Politicians who oppose the Green Deal, better do so quietly

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, Mar 27, 2019.

  1. navigator2

    navigator2 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    9,411
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Go ahead, fund this crap yourself. Knock yourself out. But beware, keep your mitts off "other people's money". Oh and the Parkland generation. More myths perpetration by the Fake News Media.:roflol:
     
  2. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    10,291
    Likes Received:
    13,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's quite simple. The only way to build a zero-emission energy grid, when you don't have an already existing zero-emission energy grid, is to build that grid with conventional manufacturing methods that put out lots of carbon emissions.

    Either that, or you need to break some very basic laws of physics. Basically, you need a magic wand that lets you build non-emissions technology, with carbon-emitting methods, all while not emitting carbon.

    I've discussed it before:

    AOC's "green energy" plans are absolutely self-defeating when you take her "deadline" into account. To make the switch to solar, wind, and(necessarily) storage batteries, and build an entire new grid to accomodate all of the new power-generation equipment, it would require a huge amount of mining of raw material, and heavy industrial manufacturing. All of which would require huge amounts of fossil fuels, because we kinda don't have an extensive green energy grid yet, you see? We can't build it green, because we ain't got the green stuff yet. All that manufacturing, and mining, and all the fossil fuel it would burn, would create a YUGE carbon emission output over the next 12 years, and it would take as long as that even if we went full-bore with AOC's plan starting tomorrow.

    But, remember, we only have 12 years left to live, remember? We'll all be dead before we get the green grid up and running.

    It's going to take a buttload of carbon emissions in order to make all the green energy stuff which will reduce the emissions, that's carved in stone, and there's no way to get around it.
    (those pesky laws of physics)

    If AOC had given us a 30-year-to-pockyclypse deadline, then we could've built all the stuff we needed in the next 10 years while belching out the carbon, but then mitigated the damage with our up-and-running zero-emission grid over the following 20 years, and saved our hides from the pockyclypse.

    But, instead, in her infinite idiocy, what AOC has handed us is a ticking time bomb that is utterly impossible to defuse before time runs out, and, if we do try and defuse the bomb, it'll only make the timer run faster.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2019
  3. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113

    There you go again....

    Nigeria???? What the hell does that have to do with the GND, or AOC?

    Start by quoting AOC saying that she wants to buy oil from Nigeria. Stop all this waste of time!

    AOC wants to stop buying oil from .... anybody. Altogether. That is a long-term goal. But it is achievable if we all get on board. The few who make up nonsense like.... "She wants to buy oild from Nigeria" will just be left behind and forgotten. Because they are irrelevant. Fortunately, the newer generations will make sure of that.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2019
  4. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The money will come from wherever the money comes from. If we can throw away money on a wall that will never get built, we can invest in trying to mitigate a problem made worse by nearsightedness by the right.
     
  5. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    10,291
    Likes Received:
    13,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "You just pay for it!"

    WtAkphxn_400x400.jpg


    Already happening, no matter how much you wish it wasn't.

    border-wall-construction-santa-teresa-2.jpg
     
  6. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know that science and technology tends to look like "magic" to those who don't have the mental preparedness to grasp it. But all you need to do is stay out of the way. We'll take care of it. Don't touch anything, let us do our stuff, stay clear of the doors and enjoy the show.... Prepare to be wowed!
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2019
  7. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    10,291
    Likes Received:
    13,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ooo. The lefties with art history degrees are going to try and science.

    This oughta be good. Like watching my grandmother doing the googles on the interwebz.
     
    Longshot and Badaboom like this.
  8. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What part of "if we do not get the oil from Canada - we have to get it from somewhere else - and one of our major suppliers is Nigeria (and other polluters ) do you not understand ?

    What a joke and mindless response - as usual. Disingenuous denial on the level of a religious zealot who has had his beliefs challenged.
     
  9. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The part where you quote her saying we don't want to buy oil from Canada.

    Look.... It all boils down to this: Oil companies make more money with the pipeline. And oil is cheaper. Which sounds great. And encourages us to buy these great gas-guzzlers, and make even more money for the oil companies. But the time has come to pay for the real price of oil. Which includes an environmental "tax". Which is not a tax that the government charges, but a "tax" that the oil companies and the consumers must pay in order to protect the environment. I'm ok with the pipeline, so long as assurance is given that there will be no leaks. To a much much higher standard than the one that is given now. And that if there is an accident, that reaction is almost instantaneous. If it's necessary to continuously monitor every inch of the pipeline, then that's what they need to do. It will likelymake our fuel more expensive. As time goes by, thanks to our Capitalist system, this will encourage the development and spread of alternative ways to move us around. Be it alternative fuels, or alternative modes of transportation. The more we keep trying to do the same at a cost of damamging the environment and risking aquifers, the more painful this transition will be. But the transition is inevitable. We need more forward thinking leaders like AOC. And less backward thinking reactionaries who think that by doing the same thing again and again things will just.... solve themselves... somehow....
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2019
  10. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    She is trying to block a pipeline from Canada .. That you can not figure out that blocking a pipeline from Canada means that we will have to get oil from somewhere else - despite me educating you on this fact - is sad commentary on your intellectual capacity.

    ..


    The argument above is nonsensical.

    1) you have no clue what the difference in cost is - with respect to shipping by pipeline from crude produced on land - to shipping by other methods. You have no idea whether or not difference is significant enough to effect purchasing patterns.

    Further - you then go on to make the preposterous claim that this assumed difference in purchasing patterns (assumptions which are not backed up by any evidence and - at least on the surface seem to be preposterous nonsense) will have more of an environmental impact than blocking the Keystone

    You are making stuff up and pretending that your made up assertions have some basis in fact. Thus far I have been doing the math for you - giving numbers and evidence and making factual arguments in support of my claims. I could do the numbers for you once again - easily refuting your nonsense claim .. but - since this is your claim - put up or shut up.

    What is the cost difference to a gallon of gas - between gas produced from oil shipped from Nigeria - and oil shipped from Canada ?

    When this analysis is complete - show how this decrease in the cost of gas - which will work out to f-all as the cost of the crude differential is a very small fraction of the total costs of producing that gallon of gas - will compare to the environmental impact of blocking the Keystone.

    Perhaps we should ban improvements to refinery efficiency while we are at this dumb argument as this would contribute to lowering the price of gas.

    Assuming you did come up with some difference in purchasing patters - and good luck with that but lets give you the benefit of the doubt - then you must show how the decrease in CO2 emissions from some folks buying more efficient vehicles - compares in relation to the very real excess pollution caused by Blocking the Pipeline.

    Then explain how blocking the pipeline is a better solution to your proposed problem - then just banning gas guzzlers. Oh wait - that one is easy and stops you from having to do all this work.

    Since the objective is to reduce environmental impact - and blocking the pipeline increases environmental impact - why not just ban gas guzzlers and build the Keystone. We kill two birds with one stone -- environmental pollution is decreased by building the Keystone - and by reducing the amount of gas guzzlers on the road.

    This is the difference between having someone who has a clue what they are talking about leading the charge .. and someone - like Cortez and yourself - who does not.


    2)Blocking the pipeline will not change US oil consumption in any significant way. Blocking the Keystone increases the damage to the environment directly as the alternatives will lead to more environmental damage and/or carry a much greater risk of environmental damage.

    Blocking the pipeline transfers some this increase in environmental damage to another place - and that damage includes ocean pollution which is the number one environmental risk ... something that Canada does not do as opposed to Nigeria and others which do.

    At the same time - Blocking the Keystone decreases economic prosperity in the US - for the numerous specific reasons outlined previously - and this weakens our ability to make environmental change at home.

    At the same time blocking the Keystone discourages nations like Nigeria from cleaning up their act. The fact of the matter is that we must get oil from somewhere. We should not be getting it - and encouraging the world to do the same - from nations that are big polluters. Not building the Keystone counters this sensible global policy.

    At the same time - nasty as this may be - purchasing from third world nations encourages industrialization of those nations which - for reasons described previously - is a huge environmental threat. Bigger than CO2 alone and exacerbates the CO2 problem. The idea that going out and encouraging nations - who currently produce no oil - to produce oil - is better than getting oil from first world nations that have strict environmental standards - Like Canada - is crazy - Full Stop .. and that is exactly what Blocking the Keystone does.

