The Green New Deal

The Big Dog said:
It is not my snide cow remark!

It is literally in the FAQ! I didn't write it, the goofballs in Congress did.
Click to expand...

Heh, didn't catch that on my first read-through, but you are right:

We set a goal to get to net-zero rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren't sure we'll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast...
Click to expand...

We have nothing to fear, but fear itself. And farting cows.
 
dudalb said:
The total dismissal of Nuclear Power is pure pandering to all the ex hippies out there.
I think the enviormental movment made a huge mistake in it's rejection of nuclear power. Totally based on "Nuclear is BAD" rather then any real reasoning.
Click to expand...

I'm with you there. I keep reading about Molten Salt Thorium Reactors. A technology that was pioneered by the US and abandoned which has been picked up in a big way by China, India, Norway and others. It looks like another example of invented by Americans and capitalized by others.
 
The FAQ isn't much help - the anti-nuclear stance isn't fact or science-based.

The elimination of air travel is a pipe dream written by someone without a working knowledge of American geography or economics.

I'm kind of bummed, honestly. I figured that I wouldn't like this, but I had hoped for a more fact-based document after all of the buildup.
 
carlitos said:
The FAQ isn't much help - the anti-nuclear stance isn't fact or science-based.

The elimination of air travel is a pipe dream written by someone without a working knowledge of American geography or economics.

I'm kind of bummed, honestly. I figured that I wouldn't like this, but I had hoped for a more fact-based document after all of the buildup.
Click to expand...

Same here. Heaven knows we need to address climate change, but this document does not come close to being workable.
One reason is a lot of it is not even that connected with Climate CHange, but more like trying to force in a lot of Progressive Dogma in a thin disguise of Climate Change.
 
I think a lot of Dems who are oohing and awing about the plan are going to move away when they actually read the damn thing.
 
dudalb said:
OK, granted the The New Green Deal has many flaws, what are your proposols for dealing with Climate CHange?:
Or do you prefer to pretend it's not a real problem?
Click to expand...

Stop pretending that this is not going to require sacrifice and that it can be accomplished in the timeframe they are talking about. Nuclear power is the long-term solution, but even if we start building now it will be years before they come online. And of course we won't start building now because the "Greens" will oppose nuclear power.
 
The Big Dog said:
It is not my snide cow remark!

It is literally in the FAQ! I didn't write it, the goofballs in Congress did.

Farting cow then... farting cows Now.... farting Cows Forever!

You will have to rip the farting cows out of my cold dead hands....

I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this Government: "I have nothing to offer but milk, manure, moos, tears and farts."

Meanwhile, the House should prepare itself for hard and heavy tidings. I have only to add that nothing which may happen in this cattle can in any way relieve us of our duty to defend the cows cause to which we have vowed ourselves; nor should it destroy our confidence in our power to make our way, as on former occasions in our history, through disaster and through grief to the ultimate defeat of our enemies's farts.
Click to expand...

Obviously for the long term: She's probably planning to phase out these farty climate killing cows and everyone will eventually switch from beef to tofu. Issue bovine condoms to prevent further cattle births and ramp up calf abortions to collect the freshest veal.

In the meantime, we can install cattle butt plugs with regulators and use the collected methane to power solar panel factories.
Chris B.
 
Brainster said:
And farting cows.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if they actually say "farting cows" in the document, but if so, it's actually wrong, the issue is not "farting cows" but rather "burping cows."

Being in one of the major diary areas in the world, this is an actual issue. Diary herds produce a lot of Methane in their gut, and they burp it up. Here in NZ this methane is our largest source of Greenhouse gases. Methane is also 30 times worse than Carbon Dioxide as a Greenhouse Gas!

We are working on ways to decrease it, such as genetically engineering the microbes in the cow's gut so that they produce less Methane, and changing the grasses so that they aren't broken down in a way that produces methane.

