Green new deal equals magical thinking

[Coreece 189]

Is seems your greenie flare is becoming a bit more radiant.  Does it glow in the dark too!

[Coreece 189]

14 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Is seems your greenie flare is becoming a bit more radiant.  Does it glow in the dark too!

Yep, just as I suspected!

[JoeWeber 2,294]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

Yep, just as I suspected!

Champion bit of investigation reporting Coreece. I've been unsettled by the idea that some posters have auras and the rest of us do not, but that was just silliness. You, however, have simply blown the thing wide open. The question is, now that we know what Bill actually looks like what do we do?

[Coreece 189]

There is nothing we can do now but pray.

[billvon 2,380]

22 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

 The question is, now that we know what Bill actually looks like what do we do?

You've raised a good point - and I have updated my picture to be more accurate.

[brenthutch 383]

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/china-was-the-climate-champion-of-paris-now-its-doing-a-complete-u-turn

looks like the green new deal is dead in China as well.

[DJL 232]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/china-was-the-climate-champion-of-paris-now-its-doing-a-complete-u-turn

looks like the green new deal is dead in China as well.

Yup. That's what happens when the second largest producer of greenhouse gases walks away from global agreements and starts trade wars with the largest producer of greenhouse gases.

[brenthutch 383]

The US has reduced CO2 emissions more than any country on the planet, by far. (Thanks to fracking and natural gas) We are leading by example.

Edited November 26, 2019 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 383]

43 minutes ago, DJL said:

Yup. That's what happens when the second largest producer of greenhouse gases walks away from global agreements and starts trade wars with the largest producer of greenhouse gases.

Put another way, that is what happens when China makes a sober assessment of its future energy needs and drastically cuts investment in renewables and goes “all in” on fossil fuels.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=2ahUKEwjPgPyTmojmAhWtxVkKHcN6AcwQFjAFegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.technologyreview.com%2Ff%2F613938%2Fclean-energy-investments-are-plummeting-bloomberg-bnef%2F&usg=AOvVaw1VXOin9fRBq8O_9Z7LePm8

Edited November 26, 2019 by brenthutch

[DJL 232]

23 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Put another way, that is what happens when China makes a sober assessment of its future energy needs and drastically cuts investment in renewables and goes “all in” on fossil fuels.

Of course.  An investment means there's money up front that you regain in the long term.  When you have no choice in the short term you stop fleecing the sheep and send them to slaughter.  The diplomacy we had with them is gone and they're struggling so they have no choice but to make power the cheapest way that is most readily available for their power producing infrastructure.  We're moving in the wrong direction and US isolationism is at the root of this.  4 years ago we were the world's diplomatic powerhouse, that's now slipping out of our fingers and it doesn't even look like we'll settle the intellectual property issues that seems to be the only valid justification for the losses we've incurred.

Edited November 26, 2019 by DJL

[brenthutch 383]

11 minutes ago, DJL said:

Of course.  An investment means there's money up front that you regain in the long term.  

And that is why China is INVESTING in fossil fuels, they simply have a greater ROI than renewable.

BTW our trade war is SLOWING China's economy and REDUCING its need for energy not the other way around.

Edited November 26, 2019 by brenthutch

[DJL 232]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

And that is why China is INVESTING in fossil fuels, they simply have a greater ROI.

Yes, their short term ROI is better.  That's why US fossil fuel industries hid what they knew about their effects on global warming.

[DJL 232]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

BTW our trade war is SLOWING China's economy and REDUCING its need for energy not the other way around.

Their need for energy is up according to the article you posted:

"Over the past year, China’s demand for energy is up substantially, as high as 15 per cent in the case of natural gas. "

[brenthutch 383]

9 minutes ago, DJL said:

Their need for energy is up according to the article you posted:

"Over the past year, China’s demand for energy is up substantially, as high as 15 per cent in the case of natural gas. "

You are correct, I should have said, the trade war is slowing the growth rate of China’s energy demand.  The point is that China’s reversal on renewables has nothing to do with our current trade dispute.  Do you really think if we dropped the tariffs and INCREASED the demand for Chinese goods that their energy needs would decrease?

