting coal & to a lesser extent oil plus mocking the idea of climate change whenever it's cold or snowing (done yet again today)
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Feb 11 01:25:19 ...plus dismissing his own administration's climate report w/o even reading it (as he never reads), & deciding the tidbits he heard aren't true cause... no reason... so helpful
tumbleweed the wanderer	Mon Feb 11 01:32:14 and bible-hugger Rick Santorum agreed with ignoring the report as all scientists are corrupt and are just paid to lie about the climate Republicans are trash... with Trump being the god emperor of garbage for all time
kargen Member	Mon Feb 11 02:22:55 "Looking at US budget deficit the revenues do not come close to to paying for all the shit that money is appropriated and spent by the Congress. Is that suddenly a problem?" Not suddenly no. I have been an advocate of zero deficit spending for longer than these forums have existed.
jergul large member	Mon Feb 11 02:56:25 Mckobb Never say never. Trump will probably stop global warming through pure ineptitude. Here are two variants: He uses executive powers to build a wall and create a precedent for the next president. Who in turn uses EPs to create a green deal. He uses nuclear weapons and gives us a nice nuclear winter.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Feb 12 17:47:55 Nuclear winter is a myth.
jergul large member	Tue Feb 12 19:39:51 Sammy A nuclear war does not have the potential to counter the tiny temperature increases from global warming? That is what you are saying? Because I am saying it could have the potential to counter the tiny temperature increase due to global warming.
obaminated Member	Wed Feb 13 01:16:02 so, one of the most idiotic plans ever written by democrats is now being defended by jergul and cr. amazing.
obaminated Member	Wed Feb 13 01:16:55 has jergul ever found a contrarian idea that he decided wasn't worth defending ?
jergul large member	Wed Feb 13 03:57:54 Contrarian only in so far as you might think eating feral dogs and living in a mud pit is a good, mainstream, rugged individualist end game alternative.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Feb 13 11:19:46 "A nuclear war does not have the potential to counter the tiny temperature increases from global warming?" I doubt it. Maybe for a year or 2, but dust lasts not nearly as long as co2. And even for a year or 2 i think we come up short with nukes. Pinatubo, which likely injected more dust into the stratosphere than our nukes could, might have cooled the planet by a half degree for a year or 2. Global warming is at about 0.75 degrees. I wouldnt call that winter. You need a vei 7(10 pinatubos)... something like 250,000 nukes in the 100s of kilotons range, and far more efficient at lofting dust... to get what you might call "winter".
Sam Adams Member	Wed Feb 13 11:20:56 A vei 8 would be better. Last one was 70k years ago or so.
jergul large member	Wed Feb 13 11:55:05 Sammy "Nuclear winter" is a term used to describe a temperature decrease following a nuclear war. "Winter" is a term used to describe part of a yearly seasonal cycle. Now far be it for me not to take things literally or exaggerate the energy in nuclear arsenals. I have pointed out we lack - by several orders of magnitude - the nukes to glass all the sand in Saudi Arabia. Still, Trump could stop global warming. Even if only for a year or so.
jergul large member	Wed Feb 13 11:55:48 (stopping meaning here that the net increase for a period of time would be 0 or less).
Sam Adams Member	Wed Feb 13 15:09:28 Nuclear cloudy hour sounds more appropriate given the tiny impacts. Winter should only be attached to "impact" or "volcanic"
jergul large member	Wed Feb 13 16:33:52 lol, ok. I will from now on use the term nuclear happy hour. We can also use it to appreciate the stunning sunsets.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Feb 13 17:15:05 I want to see a vei 7. Just to see what its like.
jergul large member	Wed Feb 13 18:48:39 CGI not good enough for you? After putting all things in the balance?
Sam Adams Member	Thu Feb 14 10:46:08 Cgi doesnt do it justice. You gotta be there.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Feb 14 10:47:29 Besides a vei 7 wouldnt hurt developed nations, and probably not equatorial second world nations either.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: