....
Fusion and thorium are also far into the future.
Thorium is today.Fusion and thorium are also far into the future.
But we could use a crash 10 year program for nuclear.
Topic: Green New Deal - page 2. (Read 742 times)
But we could use a crash 10 year program for nuclear.
Mcconnell's idea will backfire long term. Calling a vote will thrust this even further into the conversation. He thinks that will hurt the democrats but 81% of the population supports it. This will result in people who have never voted showing up to vote for the candidates that support the green new deal. Establishment "moderate" democrats in power will no longer be able to play both sides or dodge the issue. Those Pelosi types will be pushed out and replaced by a coalition of much more progressive justice democrats. AOC could be speaker as soon as 2021...
The other thing is that women without education and access to reproductive healthcare have a lot more children so providing those things to everyone is a right would be the easiest solution.
Its only people who want to avoid the inconvenience of cutting back consumption or spending money on education who even bring up "overpopulation"
That's an exaggeration in many ways.
Scientists have been very wrong about many many trends and phenomena in the past. They are not infallible to making mistakes, otherwise there would be little need for the peer review system.
And there is an ongoing debate amongst climate scientists. The only people who push the narrative that the debate is over are the corporate media and the corporate-bought politicians. Why would anyone trust what they say?
I have a great deal of sympathy for the CO2 alarmists. Their heart is in the right place, being careful with the balance of nature is very important (human wisdom has been cognizant of this for thousands of years). But the facts don't support the anthropogenic warming hypothesis. Sorry, but the facts matter.
You are taking the "scientists have been wrong in the past" and using it to justify your assumption that no only scientists are wrong in this case, but that the opposite is true. Nothing is 100% certain in science but we still operate with it as "fact" because there is overwhelming evidence supporting it.
And then there is the promise of fusion.
And then there are those who would create a new dark age.
Fusion and thorium are also far into the future.
Theorizing aside... what is not a theory is that humans have shown the capacity and will for genocide and depopulation on a massive scale in the past. Pretending it will never happen again is the exact kind of mistake that will allow it to happen again. The difference is this time they will have a better marketing strategy. I am sure it is just a coincidence "environmentalism" and mass depopulation have parallel goals...
This is a mischaracterization. Population is not an issue and depopulation is not achieved through genocide. The problem with the environment is how the top 50% consume almost all of the natural resources. Its a small amount of people causing all of the environmental harm and the population of this group is not actually increasing.The other thing is that women without education and access to reproductive healthcare have a lot more children so providing those things to everyone is a right would be the easiest solution.
Its only people who want to avoid the inconvenience of cutting back consumption or spending money on education who even bring up "overpopulation"
That's an exaggeration in many ways.
Scientists have been very wrong about many many trends and phenomena in the past. They are not infallible to making mistakes, otherwise there would be little need for the peer review system.
And there is an ongoing debate amongst climate scientists. The only people who push the narrative that the debate is over are the corporate media and the corporate-bought politicians. Why would anyone trust what they say?
I have a great deal of sympathy for the CO2 alarmists. Their heart is in the right place, being careful with the balance of nature is very important (human wisdom has been cognizant of this for thousands of years). But the facts don't support the anthropogenic warming hypothesis. Sorry, but the facts matter.
You are taking the "scientists have been wrong in the past" and using it to justify your assumption that no only scientists are wrong in this case, but that the opposite is true. Nothing is 100% certain in science but we still operate with it as "fact" because there is overwhelming evidence supporting it.
... The green new deal has a timeframe of 10-12 years. This time frame cannot possibly include nuclear because it takes decades not years to get new nuclear power plants online. We simply don't have the infrastructure in place to fast track nuclear power.
That all may change with thorium reactors.And then there is the promise of fusion.
And then there are those who would create a new dark age.
Theorizing aside... what is not a theory is that humans have shown the capacity and will for genocide and depopulation on a massive scale in the past. Pretending it will never happen again is the exact kind of mistake that will allow it to happen again. The difference is this time they will have a better marketing strategy. I am sure it is just a coincidence "environmentalism" and mass depopulation have parallel goals...
That's the crux of the issue, isn't it? It isn't climate change, it's control. Control not only of your modes of transportation, but also your thoughts. They know they won't win a debate peddling a transparent socialist agenda. So they attempt to peddle it to you hidden and obfuscated by legislating moral virtues. The newspeak Green New Deal is nothing but a Red Old Scam.
The climate control crowd are the modern day Nazis. You can't challenge their "extensive research" without being dismissed as a backwoods, right wing conspiracy theorist. It's ironic they claim to know so much about the climate, and postulate how they are so powerful that they can change the nature of the planet. But they only demonstrate that human nature is nearly impossible to change.
If you have it in you to see the big picture you can look at almost anything the left does, any action the left takes, and trace it directly back to the quest for the ultimate authoritarian one world government.