[DJL 232]

20 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

  The point is that China’s reversal on renewables has nothing to do with our current trade dispute. 

From the article you posted:

"China is reeling from Trump’s trade sanctions. Xi is focused now on his need to maintain economic growth at home. And the U.S. and EU have largely abandoned a Green Climate Fund that would have redistributed US$100-billion a year from developed countries to developing countries. That was the lucre that made climate change interesting to China and other Third World countries. So China no longer has an economic incentive to participate in what it saw as the Paris climate-change charade."

So there you have it, your article explaining that with the lost diplomacy and trade sanctions imposed by Trump China is being squeezed to do more with less.  

20 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Do you really think if we dropped the tariffs and INCREASED the demand for Chinese goods that their energy needs would decrease?

The blind response is that yes, they'll increase but that's just because we abandoned the partnership with them by our own withdrawal from the Paris Accord and the our own trade war with them.  It's therefore a moot point because it's happening either way.

Edited November 26, 2019 by DJL

[brenthutch 383]

28 minutes ago, DJL said:

From the article you posted:

"the U.S. and EU have largely abandoned a Green Climate Fund that would have redistributed US$100-billion a year from developed countries to developing countries. That was the lucre that made climate change interesting to China and other Third World countries"

 

Isn’t paying billions of dollars to countries to get them to do what they would otherwise not do, a bribe? ;-)

[DJL 232]

20 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Isn’t paying billions of dollars to countries to get them to do what they would otherwise not do, a bribe? ;-)

Quid Pro Joe.

[billvon 2,380]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Isn’t paying billions of dollars to countries to get them to do what they would otherwise not do, a bribe? ;-)

No.  Is paying a car company thousands of dollars to get them to do what they otherwise would not do (give you a car) a bribe?  If you think so, you have some odd ideas about capitalism.

[DJL 232]

7 minutes ago, billvon said:

No.  Is paying a car company thousands of dollars to get them to do what they otherwise would not do (give you a car) a bribe?  If you think so, you have some odd ideas about capitalism.

Quid Pro Jetta

[brenthutch 383]

26 minutes ago, billvon said:

No.  Is paying a car company thousands of dollars to get them to do what they otherwise would not do (give you a car) a bribe?  If you think so, you have some odd ideas about capitalism.

it was a joke

[richravizza 25]

On 11/23/2019 at 10:14 PM, mbohu said:

Right. So what's his point then...the guy in the middle, in your video?

Don't you see it?  The insanity of progressivism in our society...I'll stop right there.Keep this topic on thread.

The Law of  Diminishing Returns is starring us in the face,now.All in the race to save us from ourselves. Policy and ideas come at a cost to our society, not only monetary,but in real world consequences,both intended and unintended these are at a boiling point here in LA We'recalling our Governor Gruesome.

.In our zeal to "DO Something",LA and California is a madhouse of "Good Intentions".We/They spent a million dollars painting the streets white,all to appease their weather Gods. They figured out our penitence.Fuck the homeless on that street just brush them aside, along with the drug and mental health crisis.At least they have a clean place to squat. If only you Vote to raise the Tax,again,the gods will look favorably upon you too.

 

[mbohu 77]

3 minutes ago, richravizza said:

Don't you see it?  The insanity of progressivism in our society...I'll stop right there.Keep this topic on thread.

Yes and No: This has nothing to do with progessivism, in my opinion.
I have lived in places MUCH more progressive than any state in the US, including California, where I have lived for over 20 years--and enjoyed it!) Many of these "progressive" places are extremely nice places to live.