So yeah, it's easy to giggle at "farting cows," but it actually a very real issue that needs solving.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Stop pretending that this is not going to require sacrifice and that it can be accomplished in the timeframe they are talking about. Nuclear power is the long-term solution, but even if we start building now it will be years before they come online. And of course we won't start building now because the "Greens" will oppose nuclear power.
Click to expand...

I favor Nuclear Power,but also think that other forms of non fossil fuel energy are going to be valuable.
One thing is sure, the Trump administration contempt for anything but fossil fuel energy is a step backward. And I actually think that it's simply because Trumpy thinks that fossil based energy is macho,and non fossil based energy is wimpy.
Even somebody as right wing as Robert Heinlein said we need to move away from fossil fuels for energy, for no other reason then fossil fuels are to valuable to use when other methods are available.
But I agree that it's going to require sacrifice. And few Politicians of any stripe nowdays seem to want to do a Churchillian "Blood Sweat and Tears" speech.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
I'm not sure if they actually say "farting cows" in the document, but if so, it's actually wrong, the issue is not "farting cows" but rather "burping cows."
Click to expand...
"Farting cows" comes from the FAQ word for word:



the FAQ said:
We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than 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, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero.
Click to expand...
 
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized."
--Daniel Burnham, probably
 
carlitos said:
"Farting cows" comes from the FAQ word for word:
Click to expand...

Ahh, yeah when it first came up here the media used the same term, but it was eventually cleared up that most of the gases they produce comes from them burping up the gases from their stomachs. Either way it is a real issue, and we are spending a lot of money trying to solve it down here.
 
dudalb said:
Retrofit every building in America??????????
Leaving cost aside is that even feasible?
Click to expand...

It reads more like a dream list that a practical one. It nice to have a target to aim for though, and why not go for the "best case scenario" rather than creating a target that is already watered down?
 
And I think a lot of people are supporting this without actually studying it because "Green New Deal" sounds so nice.
 
dudalb said:
And I think a lot of people are supporting this without actually studying it because "Green New Deal" sounds so nice.
Click to expand...

I think that a lot of it is practicable or at least worth researching.

Over the last 10 years of so, we have had a huge Government program to get homes in New Zealand properly Insulated and energy efficient.

A lot can be done, switching to LED lighting where practical, insulation being added where practical. Putting in double glazing where it is needed. Switching out energy inefficient appliances with newer more efficient ones.

I actually suspect that it would be a lot easier in the US than here because a lot of buildings would already have the insulation and double glazing due to your weather extremes, whereas here the idea of heavily insulating a building is a very new idea and a lot of homes built prior to the 1990's don't have a huge amount, and virtually none have double glazing.
 
PhantomWolf said:
It reads more like a dream list that a practical one. It nice to have a target to aim for though, and why not go for the "best case scenario" rather than creating a target that is already watered down?
Click to expand...

"We should retrofit every building in America!"

Ten years later:

"A few buildings got retrofitted, thanks to my genius plan!"
 
theprestige said:
"We should retrofit every building in America!"

Ten years later:

"A few buildings got retrofitted, thanks to my genius plan!"
Click to expand...

As I noted above, I do wonder how many buildings actually need to be retrofitted based on the climate in the US. However it is actually practical as we have done it here and continue to do it. It started with Government Subsidies for homes older than 1990, and carried on through free insulation for pensioners and those on low incomes, and now they are working on getting as many rental properties as possible done. By 2030 most homes in the country will be up to spec. Yes it would be a larger scale in the US, but you also have more people capable of doing the job too.
 
dudalb said:
Retrofit every building in America??????????
Leaving cost aside is that even feasible?
Click to expand...

No. Without the internal combustion engine, what building supplies are to be used? Mining for steel and aluminum would be impossible using only wind and solar. Lumber would be obsolete. Shipping the supplies would also be impossible. Is the plan to first retrofit every building then eliminate the combustion engine? Think of the carbon footprint left behind from this massive task.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom