Green new deal equals magical thinking

[brenthutch 383]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

 There will come a time where oil gets prohibitively expensive to extract.  On that day, you better pray we spent that cheap oil getting ready to maintain our "way of life" without it.  

In the meantime let’s enjoy our bounty of fossil fuel.  With a century+(and counting) of cheap, dependable and efficient traditional energy in the ground we can afford to wait a few decades before we will need to revisit this topic.  With the benefit of quantum computing, advanced AI and nuclear fusion it might make more sense at that point.

BTW you still seem to think we run out of cheep oil on some “day”.  I can assure you that’s not how it works.  

[turtlespeed 212]

13 minutes ago, DJL said:

Are we trying to figure out who's lunatic fringe has the biggest penis?

How about starting with identifying who the lunatic fringe - IS?

[DJL 232]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

How about starting with identifying who the lunatic fringe - IS?

Those making statements that are not based upon scientifically verified information.

[billvon 2,400]

 

15 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

In the meantime let’s enjoy our bounty of fossil fuel.

I guess that's the difference between us.

I come into some money (or other resource) I think about investing it, paying for school, fixing the leak in the roof.  Basically planning for the future.

Quote

BTW you still seem to think we run out of cheep oil on some “day”.  I can assure you that’s not how it works.  

No, I don't.  Why not try to make your points without your usual strawmen?

[gowlerk 1,912]

10 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

How about starting with identifying who the lunatic fringe - IS?

Alright then. I'm going with the Tom Cochrane definition. AOC is NOT on the lunatic fringe. She may have advanced ideas that are toward the left than you like, but she has never AFAIK encouraged violence toward anyone.

 

https://www.google.ca/search?ei=cZLQXMSMH9bT-gTXmZiADw&q=lunatic+fringe+lyrics&oq=lunatic+fringe+&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.35i39j0l9.165167.166289..168392...0.0..0.147.917.0j7......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i20i263.1l7FtMsYVqU

Edited May 6, 2019 by gowlerk

[turtlespeed 212]

24 minutes ago, DJL said:

Those making statements that are not based upon scientifically verified information.

So - AOC to start.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

4 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

So - AOC to start.

Sure and Trump, McConnell, McCarthy to start on the other side. Interestingly enough, you think AOC is the one to worry about.

[brenthutch 383]

21 minutes ago, billvon said:

 

No, I don't.  Why not try to make your points without your usual strawmen?

My point is that there are currently ZERO reasons to attempt the GND or any of it’s horrid offspring.  Our ample supply of oil and natural gas ensures economic prosperity at home and geopolitical power abroad and will for the foreseeable future.

[DJL 232]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

My point is that there are currently ZERO reasons to attempt the GND or any of it’s horrid offspring.  Our ample supply of oil and natural gas ensures economic prosperity at home and geopolitical power abroad and will for the foreseeable future.

Or we could use the much less expensive renewable energy sources we've created and hold onto those consumables for when it's economically advantageous to use them.  That's a reason that has answered the inherent question posed by your second statement and doesn't even mandate attempting the GND.   Simply put, we should just do the thing that is becoming more economically feasible both in the short and long term.

[gowlerk 1,912]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Our ample supply of oil and natural gas ensures economic prosperity at home and geopolitical power abroad and will for the foreseeable future.

It's not hard to see further into the future than you seem to want to. Wise conservatives look at what is next, not what is now. Right wingers with attitudes like that are not true conservatives. They are culture warriors.

[turtlespeed 212]

17 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

My point is that there are currently ZERO reasons to attempt the GND or any of it’s horrid offspring.  Our ample supply of oil and natural gas ensures economic prosperity at home and geopolitical power abroad and will for the foreseeable future.

Zero is an absolute - 

There are no absolutes.

It is better to research and develop renewable energy.

Progression to the next level of society depends on finding new and better ways - the internal combustion engine is a great tool right now, but we need to move on to better more efficient, less polluting energy.

A hundred years or more from now - the people are going to look at the fuel we use now and liken it to the time when leeches were used for bleeding a patient.  Useful even today in some uncommon cases.  Still practiced, and refined as technology advances.  But the way they WERE used is barbaric to us now.

 

 

[Stumpy 256]

38 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

My point is that there are currently ZERO reasons to attempt the GND or any of it’s horrid offspring.  Our ample supply of oil and natural gas ensures economic prosperity at home and geopolitical power abroad and will for the foreseeable future.

Ahh the "I'm alright jack" philosophy. Not terribly surprised.

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

My point is that there are currently ZERO reasons to attempt the GND or any of it’s horrid offspring.  Our ample supply of oil and natural gas ensures economic prosperity at home and geopolitical power abroad and will for the foreseeable future.

Reasons:

1) We will run out of oil.  It's not if, it's when.  Therefore we have a good reason to develop an alternative before we do.