The issue you are alluding to ("Let's DO SOMETHING!") has much more to do with the political climate in a social media and 24-hour news cycle world: It happens on both sides (example for the conservative side: "Let's build a wall to keep immigrants out", even though hardly any percentage of  immigrants enter by foot where the wall would be built)
It is clear that there are good solutions and bad solutions to any problem. It is also clear that almost ALL good solutions will also have some drawbacks in other areas. Let's discuss which solutions are best, and which side-effects we want to tolerate, or how we can mitigate those. Let's put our best minds together on this. 
But this clearly isn't what the guy in the middle was talking about.

[brenthutch 383]

No, Bill is just disappointed that China has fallen of the green new deal bandwagon.  Cut him some slack.

[billvon 2,380]

6 hours ago, richravizza said:

Don't you see it?  The insanity of progressivism in our society. . . .

 . . . has given us minority rights, gay rights, women's right to vote, child labor laws, the EPA and mining safety laws.  It's kept the American bald eagle from extinction, made it possible to see for miles in LA, and put out our burning rivers.  Not bad.

Quote

.In our zeal to "DO Something",LA and California is a madhouse of "Good Intentions".We/They spent a million dollars painting the streets white,all to appease their weather Gods. 

And spent billions on reducing industrial and automotive pollution.  In 1980 you couldn't see more than a few miles, and people with asthma were being told by doctors to move.  Today the air is between 50% and 95% cleaner depending on pollutant.  If that's "insanity" we need more of it.

Quote

Fuck the homeless on that street just brush them aside, along with the drug and mental health crisis.

That's more the conservative approach than the progressive approach.  "If those filthy lazy degenerates don't want to work, get them out of here!"  The progressive approach can be seen in AB 344, which funds homeless employment programs.

[richravizza 25]

On 11/26/2019 at 7:14 PM, billvon said:

. . has given us minority rights, gay rights, women's right to vote, child labor laws, the EPA and mining safety laws.  It's kept the American bald eagle from extinction, made it possible to see for miles in LA, and put out our burning rivers.  Not bad.

Human rights is not a problem in our society,nor is the bald eagle,or burning rivers.Let's keep toxic masculinity out of this.

On 11/24/2019 at 8:49 AM, billvon said:

Corn based ethanol is a poor solution - but one that is very popular with US farmers, which is why it's still around.  Sugar cane based ethanol is several times more effective.

Now that we Agree,why would you support such regressive progessive Ideas?

Does that straw really need regulating to the tune of millions,and if so,what will the benifits be?

On 11/26/2019 at 7:14 PM, billvon said:

And spent billions on reducing industrial and automotive pollution.  In 1980 you couldn't see more than a few miles, and people with asthma were being told by doctors to move.  Today the air is between 50% and 95% cleaner depending on pollutant.  If that's "insanity" we need more of it.

I agree, the Air has never been cleaner in my life.So you think we should continue to invest and spend even more in the future on a problem that you admit is 5% of what it was.

On 11/26/2019 at 12:43 PM, mbohu said:

It is clear that there are good solutions and bad solutions to any problem. It is also clear that almost ALL good solutions will also have some drawbacks in other areas. Let's discuss which solutions are best, and which side-effects we want to tolerate, or how we can mitigate those. Let's put our best minds together on this. 
But this clearly isn't what the guy in the middle was talking about.

But we agree,this progessive idea needs reform.

Our poor bare the brunt of the costs and it accomplishes nothing.Here in Cali, the State increases Ethanol every summer,not by 20% 50% but by 100%.All to the detriment of our poor and the environment so progessive.

I did watch the video you posted which,I previously watched when this thread was created.I don't understand why they would use a F-150 Sticker.I thought it was a slight of hand,comparing a Truck to a Leaf.Ironic Musk unvailed his truck this week..I was able to attend the LA auto show,but didn't see it,bummer.

Hydrogen fuel Cell,Hybred and EV tech was abound.The future is exciting I even watched Bird win the E formula.

Disconcerting, was the lack of Nat. Gas vehicles,most LA communities have had Nat gas filling stations fully operational for years,for our bus and trash truck fleets.They go completely unutilized by the public.Cheaper, cleaner abundant alternative.