The Green New Deal

Lomiller keeps coming up with reasons it can't be done as opposed to how it could be done. But if they can make it work the way they envision, IT CAN BE DONE. For that I have no doubt. Ever see the designs for a molten salt reactor? They are not complicated. We're talking a reactor tank, emergency containment tank, fuel, coolant, moderator and pipes to and from heat exchangers. That's it. It does not present a huge manufacturing challenge. .

I used the example of a single Boeing aircraft with millions of parts that is produced at the rate of two a day. Yet Boeing also produces other aircraft like the 777 and the 787. The wings alone on these aircraft are more complex than a molten salt reactor

And there are other aircraft manufacturers like Airbus, Gulfstream, DeHavilland, Lear, Beechcraft, Cessna, Lockheed, Messerschmitt and others.

No question, there are design, engineering and regulatory challenges. But we KNOW molten salt reactors work. That's not theoretical. We also KNOW that thorium works. Frankly, I believe the biggest challenge is getting the NRC, the DOE and the EPA to be partners in this quest as opposed to being roadblocks. As I read more about this subject, I believe the US has gone from a can do society to a can't do and become the gang who can't shoot straight.

Lomiller also points out there have been aircraft accidents. And I can't help thinking "so"? Not a single person has died from a radiation accident in the United States and no one died even at Fukishima from its accident. There were workers that died in Chernobyl. Overall, the safety record for nuclear power is excellent.
 
theprestige said:
We need a benevolent dictator, who will kill off half the population and ration resources for the survivors.
Click to expand...

Oh, now I get it. Trump voters were actually choosing their Destructor. Like in the Ghostbuster movie.

I can see the resemblance between Trump and the Sta-puffed Marshmallow Man. He'd even have the white pallor without the fake orange tan.
 
Toontown said:
Oh, now I get it. Trump voters were actually choosing their Destructor. Like in the Ghostbuster movie.

I can see the resemblance between Trump and the Sta-puffed Marshmallow Man. He'd even have the white pallor without the fake orange tan.
Click to expand...

Don't cross the streams Ray.
 
Belz... said:
Given that I don't think we will, I'll have to disagree and instead say that we seem to have a pretty bleak one.



Hence the "/".
Click to expand...
Of course there is the possibility we won't. Wouldn't be the first times humans experienced Mass insanity and managed to suicide large portions of the population.
However, I do believe we understand the problem well enough this time to reverse the damages.

Next step is getting political support for a plan that could actually work and isn't so damn expensive it bankrupts the economy doing it.
That's why I devised a plan that is science based but also can be done at a net profit rather than a huge cost.

If you pay someone to do a task, they still might fail. Yes it is possible. But you are far far more likely to motivate success by paying someone for excellence rather that attempting to tax and regulate them into submission.
We have proof large scale rehabilitation of degraded environments is possible. The Loess Plateau project in China has had resounding success. It has sequestered massive carbon reduced massive erosion restored both crop production and wildlife at the same time, and even been a massive economic success at pulling the poorest region in China out of desperate poverty. This is no small area either. It's about the size of Belgium.

We can do even better than the Chinese did. We have more land and better infrastructure for the higher educated and better equipped farmers to take advantage. But we are going to need to pay the Farmers for all their hard work. (Oh and BTW that's one of the most important reasons the Chinese project worked. They paid them to do the restoration work, then let them earn income themselves off the newly rejuvenated ecosystems)

There are economic reasons this will help both economically distressed rural areas in the US and ALSO be a huge gain for the big business commodity markets too! Right now we are destroying our best tallgrass prairie to grow commodity corn and soy. But if we restore the grasslands, then we can directly replace the top two uses of the corn and soy with a far larger primary productivity. Simultaneously more profitable for the farmers and also more profitable in the commodity markets! Especially the international markets.

For example a Hazelnut Chestnut Oak savanna with tallgrass prairie between rows of perennials will yield the same oil and starch as soy and corn, plus feed animals between rows on the grass yielding both more food and higher quality at far less input cost. But this is key. To a commodity market, Beef chicken pork or mutton is considered a value added commodity over raw grains. The sale of value added commodities overseas rather than raw materials means we gain more net profit and reduce trade imbalances. So the big brokers and the lowly producers BOTH profit more, and so does the country as a whole, all while actually reducing atmospheric CO2.

The economics are so in favor of the newer system science agricultural production models it is insane. The problem is that most the regulatory burden is designed to prevent this change from happening, even if the capital were freed up to allow the infrastructure rebuilding.

So it will take some regulatory changes, and definitely will need to be an elimination of all government subsidies to emissions sources, but I do believe it can be done and I also believe if you paid for results there would be long lines of farmers signing up for it.

Now is it possible those farmers might fail? Sure. It's new technology. It's a whole new Paradigm. But simply take your carbon market and instead of trying to tax the country to death, instead simply use those funds to pay for carbon sequestration in our agricultural soils, and watch and see how hard a hungry farmer can work if put to the test. ;)
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
We’ve already delayed to long. We no longer have time for anything we can’t deploy right now.
Click to expand...

Yes, we can plan a long term solution. Time spent discussing a long term solution is definitely not any kind of obstacle to the short term solutions we need.
 
Nothing wrong with deficit spending as long as what you spend it on keeps its value or helps future generations.
The Trump tax cuts are the opposite of that.
 
Trumpublicans don't care about the deficit. They just want to punish the poor and help the wealthy get wealthier. To them, printing more money is just fine, as long as it goes to the top.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Trumpublicans don't care about the deficit. They just want to punish the poor and help the wealthy get wealthier. To them, printing more money is just fine, as long as it goes to the top.
Click to expand...

I'll say this. It's not that they are trying to punish the poor. I don't believe that.

It's that they just don't care about them. They're irrelevant other than in their ability to make the rich richer.
 
acbytesla said:
I'll say this. It's not that they are trying to punish the poor. I don't believe that.

It's that they just don't care about them. They're irrelevant other than in their ability to make the rich richer.
Click to expand...

Not my experience.

There is a definite sense of punishment in how Republicans deal with what they perceive as "welfare queens", "anchor baby families", and women seeking abortion.
"Tough love" is a typical authoritarian sentiment.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Not my experience.

There is a definite sense of punishment in how Republicans deal with what they perceive as "welfare queens", "anchor baby families", and women seeking abortion.
"Tough love" is a typical authoritarian sentiment.
Click to expand...


Also the influence of the prosperity gospel. You're poor because you're a bad person, so you deserve to be punished.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Not my experience.

There is a definite sense of punishment in how Republicans deal with what they perceive as "welfare queens", "anchor baby families", and women seeking abortion.
"Tough love" is a typical authoritarian sentiment.
Click to expand...

The Republicans don't see it as punishment. The GOP sees helping the poor is giving them a crutch to rely on instead of providing the gift of self reliance. As an opportunity to get stronger and to learn to rise above their circumstances.

And if the poor doesn't, "oh well".

Not to mention, that a dollar in the poor's pocket is one less dollar in their own.
 
Lmao, there are are so many cowards in this forum. If you lean even a little bit left politically, you are a cowardly fool. That cannot be argued.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Not my experience.

There is a definite sense of punishment in how Republicans deal with what they perceive as "welfare queens", "anchor baby families", and women seeking abortion.
"Tough love" is a typical authoritarian sentiment.
Click to expand...

I've always seen it as just a bunch of wedge issues designed to keep the working class at each others throats while the rich keep siphoning off all the countries wealth. The guys at the top don't really care about race, religion, gays, or poors, it's all just a scam to keep the country divided.
 
Epiphone said:
Lmao, there are are so many cowards in this forum. If you lean even a little bit left politically, you are a cowardly fool. That cannot be argued.
Click to expand...

And if you're even a little bit to the right, you're a fascist mass-murderer!

Now that we've labeled the whole damned thing, how about you try to make some sense, instead?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom