The Green New Deal

[acbytesla]

As am I.

Here's the point, though: The idea that this land you need is available for the taking is a myth. It's not. In order to do what you and Joe believe is necessary, you need to be honest with yourself and with the rest of us.

Eminent domain exists for a reason. Sometimes the state really does have a compelling interest in taking private property. If that's what has to happen, to get the solar and wind coverage you need, then say so.

Don't try to sell this renewable energy transformation with the myth that there's plenty of land lying around available for the purpose. Either find land that is actually already available, or else start dealing with the people who actually have a say over the availability of the land you want.

And please don't equivocate between "available because the government already owns it" and "available, and the government just has to seize it", in order to try to dispel the myth. Be clear, and be honest. Please.

No one said "taking". That said, just because you paid someone for a piece of land that was here billions of years before either of them and long after their ancestors doesn't mean you can do what you please regarding to that land. There has to be a certain amount of reasonable cooperation in our joint human endeavor. Some things are more important than property rights.

In WW2 for example, did we petition say the people of St Lo before we bombed the hell out of it so Patton's 3rd Army could go racing through that gap? No.

What would you say to requiring strip malls, grocery stores, etc to either put solar panels on their roofs or make the space available to a company that would?

 

[theprestige]

No one said "taking". That said, just because you paid someone for a piece of land that was here billions of years before either of them and long after their ancestors doesn't mean you can do what you please regarding to that land. There has to be a certain amount of reasonable cooperation in our joint human endeavor. Some things are more important than property rights.

If you need to abolish property rights to save the planet, then say so. Don't try to sell saving the planet on the myth that there's plenty of available land, unencumbered by property rights.

In WW2 for example, did we petition say the people of St Lo before we bombed the hell out of it so Patton's 3rd Army could go racing through that gap? No.

We didn't tell people that there was plenty of available open ground for Patton to use, when the actual solution was to blow St Lo out of his way. We didn't have to deal with anybody telling us that "plenty of available open ground" was a myth. We knew bombing St Lo was the solution, and we were clear and honest about it.

Petition roof owners all you want, as long as you at least admit that they own the roofs and that those roofs are not yet available to you.

What would you say to requiring strip malls, grocery stores, etc to either put solar panels on their roofs or make the space available to a company that would?

I would say that's being clear and honest about what you need and how you plan to get it.

Again, eminent domain is fine, when it's necessary. I'm just asking you to be clear that you believe eminent domain is necessary, and honest that eminent domain is a solution you're willing to use.

Stop telling me the myth about all the land you already have available for your purpose. Start being honest with me about how much of other people's land you need them to make available for your purpose.

---

"I want to put down a huge solar farm."

"Sounds good, but where?"

"Oh, I have plenty of land available for this."

"Great! When do you start?"

"As soon as I finish taking all the land I need from other people."

"So when you said that you had plenty of land available, you were lying."

"The important thing is that we need the land, don't you agree?"

"Even if I agree we need the land, the important thing right now is that you stop lying about it."

"But you agree we need the land, right?"

"Bro, we're still back on the lie."

"Forget about the lie, you agr-"

"Nope."

 

[jimbob]

Walking is even better.

I wonder what the total cost is per horsepower (or mile?) for petrol vs charging an e-bike on the power grid. Heck may as well calculate it for human power as well - cost of getting food and calories to the table, etc. If only we had less people.

Massively in favour of the ebike - especially if it uses solar. Bikes are light, even ebikes can be under 20kg. (see this example that I googled, just because I've seen a couple of juicy ebike shops nearby)
280WH battery gives 18 miles with medium assist.


Personally, I don't use an ebike, but do use a normal bike for a 24mi/800ft round trip commute

 

[acbytesla]

Massively in favour of the ebike - especially if it uses solar. Bikes are light, even ebikes can be under 20kg. (see this example that I googled, just because I've seen a couple of juicy ebike shops nearby)
280WH battery gives 18 miles with medium assist.

Which is a staggering price of 4 cents of average grid purchased electricity in the US.

Personally, I don't use an ebike, but do use a normal bike for a 24mi/800ft round trip commute

I love how you included the 800 feet.

 

[jimbob]

Which is a staggering price of 4 cents of average grid purchased electricity in the US.

I love how you included the 800 feet.

Believe me, that's the hard part. 20-miles on the flat is easy.

 

[theprestige]

]I love how you included the 800 feet.: thumbsup :

Found the non-rider.

 

[acbytesla]

If you need to abolish property rights to save the planet, then say so. Don't try to sell saving the planet on the myth that there's plenty of available land, unencumbered by property rights.


We didn't tell people that there was plenty of available open ground for Patton to use, when the actual solution was to blow St Lo out of his way. We didn't have to deal with anybody telling us that "plenty of available open ground" was a myth. We knew bombing St Lo was the solution, and we were clear and honest about it.

Petition roof owners all you want, as long as you at least admit that they own the roofs and that those roofs are not yet available to you.


I would say that's being clear and honest about what you need and how you plan to get it.