    We should be trying not to purchase of oil from heavy polluting nations . not encouraging it... and that is exactly what Blocking the Keystone does.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2019
  11. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That doesn't mean we have to get it from somewhere else. It certainly doesn't mean we have to get it from Kenya!. It would only mean that we can't get it through that pipeline as it is.
    .
    You didn't get it. It makes no difference. If it doesn't affect them... no problem. We have saved the environment and all else stays the same. That's great! But if it affects it, that's fine too.

    The rest is the same. I thought it was obvious I was assuming the worst case scenario. Of course it's preposterous. The worst case scenario is always preposterous. But anything short of that simply means it's more controllable.

    I don't care. Worst case scenario (since Ii have to specify it): a lot. So worst case scenario, there is market pressure to move away from green house gas producing sources of energy. Therefore, the worst case scenario is the best case scenario for the environment without even requiring political pressure.. Anything in between requires political pressure.

    Hmmm.... So you propose some sort of "environmental anarchism". Worth considering. But I don't think it's politically feasible. And it would be against capitalist norms with no justification. The real solution requires direct rational thinking. Saving aquifers is a necessity.

    I haven't said anything about banning gas guzzlers. That's your strawman! Keep me out of it. As a matter of fact, let it be known here and now: I would oppose it. As a matter of fact, I can't think of a single consumer product I would ban. Protect the environment. Promote the development of green technology. And let the market forces do the rest.

    Well, now... let's see. So far you have proposed to options: 1- Do nothing. 2- Banning things, like gas guzzlers, ... and other nonsense.

    AOC came up with an outline. And I have broadly mentioned a plan (not mine. It has been mentioned by others) in which, worst case scenario, the market forces themselves pressure towards change.

    Let's see who wins.... Any bets? A couple of tips: market forces are already working. Solar power becomes cheaper every year. Research into other sources is becoming more widespread. Wind power is extending. Trump will only be able to protect Oil Companies for less than 2 more years. . And AOC is already capturing the minds of the younger generations that will be around more time than the 65+ Trump base.

    Sorry.. but it would appear like you're on the wrong side of history.
     
  12. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes it does - holy carp this is mindless denial. Mass balance - never mind "simple Math" is clearly your weak suit. I will try and dumb it down to a grade 5 level for you.

    If US oil consumption is 100 barrels per day - and we choose not to get 5 of those barrels from the Keystone - that means we have to get those 5 barrels from somewhere else.

    The rest of your post is complete mindless gibberish and intentional falsehood.
    So mindless is your denial and desire to demonize the messenger (because you can not refute the message) that you cant even keep your falsehoods straight.

    First you accuse me of claiming you said something about banning gas guzzlers - (something I never claimed). Then a few sentences later you state correctly that it was me that proposed banning gas guzzlers .. albeit in the midst of a complete falsehood 1) I have never said do nothing .. and

    3) you omit the main option I gave which is building the Keystone - such a disingenuous purveyor of falsehood.

    Then you finish by claiming I am on the wrong side of History (of course providing no evidence for this claim).

    The reality is that it is you supports policy that will increase environmental pollution, transport that pollution to other nations, and encourage and incentivize nations with lax environmental standards to pollute more - while at the same time claiming that you support saving the environment.

    This is hypocrisy of the highest order.
     
  13. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you claiming to be able to grasp science and technology now ? You cant even figure out grade 5 math. That if consumption is 100 Barrels of oil a year and we decide not to get 5 of those barrels from Canada .. we have to get them from somewhere else.

    What is more troubling is that in spite of this being explained to you a number of times - you still don't get it.

    No need for me to prepare to be wowed - I'm already wowed. I am wowed by the fact that someone who is obviously through high school - can't understand the most basic of math problems.

    Do you have any more tricks up your sleeve that we should be aware of ?