2) More renewables means a cleaner environment.  Cleaner environments mean that fewer people and animals die.  That's worthwhile.

3) Being the world leader in renewables means we make more money and reduce our trade imbalance.  That's worthwhile.

4) There are places where almost nothing else will work for electrical power - and again, getting renewables to them improves their quality of life without adding to their environmental footprint as much as shipping diesel generators to them would.

And for the more "kooky" parts of the GND:

5) We have an economic model built on growth of everything - spending, resources, oil use, waste, debt.  Again, that can't last forever.  Coming up with an alternative to that is important and will become more and more important with time.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Reasons:

1) We will run out of oil.  It's not if, it's when.  Therefore we have a good reason to develop an alternative before we do.

>>>>That's not 100% true -  We can speed up the natural oil making process, or slow the usage to allow for the natural process to take place. - Even the GND is more feasible. 

2) More renewables means a cleaner environment.  Cleaner environments mean that fewer people and animals die.  That's worthwhile.

>>>> If you don't mind over population.

3) Being the world leader in renewables means we make more money and reduce our trade imbalance.  That's worthwhile.

>>>> Shit.  We shouldn't agree this much - Isn't it against the forum rules or something?

4) There are places where almost nothing else will work for electrical power - and again, getting renewables to them improves their quality of life without adding to their environmental footprint as much as shipping diesel generators to them would.

Efficiency is progress - we should always be responsibly progressing.

And for the more "kooky" parts of the GND:

5) We have an economic model built on growth of everything - spending, resources, oil use, waste, debt.  Again, that can't last forever.  Coming up with an alternative to that is important and will become more and more important with time.

Well - We SHOULD end all air travel - everyone here should agree - they despise air travel.

 

[brenthutch 383]

4 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Zero is an absolute - 

There are no absolutes.

 

 

Isn’t that an oxymoron?

[gowlerk 1,912]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Isn’t that an oxymoron?

Therefore zero does not exist?

[billvon 2,400]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

 If you don't mind over population.

I think overpopulation is a problem.  But the solution is not to kill off people with pollution (IMO.)  Educating women is a much better way to reduce the population.

Quote

Well - We SHOULD end all air travel - everyone here should agree - they despise air travel.

Or at least make it cleaner - and provide alternatives.

[kallend 1,623]

On 5/6/2019 at 6:42 PM, turtlespeed said:

Well - We SHOULD end all air travel - everyone here should agree - they despise air travel.

 Yet another logical fallacy.

[turtlespeed 212]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

I think overpopulation is a problem.  But the solution is not to kill off people with pollution (IMO.)  Educating women is a much better way to reduce the population.

Or at least make it cleaner - and provide alternatives.

But we only have 12 years.

We better step up our game - 

[DJL 232]

3 hours ago, kallend said:

12 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Well - We SHOULD end all air travel - everyone here should agree - they despise air travel.

 Yet another logical fallacy.

Correct, we don't mind the travel, we mind the landings.

[DJL 232]

12 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

1) We will run out of oil.  It's not if, it's when.  Therefore we have a good reason to develop an alternative before we do.

>>>>That's not 100% true -  We can speed up the natural oil making process, or slow the usage to allow for the natural process to take place. - Even the GND is more feasible. 

You're talking about bio fuels, I assume.  Their economic benefit has just about closed the gap but it definitely occurs once fossil fuels become too scarce.  There will always be things that need to run off of an internal combustion engine and those will be in a very specific niche.

As an aside, could you imagine a NASCAR race using electric cars?  Talk about emasculation.

[Stumpy 256]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

You're talking about bio fuels, I assume.  Their economic benefit has just about closed the gap but it definitely occurs once fossil fuels become too scarce.  There will always be things that need to run off of an internal combustion engine and those will be in a very specific niche.

As an aside, could you imagine a NASCAR race using electric cars?  Talk about emasculation.

The most boring Motorsport possible? Might even improve it by making it relevant.

[normiss 622]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

You're talking about bio fuels, I assume.  Their economic benefit has just about closed the gap but it definitely occurs once fossil fuels become too scarce.  There will always be things that need to run off of an internal combustion engine and those will be in a very specific niche.

As an aside, could you imagine a NASCAR race using electric cars?  Talk about emasculation.

I'd consider it more ignorance than emasculation.

Some people cannot yet appreciate the torque of electric motors.

You should see the shit storm over the new Harley electric bike.

[DJL 232]

3 minutes ago, normiss said:

You should see the shit storm over the new Harley electric bike.

I mean...they never heard of putting cards in the spokes?

[billvon 2,400]

2 hours ago, normiss said:

I'd consider it more ignorance than emasculation.

Some people cannot yet appreciate the torque of electric motors.

You should see the shit storm over the new Harley electric bike.

Yep.  A whole lot of people have tried EV's and never looked back.  Even a few who swore they would never drive one of those sissy golf carts.