Try me.. I will show you..
I am curious to see any leftist policy that I can't relate to advancing their quest of an ultimate authoritarian one world government to gain ultimate power..
Try me.. I will show you..
I am curious to see any leftist policy that I can't relate to advancing their quest of an ultimate authoritarian one world government to gain ultimate power..
They don't have solutions to problems, they only want to beat you over the head with all the problems for which you're to blame. That way they can justify taxing the shit out of you under the guise that will fix the problem. But of course history demonstrates that only generates more problems... For which, you're to blame.
This is interesting, I think it's a pretty good move by McConnel to force people to vote on this. It was a joke of a release though, I don't think this is going to help them in the least.
It's a big fat nothing burger as usual....
So a vote on the GREEN NO BURGERS plan is a no burger?
This is interesting, I think it's a pretty good move by McConnel to force people to vote on this. It was a joke of a release though, I don't think this is going to help them in the least.
It's a big fat nothing burger as usual, do you really think McConnell invented show votes. McConnell can't force anyone to vote on anything all he can do is bring it to the floor, since it won't pass the dems don't need to do ANYTHING. The dems that don't want to be on the record either way will vote present (as GOP and dem senators have done many time in past show votes) or not show up to vote at all. The ones that are looking to appeal to the progressive base will happily vote for it.
Ironically as usual Yurtle the Turtle has rallied against show votes when the dems have done them but of course when he thinks it will benefit him he is all about it!
Show votes are completely irrelevant and accomplish nothing but a waste of everyone's time and money.
Interesting that you care about our fiscal responsibility all of a sudden, especially since you don't pay taxes here. I wonder how much that witch hunt Russia probe cost.
This is interesting, I think it's a pretty good move by McConnel to force people to vote on this. It was a joke of a release though, I don't think this is going to help them in the least.
It's a big fat nothing burger as usual, do you really think McConnell invented show votes. McConnell can't force anyone to vote on anything all he can do is bring it to the floor, since it won't pass the dems don't need to do ANYTHING. The dems that don't want to be on the record either way will vote present (as GOP and dem senators have done many time in past show votes) or not show up to vote at all. The ones that are looking to appeal to the progressive base will happily vote for it.
Ironically as usual Yurtle the Turtle has rallied against show votes when the dems have done them but of course when he thinks it will benefit him he is all about it!
Show votes are completely irrelevant and accomplish nothing but a waste of everyone's time and money.
Congress should vote on AOCs version of the GND immediately so voters can see who supports this nonsense.
McConnell has already said he will be doing just this.
Did he really?
WOW YOU'RE NOT LYING WHAT A TIMELINE - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/mitch-mcconnell-to-force-the-senate-to-vote-on-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal.html
This is interesting, I think it's a pretty good move by McConnel to force people to vote on this. It was a joke of a release though, I don't think this is going to help them in the least.
Congress should vote on AOCs version of the GND immediately so voters can see who supports this nonsense.
McConnell has already said he will be doing just this.
Congress should vote on AOCs version of the GND immediately so voters can see who supports this nonsense.
Since the bill proposes to immediately cut deep into many sectors of the economy, what it actually represents is giving some group of government Overlords total control over those portions of the economy.
That's directly a totalitarian takeover.
Voting is probably usually based on the opportunities for graft. That's huge in this scheme but it's also huge as things are unchanged.
After such a bill is passed, what has occurred is a transfer of power. The original purported "green goals" are forgotten or just given lip service. All it was ever about was power.
Congress should vote on AOCs version of the GND immediately so voters can see who supports this nonsense.
That all may change with thorium reactors.
And then there is the promise of fusion.
And then there are those who would create a new dark age.
And then there is the promise of fusion.
And then there are those who would create a new dark age.
This is completely different. It's not because you want out of nuclear energy that you want out of nuclear RESEARCH.
Thorium aren't incredible, they're not a long term solution, but they're definitely an amazing innovation greatly enhancing the possibilities of old reactors. Especially in the waste disposal part ^^
Fusion would change everything. It's like discovering petrol again.
Fusion would mean no need for negative growth, no need to chose between green and consumation, no wars for at least 50 years.
Fusion is a singularity. It would basically mean free (or nearly free) energy without any pollution for all humanity.
I'm against nuclear energy but I'm all for funding fusion research as much as we can ^^
That all may change with thorium reactors.
And then there is the promise of fusion.
And then there are those who would create a new dark age.
And then there is the promise of fusion.
And then there are those who would create a new dark age.
This is completely different. It's not because you want out of nuclear energy that you want out of nuclear RESEARCH.
Thorium aren't incredible, they're not a long term solution, but they're definitely an amazing innovation greatly enhancing the possibilities of old reactors. Especially in the waste disposal part ^^
Fusion would change everything. It's like discovering petrol again.
