Kansas Crimson

kubandalum wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:26 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:35 am why is no cars unrealistic?

maybe you should travel more, experience the world...

Oh, they didn’t say “no cars.” They said “replacing non-essential individual means of transport.” That means the government decides whose “individual means” is “essential.” I’ll admit I’ve only been to 7 foreign countries on 3 continents, but the only country I’ve even heard about like that is North Korea. And for a look at how government here decides what’s “essential,” look at concealed carry weapons permits before “may issue” became “shall issue.” Local sheriffs handed out permits to cronies, politicians, and donors, and refused permits to women who were being stalked by their ex-boyfriends. Of course the people who wrote the “Green New Deal” would probably decide only “woke” people would have “essential” need for “individual means of transport.”

Mass transit? Try googling “condition of subways New York.” And how is that California bullet train coming along?

Exactly this kind of thinking is why we can never make progress in public policy. Just because it can't be done in the USA doesn't mean it can't be done. It's in part due to the imbeciles who think like this (and incidentally also resulted in the Trump presidency - one headed by the greatest imbeciles of them all). This same logic prevents us from having the best healthcare and transportation systems. Knee-jerk response to everything seems to be "Oh my God, the Gubmint!". This is the reason the subway system in NY sucks, the California bullet train can't be built and we are at the mercy of insurance company bureaucrats.

I have been to over 25 countries on 3 continents and public transportation is waaaaay better than in the US in many of them (essentially non-existent in several - such as outside of Reykjavik in Iceland). Japan built the Shinkansen and launched it the year after I was born, in time for the Tokyo Olympics. On the SBB (Switzerland) the common wisdom is "if the train is supposed to be there at 8:12 and it's 8:13 on your watch and the train is not yet there the problem is with your watch". Swiss trains run exclusively on electricity for at least 70 years. So yes, it can be done. Spain (AVE) and Italy (Frecce) have done it quite recently.

Ok. I’ll concede the cars that are in California, but though coal may be 18% of total energy, it’s nearly a third of what’s powering electricity, and that’s a big chunk. Thanks to shale gas (made much less expensive by fracking) coal’s share has been declining. The Green New Deal, however, would eliminate ALL fossil fuel production and nuclear power by 2030. Maybe someone should scale up the Gossamer Condor so passengers can pedal their way from JFK to Heathrow. Should the US Navy go back to using sails?

Speaking of California, the Ivanpah solar power plant sets birds on fire in mid-air. Also, windmills got the nickname “condor Quisinarts” for a reason.

imo, too many people are stuck in our current reality and aren’t allowing themselves to think outside of the box...too much living in the now, and not enough planning for the future

DC alluded to this when talking about forest management in cali, and it is blatantly obvious with new orleans and the fla coast - it’s too convenient to just keep the status quo. no reason to continue to build and rebuild in areas that are becoming ever more prone to disaster. no reason to continue using energy sources that are excessively damaging to the environment, either during extraction or use.

shale oil, tar sands, fracking...jfc. the aftermath looks like a war zone, but it’s not in my back yard, so who cares? and for what? a few dollars?

and lol at the anecdote about the birds being incinerated at the solar farm. many of those farms in cali are on top of prime desert tortoise habitat, research i've directly been a part of. if you think that “loss” is anywhere close to the damage being done by extraction and use of fossil fuels, i’ve got some ocean-front property in arizona to sell you.

kubandalum wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:41 am Ok. I’ll concede the cars that are in California, but though coal may be 18% of total energy, it’s nearly a third of what’s powering electricity, and that’s a big chunk. Thanks to shale gas (made much less expensive by fracking) coal’s share has been declining. The Green New Deal, however, would eliminate ALL fossil fuel production and nuclear power by 2030. Maybe someone should scale up the Gossamer Condor so passengers can pedal their way from JFK to Heathrow. Should the US Navy go back to using sails?

Speaking of California, the Ivanpah solar power plant sets birds on fire in mid-air. Also, windmills got the nickname “condor Quisinarts” for a reason.

Holy shit....where do you get your information?

lulz

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:39 am

kubandalum wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:41 am Ok. I’ll concede the cars that are in California, but though coal may be 18% of total energy, it’s nearly a third of what’s powering electricity, and that’s a big chunk. Thanks to shale gas (made much less expensive by fracking) coal’s share has been declining. The Green New Deal, however, would eliminate ALL fossil fuel production and nuclear power by 2030. Maybe someone should scale up the Gossamer Condor so passengers can pedal their way from JFK to Heathrow. Should the US Navy go back to using sails?

Speaking of California, the Ivanpah solar power plant sets birds on fire in mid-air. Also, windmills got the nickname “condor Quisinarts” for a reason.

Holy shit....where do you get your information?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ivanpah-so ... 1458170858

Also, it was recently one of the segments on the Science Channel’s “What on Earth?” show, which had videos of birds being burned to death. You’d see a flash and then a trail of smoke. Of course the segment started with showing only the flashes and smoke trails, speculating on UFOs and secret military projects, and only after that backing the cameras away to reveal what was really happening.

Sorry for misspelling Cuisinart. They were called that by the Audubon Society.
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/sep/14/news/mn-9946

I don't subscribe to WSJ.
1999, pretty timely article.

Facts about wind turbines and bird deaths:

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2018/8/2 ... ssil-fuels

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/21/wi ... s-overall/

"Billions of birds are killed each year by domestic cats. Yes, that’s billions with a b. Collisions with communications towers kill about 6.5 million birds each year; this is about 18 times more than wind power technology. Electrocutions kill about 5.4 million.

..........a more accurate estimated range was 140,000 to 328,000 deaths per year due to wind power tower and turbine collisions. Of course these deaths are regrettable, and in an ideal world they would not happen, but again, to continue to round out the full context of annual bird deaths, we need have some perspective.

Bird mortality from window collisions in the US is estimated to be between 365 million to 988 million birds annually.” If we compare the top end of the researchers’ estimate for wind power bird deaths, which is 328,000 per year, with the peak from the Fish and Wildlife Service for building collisions, which is 988 million, we see that building collisions result in well over 2,000 times more bird deaths.

This is grisly stuff to consider, but 8.5 billion chickens were killed in 2014 for consumption in America. Each year, about 240 million turkeys are killed too. Somehow, that is “okay,” but they are also birds and simply by making different consumer choices many of their lives could be spared. Tens of millions of ducks are raised for eating too.

Do you think any of the wind power critics abstain from eating chicken, turkey, ducks and geese? Doesn’t seem likely, does it? It seems clear enough that they don’t care about birds much, if at all, and are merely attempting to make wind power look bad."

We average about 4 bird deaths a week at my work from them flying into our large windows.

Something I missed earlier in the Green New Deal:
“Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”
https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... al-FAQ.pdf

“...unwilling...”

The Green New Deal has now been endorsed by presidential candidates Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand.

kubandalum wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:34 pm Something I missed earlier in the Green New Deal:
“Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”
https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... al-FAQ.pdf

“...unwilling...”

The Green New Deal has now been endorsed by presidential candidates Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Yes, that part is dumb AF...

Do you consider yourself a good Christian? Do you endorse the bible?

The country is in the best of hands...

An actual sentence from the FAQ:

"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."

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:48 am The country is in the best of hands...

An actual sentence from the FAQ:

"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."

The dumbest among us have the most power apperantly so makes sense.

Have they lost their minds?
Yep looks like it.
https://michaelsavage.com/the-10-most-i ... -new-deal/

Some of my personal favorites....


A government-guaranteed job. The bill promises the United States government will provide every single American with a job that includes a “family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and a pension.” You can imagine that those left in the private sector would be funding these through some unspecified “massive” taxation. On the bright side, when you’re foraging for food, your savings will be worthless.



Free money. The GND aims to provide, and I am not making this up, “economic security” for all who are “unable or unwilling” to work. Just to reiterate: if you’re unwilling to work, the rest of us will have your back.

I love when people complain about the system being broken and then point and laugh at efforts to fix the system while continuing to vote for people who are using the system to get rich to the detriment of the average American.

This is no doubt a radical and absurd effort but the effort to change a massive, broken system will take a radical and absurd solution. At least someone is finally trying instead of saying "I wanna change the way things are" to get elected and then sitting back getting fat off the stupidity of the people who were actually dumb enough to believe them.

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:36 pm This is no doubt a radical and absurd effort but the effort to change a massive, broken system will take a radical and absurd solution.

Arguably the "current system" is radical and absurd. For starters, imagine the govt providing subsidies to pollute and a candidate gets elected promising more pollution!

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:36 pm I love when people complain about the system being broken and then point and laugh at efforts to fix the system while continuing to vote for people who are using the system to get rich to the detriment of the average American.

This is no doubt a radical and absurd effort but the effort to change a massive, broken system will take a radical and absurd solution. At least someone is finally trying instead of saying "I wanna change the way things are" to get elected and then sitting back getting fat off the stupidity of the people who were actually dumb enough to believe them.

What's laughed at above is not "fixing the system".....it's changing the system to socialism and on a path towards communism.

How can anyone think any of that is a good idea?

Money if you're unwilling to work? Wtf?

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:48 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:36 pm I love when people complain about the system being broken and then point and laugh at efforts to fix the system while continuing to vote for people who are using the system to get rich to the detriment of the average American.

This is no doubt a radical and absurd effort but the effort to change a massive, broken system will take a radical and absurd solution. At least someone is finally trying instead of saying "I wanna change the way things are" to get elected and then sitting back getting fat off the stupidity of the people who were actually dumb enough to believe them.

What's laughed at above is not "fixing the system".....it's changing the system to socialism and on a path towards communism.

How can anyone think any of that is a good idea?

Money if you're unwilling to work? Wtf?

Communism. Good grief. No wonder the Russian fake news campaign worked so well in this country. Some people are dumb enough to believe anything. Honestly, is there anything more intellectually lazy than screaming "the Dems are trying to turn us into a Communist nation"? GTFO with that gibberish.

Do you want to pay to fix the system and save our environment so that 200 years from now our descendants aren't wallowing in toxic sludge looking at pictures of what nature, green space and animals used to look like back when people could drink water out of the tap? No? Then either it stays broken or someone else has to pay for it. Seems to me that the corporations making billions off the hard work of Americans and the people making a shit ton of money thanks to those corporations would be a possibility.

Who else is going to do it? Mexico?

Do you know what communism is?


(Your rant about the environment has nothing to do with anything I quoted or "laughed at".