Again, eminent domain is fine, when it's necessary. I'm just asking you to be clear that you believe eminent domain is necessary, and honest that eminent domain is a solution you're willing to use.

Stop telling me the myth about all the land you already have available for your purpose. Start being honest with me about how much of other people's land you need them to make available for your purpose.

---

"I want to put down a huge solar farm."

"Sounds good, but where?"

"Oh, I have plenty of land available for this."

"Great! When do you start?"

"As soon as I finish taking all the land I need from other people."

"So when you said that you had plenty of land available, you were lying."

"The important thing is that we need the land, don't you agree?"

"Even if I agree we need the land, the important thing right now is that you stop lying about it."

"But you agree we need the land, right?"

"Bro, we're still back on the lie."

"Forget about the lie, you agr-"

"Nope."

I think solar is great, but I can't see solar solving the problem. This is why I want a lot of money dumped into solving the safety issues associated with nuclear.

This is the problem I have with other greenies. It's pie in the sky unless we can develop a lot better batteries/supercapacitors or some other good method to storing electricity.

I don't think we are at a stage where we need to take people's land, but I think the land issue is the least of our concerns.

 

[theprestige]

I think solar is great, but I can't see solar solving the problem. This is why I want a lot of money dumped into solving the safety issues associated with nuclear.

This is the problem I have with other greenies. It's pie in the sky unless we can develop a lot better batteries/supercapacitors or some other good method to storing electricity.

I don't think we are at a stage where we need to take people's land, but I think the land issue is the least of our concerns.

Fair enough. I'd even agree that the land issue isn't a major concern. But to be clear: Do you now agree that in the context of the article we're referring to, "available land" is a myth, and that NIMBYism is part of what makes it a myth?

 

[acbytesla]

Fair enough. I'd even agree that the land issue isn't a major concern. But to be clear: Do you now agree that in the context of the article we're referring to, "available land" is a myth, and that NIMBYism is part of what makes it a myth?

I think the land concern is an extremely minor concern compared to countless other issues such as the greenhouse gasses required to make solar panels and cobalt for batteries.

To me, the biggest problem is that everyone is lying to themselves. Nobody is telling the truth. Not industry, not the environmentalists, not the public. I use to be anti-nuclear. But solar, wind, geothermal and tidal together barely even begin to address the problem and if global warming is the problem we're told it is, nuclear power is going to have to be part of the portfolio to replacing fossil fuels.

 

[theprestige]

I think the land concern is an extremely minor concern compared to countless other issues such as the greenhouse gasses required to make solar panels and cobalt for batteries.

To me, the biggest problem is that everyone is lying to themselves. Nobody is telling the truth. Not industry, not the environmentalists, not the public. I use to be anti-nuclear. But solar, wind, geothermal and tidal together barely even begin to address the problem and if global warming is the problem we're told it is, nuclear power is going to have to be part of the portfolio to replacing fossil fuels.

I'm trying to get some clarity from you on a single specific point. Your last two posts seem to be sliding away from that point to other points not actually under discussion. Could you at least answer my previous question before you move on?

 

[acbytesla]

I'm trying to get some clarity from you on a single specific point. Your last two posts seem to be sliding away from that point to other points not actually under discussion. Could you at least answer my previous question before you move on?

I'm trying to clarify my position. I see the land as a miniscule issue but I don't want that point to obscure what I consider the larger issues.

 

[theprestige]

I'm trying to clarify my position.

It's not working.

Do you think it's a myth that there is plenty of available land for solar and wind farms?

 

[acbytesla]

It's not working.

Do you think it's a myth that there is plenty of available land for solar and wind farms?

Yes.

 

[theprestige]

Yes.

Thanks! Carry on!

 

[applecorped]

Like pulling teeth

 

[theprestige]

Like pulling teeth

More like getting an easement to install a wind farm on someone else's land, amirite.

 

[acbytesla]

Like pulling teeth

I actually meant to say no. But I don't believe that as a religion.

 

[Mike!]

Like pulling teeth

Interestingly enough, the teeth themselves don't put up much of a fight.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Actually, it does. The land in the article isn't vacant. It's private property that already has an owner other than the person who wants to use it.

The myth is that there's a bunch of land out there that's free for the taking. All the government has to do is put some solar panels on it and pow! Renewable energy. But sometimes the land in question isn't actually free for the taking. It's mythical free land.

It also does not need to be an either/or false dichotomy. There are plenty of acres around here with cows munching on grass under giant skyscraper windmills and around oil and gas rigs pumping fossil fuels. The portable electric fencing for the cows powered by solar panels and deep cell marine batteries. There are even a few wheat and cotton fields thrown in for good measure.

 

[theprestige]

I actually meant to say no. But I don't believe that as a religion.

LOL. I could have sworn you did say no. I had to reread it a few times, so as not to go off for the wrong reason.

But it's really "no" , huh? Okay then, I'll clarify your position for you:

"There's plenty of land for solar and wind, because when the time comes we'll just take it from whoever currently claims it. The same way we took St Lo when Patton needed it. Meanwhile, we have bigger problems to worry about, so don't even sweat the land thing. "

Is that about right?