The Green New Deal

[smartcooky]

That's pretty much my use case.

I've had mine nearly four years, and only put 20 litres of petrol in it twice per year (because the car requires it to "maintain fuel system").

This gives me a great excuse to visit a friend who lives an hour away.

The plug-in hybrid concept is brilliant, and suits me perfectly.

If there had been an all electric version of my car, I would have bought it, but all the models on the market at the time were too low to the ground for my aching back.

Being a four wheel drive with slightly more ground clearance than a regular car is also nice for getting my kayak to where I want to paddle... (Not to mention launching from boat ramps.)

A 2014 Mitsubishi Outlander?

 

[PhantomWolf]

That’s... not an answer. Hell, it’s not even a very good question. What something will do is far more important than what it’s supposed to do.

No it wasn't an answer, it was calling out your begging the question that the Paris Accord where meant to stop Climate Change, they weren't, they were supposed to delay Climate Change and in doing so give us longer to find a solution before we reached a tipping point where any possible solution was going to have to be incredibly drastic to avoid the extinction of our species.

By sitting on your butts moaning about the other guy and refusing to take any steps at all because they don't end climate change instantly or because someone might lose their job in an industry that is presently actively destroying the habitable environment of the planet, then you are being a part of the problem, not part of the solution.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What they need is a good speechwriter to turn out slogans like this:

The first thing we do, let's kill all the cows.

You need to keep up with the thread. There is a lot of scientific research going into creating a grass, or modifying the bacterium in the cow's gut, to reduce the amount of methane that they produce. Your going on about killing the cows is just showing your ignorance about both the issue and the solution.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And not a single mention of reducing the environmental impact of humans by reducing the number of humans. We can build all the solar panels and windmills we want but if we don't force the developing nations to stop destroying the rainforests and put a brake on their out of control breeding, there's no point in "going green." Population control is necessary and sufficient to solve all our environmental problems.

Maybe if the western nations slowed their over-consumerism then third world countries wouldn't feel the need to rip down their forests to supply the west with wood, palm tree oil, beef, and a lot of other things.

 

[smartcooky]

You need to keep up with the thread. There is a lot of scientific research going into creating a grass, or modifying the bacterium in the cow's gut, to reduce the amount of methane that they produce.

And this represents a genuine, scientific effort on our part to do what we can to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Its a rural/agricultural thing... its stuff that townies will never understand as long as their arses point downwards.

Your going on about killing the cows is just showing your ignorance about both the issue and the solution.

Because silly catch-phrases and even sillier talking points is all they have to hide their blissful ignorance.

 

[Parsman]

I know Scotland is a small country and we have different problems and issues from the USA as well as opportunities but in the last decade we have made major strides in renewable energy (https://www.scottishrenewables.com/forums/renewables-in-numbers/). Of course we had a good head start with Hydro Electricity but wind turbines have been going up everywhere (one of the first off-shore operational wind farms opened last year just of the coast at my home city - bonus it is the one that has annoyed Trump because it spoils the view from his golf course! ) and we have a lot of prospects for tidal energy and even solar will work sometimes. The change is necessary. Our bit may only play a small part but if a small country like Scotland can make this much effort, why can't the USA? There are benefits as well since if we as a species survive renewables will be the oil, gas and coal of the future! You should get involved with it now or risk being left behind. I am sure there are problems with this NGD but at least it has started the conversation and hopefully actions will follow.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You should get involved with it now or risk being left behind. I am sure there are problems with this NGD but at least it has started the conversation and hopefully actions will follow.

Part of the problem is that people are short-sighted and selfish. The best case scenario is that it's difficult to think of 100 years' time as something that's really going to happen, given that we'll all be dead by then. The worst case scenario is that some people simply don't care if it doesn't affect them directly - like the report that Trump was walked through exactly how devastating his $1.5t tax cut was going to be to the economy, but shouted that he didn't care because the consequences were predicted to hit after he left office.

 

[Belz...]

There is no "maybe" about it.

In Sweden, electric cars will be 65% of the market by 2025 this is only six years away)

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/0...pike-electric-vehicle-market-share-in-sweden/

... and Volvo are going all-electric. They are ceasing the manufacture of internal combustion powered cars this year.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/824866/Volvo-cars-electric-from-2019

Other manufactures will follow, or die.

Unfortunately, this is going to be a bit more problematic in Canada and Russia, where the winter makes batteries far less reliable. It'll happen, but perhaps a bit later.

 

[Belz...]

The problem with the 5:1 ratio is that a plane doesn't fly 1 hour and then spend 5 on the ground, it flies a whole bunch of 1-2 hour legs through the day with perhaps an hour between each at most, and the sits on the ground over night, and it does this day in and day out for 18 months, and then goes to maintenance where it is on the ground for several weeks before going back into service to rinse and repeat.

This really doesn't allow for 5 hours of charging to one hour of flight, so you want to be able to have the plane back ready to go afap for its next flight, and the best way to handle that is via the ability to swap in a fully charged pack and the charge the old one up and put it into a different aircraft when it's finished charging. Smaller air ports are likely to have less flights in and out, so it's quite possible that the next plane to visit would be the one you'd be putting the pack in.

If for example we look at the flights to my home town, we basically have one plane that flies from here to wellington at just before 7am, leaves Wellington to return here at 8:40am, then heads back to Wellington at 10am before servicing several other routes in the afternoon, then it returns here at 8:10pm where it stays over night. Flights are about an hour, and it stays on the ground at the airports from half an hour to an hour between flights. Trying to keep it charged all day would be a bit of a nightmare.

How much distance would an electric-powered 777 even be able to do? I doubt I could do Toronto-Tokyo.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not interested in hypotheticals which have zero chance of being realized. Even if you could wave a magic wand and make the US's emissions go to zero, China's won't.

You're still arguing about this as if it's either zero or 100%. 20% is still good.

 

[Belz...]

Let's suppose that the US signed the Paris Accord, and that everyone actually hits their emissions targets. Would that stop global warming?

Doctor: "Ok, sir, that tumor is inoperable right now, but with some chemo, we might be able to at least slow it down."
Ziggurat: "Slow it down? Doctor, can you stop it entirely?"
Doctor: "Not at this time, no. Perhaps in time."
Ziggurat: "Not worth it, then. I'll just keep smoking. In fact, I'll buy an extra pack a day."

 

[Ziggurat]

You're still arguing about this as if it's either zero or 100%. 20% is still good.

No, Belz, I’m not doing anything of the sort.

Doctor: "Ok, sir, that tumor is inoperable right now, but with some chemo, we might be able to at least slow it down."
Ziggurat: "Slow it down? Doctor, can you stop it entirely?"
Doctor: "Not at this time, no. Perhaps in time."
Ziggurat: "Not worth it, then. I'll just keep smoking. In fact, I'll buy an extra pack a day."

Do you get some sort of pleasure out of making straw men? Because it seems like you’re an addict.

The logic being used to defend this Green New Deal is that we must do something, this is something, so we must do this. No, it doesn’t work that way. Drinking bleach is worse than no treatment for cancer.

 

[Ziggurat]

Read my words.... ALL new models will be electric

That is not what you wrote before. What you wrote before was wrong:

... and Volvo are going all-electric. They are ceasing the manufacture of internal combustion powered cars this year.

They are explicitly not ceasing the manufacturing of internal combustion powered cars.

 

[Parsman]

No, Belz, I’m not doing anything of the sort.



Do you get some sort of pleasure out of making straw men? Because it seems like you’re an addict.

The logic being used to defend this Green New Deal is that we must do something, this is something, so we must do this. No, it doesn’t work that way. Drinking bleach is worse than no treatment for cancer.

The ideas proposed in the NGD may or may not work out. I see it as a starting point for doing something. The reason the current government of the USA is not in favour of climate change action seems to be based on one of two reasons. Neither of them are because of a reasoned argument or based on scientific evidence. One is Trump made promises about coal and heavy industries like steel production. The other is Christian fundamentalists who think because their god flashed a rainbow across the sky 4500 years ago then everything will be hunky dory. Given those positions I have no problem with a beginning statement from environmentalists even if there are some problems with some of the plan.

 

[Ziggurat]

The ideas proposed in the NGD may or may not work out.

There's no "may or may not" about it. They won't.

I see it as a starting point for doing something.

Pick a better starting point. It's not hard.

 

[Belz...]

No, Belz, I’m not doing anything of the sort.

So why is China's participation in any way relevant to the US'?

Do you get some sort of pleasure out of making straw men? Because it seems like you’re an addict.

Well, given that what you quoted isn't a strawman, I'd say you have no idea what a strawman is, to be honest.

The logic being used to defend this Green New Deal is that we must do something, this is something, so we must do this.

Literally no one here has argued that. So this is, actually, a strawman.

Drinking bleach is worse than no treatment for cancer.

Interesting that you bring this up after responding to my scenario involving chemotherapy. Do you get some sort of pleasure out of making straw men? Because it seems like you’re an addict.

 

[Delvo]

ETA: I see you edited this out of your comment, but...

No problem with that; I didn't even mean to delete it! It was just there when I was editing something else.

The wings provide the lift and the "hold[ing] all those pounds up". The engines provide the go forward to counter the drag backwards.

Lift is drag. It's pushing the air that comes at your face downward instead of letting it slide by.

But there's also a second reason why the low-energy-density issue is worse for aircraft than ground vehicles: on the ground, if you don't have enough range, you refuel/recharge/replace on the way. With flight, if you don't have enough range, you just can't go.

I didn't even realize that that plane in the picture had a range estimate already. At 300 miles, I'd take a train anyway.

 

[Ziggurat]

So why is China's participation in any way relevant to the US'?

Because it constrains what's even possible for us to accomplish.

Well, given that what you quoted isn't a strawman, I'd say you have no idea what a strawman is, to be honest.

You're not being honest at all. You know that I know what a straw man is. What you're really trying to argue is that your representation of my argument is accurate. But it isn't. In fact, I've already explicitly told you that there are other options besides the Green New Deal and the status quo. So not only is this a straw man, you actually know that it's a straw man, or at least you would if you paid attention.

You are, as always, everything you accuse me of being.

Interesting that you bring this up after responding to my scenario involving chemotherapy. Do you get some sort of pleasure out of making straw men? Because it seems like you’re an addict.

The reason that isn't a straw man is because I'm not claiming YOU said bleach. I'm saying that's a more apt metaphor for my position.

When you try to mirror an argument back at me, it helps to actually understand the argument.

You really need to stop this habit of yours of trying to make disagreements personal. Because you are the one who first made it personal, and it didn't have to be.

 

[The Shrike]

Your going on about killing the cows is just showing your ignorance about both the issue and the solution.

Uh, maybe it's my agricultural background talking, but folks realize that "killing the cows" is what we raise them for in the first place, right?

If we (or markets) decided that reducing the density of ruminant livestock was a desirable societal endeavor, not one more cow would be killed in the effort than is brought to life now to be killed anyway. In fact, that process would begin with simply breeding fewer and fewer each year until today's breeds exist only in living museum collections of what would become heritage animals to illustrate how farming was done back in the olden days. If you really care about animal welfare – and you had a clue what you were talking about – you would be very much in favor of the GND.

 

[Parsman]

There's no "may or may not" about it. They won't.



Pick a better starting point. It's not hard.

May I ask then what actions you would propose to start the USA to taking some sort of positive action on climate change? So far your responses in this thread seem to have been naysaying. It won't work so don't try. Genuinely I would be interested in hearing some positive ideas from you rather than negative comments.