    Don't bother with logic and reason - its pointless. That is just going to trigger some thought stopping reaction - the symptoms of which will be abject denial, ad hom fallacy, a bluster of name calling , and the occasional strawman.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2019
  14. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What's the matter with you? We don't get it from "Keystone". We get it from Canada. Keystone is just a pipeline. You're like that cartoon "Rugrats" who believed the refrigerator was a device that made food.

    I don't see much substance in this post. Let's see if I can find any.

    ...

    Nope... nothing.

    So, in conclusion, you came to criticize AOC's leadership, but could not show you even understood the concept. You came to criticize the GND, and yet you couldn't produce a single quote that you could to be erroneous. And then you went on an unrelated rant about Keystone, China, Kenya.... but never showed a single quote by AOC.

    So that's that...
     
  15. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We do get oil from the Keystone - what is not built is the Keystone XL. Regardless - even if you are correct - this response is as mindless as you pretending not to understand basic math.

    If oil consumption in the US is 100 barrels - and we decide not to get 5 of those barrels from Canada - that means we have to get those 5 barrels from somewhere else.

    Then you try to project your inability to understand simple concepts and do grade 5 math on to me followed by building a nonsensical strawman.
     
  16. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yet no democrat in the Senate voted in favor of the Green new Deal bill. Not a single one, not even the sponsor of the bill in the Senate.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2019
  17. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One.... last....freakin'.... time..... quote AOC saying we don't want to buy them from Canada!!!
     
  18. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong! Try to stay informed!
     
  19. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never said AOC stated "we don't want to buy oil from Canada". That AOC did not make this claim does not change the fact that blocking the Keystone Pipeline blocks oil coming from Canada which forces us to get oil from some other nation.

    Only an idiot does not understand this - and you are not an idiot. You argument is non sequitur fallacy on steroids and you know it.

    This disingenuous denial of logic, reason and facts is sad commentary in general. It is doubly disturbing given that you are doing this against the side that you claim to be for.

    You claim to be for the Environment - but are arguing for a position that will harm to the environment -a position that does exactly the opposite of what the NGD claims - yet you claim to be for the NGD.

    It is this kind of partisan self induced blindness and denial that is the problem - not the solution. Th type of mind twisting denial of logic, reason, and facts -that you are displaying - is a big part of the reason why were are in the environmental mess that the world now faces.

    You go into a massive rage when the other side does this - yet this is what you are doing. This is hypocrisy. What is worse is that you are not even doing this against the side that is opposed to you. You are doing this to the side you claim to be on.
     
  20. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So through all this nonsense, the point you wanted to make was that the only possible way we can get oil from Canada is through the Keystone Pipeline. XL And that if we don't get it from Canada, the only alternative is to get it from Kenya.

    Ok..... Enough time has been wasted on this nonsense.
     
  21. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You were called out on your lack of integrity and credibility - and now all you can do is build a strawman in some desperate attempt to save face .. followed by running to the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial.
     
  22. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The real question is whether the green new deal is more expensive than the effects of climate change and whether it will actually be effective against climate change. Some estimates are that the green new deal will cost 90 trillion in just the US alone which really sets a high bar for the cost of climate change, and the deal doesn't even guarantee that other countries that cause most of the CO2 emissions will even change their habits. There are also big questions as to whether it is even economically possible and whether we have the technology to completely transform our economy to green technologies.
     
  23. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The $90 Trillion estimate is based on a completely discredited and false estimate
    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...rnst-says-green-new-deal-would-cost-93-trill/

    Even thought it's nowhere near that made up figure, how much it costs is trivial. How much do you think the cost of doing nothing would be?

    As a matter of fact, I tend to believe that, in the end, it could be profitable for us. There is no objective way of knowing that either way, though. It would depend on how soon we can rid ourselves of ignorance-based political objections. Of which these exorbitant fake "estimates" are no small part.
     
  24. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    34,260
    Likes Received:
    8,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When did the whole man made global warming farce begin? How many predictions from then have come true since? Any politician dumb enough to support man made global warming is a fool, if anyone should do things quietly its those hucksters...
     
  25. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Uhmmm.... all!

    Unless you mean that scientists were a bit too optimistic. That would probably be somewhat true....
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2019

Share This Page