Fusion would mean no need for negative growth, no need to chose between green and consumation, no wars for at least 50 years.
Fusion is a singularity. It would basically mean free (or nearly free) energy without any pollution for all humanity.
I'm against nuclear energy but I'm all for funding fusion research as much as we can ^^
... The green new deal has a timeframe of 10-12 years. This time frame cannot possibly include nuclear because it takes decades not years to get new nuclear power plants online. We simply don't have the infrastructure in place to fast track nuclear power.
That all may change with thorium reactors.And then there is the promise of fusion.
And then there are those who would create a new dark age.
The FAQ is not a piece of legislature. I made this point in OP. There are a few details in the FAQ that are nowhere in the resolution. Incidentally, these details are the entire focus of criticism against the resolution. The faq must have been written by an aide and it seems as though it was just copied from the Green party/Jill Stein website.
Nuclear is not part of the green new deal but it isn't "outlawed" as stated in this thread. The green new deal has a timeframe of 10-12 years. This time frame cannot possibly include nuclear because it takes decades not years to get new nuclear power plants online. We simply don't have the infrastructure in place to fast track nuclear power.
Nuclear is not part of the green new deal but it isn't "outlawed" as stated in this thread. The green new deal has a timeframe of 10-12 years. This time frame cannot possibly include nuclear because it takes decades not years to get new nuclear power plants online. We simply don't have the infrastructure in place to fast track nuclear power.
EDIT: Nuclear power is also not allowed with the Green New Deal.
Seems like maybe you didn't read the Green New Deal and most definitely didn't read the now deleted FAQ...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/07/green-new-deal-excludes-nuclear-and-would-thus-increase-emissions-just-like-it-did-in-vermont/
Quote
The written statement distributed by the office of Ocasio-Cortez says "the plan is to transition off of nuclear."
Climate change is real. The climate has been changing constantly since the beginning of the earth.
Their have been ice ages and major changes in sea level in history. Deserts have become rainforests and rainforests have become deserts. Land has become ocean and barren tundra has become fertile land diverse with life.
Climate change is real and my problem with it only comes when you try to blame it on me, try to say it is my fault, and then punish or hurt me and my family over it..
Their have been ice ages and major changes in sea level in history. Deserts have become rainforests and rainforests have become deserts. Land has become ocean and barren tundra has become fertile land diverse with life.
Climate change is real and my problem with it only comes when you try to blame it on me, try to say it is my fault, and then punish or hurt me and my family over it..
Being a complexe science doesn't mean there is nothing seen as certain. The existance of climate change is completely certain and there is no debate on this. The fact that it's human made at least in parts is also certain and not debatable.
The extent of this change, its danger and the actual impact of man are, of course, still debatable and will probably be for ever.
The extent of this change, its danger and the actual impact of man are, of course, still debatable and will probably be for ever.
I agree with all of the above. I still don't accept that anthropogenic warming is a significant problem, which is consistent within the range of possibility with what you say above.
Consider the following. Suppose the West Antarctica Peninsula is structurally weak, and could break off, resulting in sea levels rising. Suppose further that this is argued to be the result of recent AGW.
Should people then believe their leaders when they are told that only harsh taxes will solve the problem? When the politicians actually stand up and say they will roll the oceans back?
This planet is a big place with lots of surprises. We could have that peninsula fall off, we could have a super volcano erupt in Yellowstone, the West Coast of the USA could have the big earthquake, an asteroid could hit....
Being a complexe science doesn't mean there is nothing seen as certain. The existance of climate change is completely certain and there is no debate on this. The fact that it's human made at least in parts is also certain and not debatable.
The extent of this change, its danger and the actual impact of man are, of course, still debatable and will probably be for ever.
The extent of this change, its danger and the actual impact of man are, of course, still debatable and will probably be for ever.
I agree with all of the above. I still don't accept that anthropogenic warming is a significant problem, which is consistent within the range of possibility with what you say above.
A lot of people are truly sick and tired of being lectured to about how they should reduce co2 emissions by fatcats flying around in big jets.
Hypocrisy of the ruling class is a completely different subject but I'm sure we can agree on it.
They routinely do this, then when you contradict them they try to say you are anti-science. In fact they are anti-science 100%.
Or maybe I just made a bad assumption of what he wanted to say, corrected myself and apologized when he explained his thoughts with more details?
You know it's not only people like you and TECSHARE here, some people are actually able to say "oh ok I misunderstood you I was wrong"...
I wasn't referring to you with the "They" in that statement. And yes it is extremely easy to misunderstand with internet conversations.
But in general the mark of a scientific comment is measured preciseness, an attempt to say no more or no less than what is true.
By that standard we can note both climate alarmist and "denier" comments that fall short of the scientific standard. However they may fit within a political framework.
A lot of people are truly sick and tired of being lectured to about how they should reduce co2 emissions by fatcats flying around in big jets.
Jump to: