So far ALL the Dem candidates have co signed or publically supported the AOC Green New Deal .
Running on a pledge to eliminate fossil fuels in 10 years? Trump can only hope and be so lucky .
Here is the plan ;a socialist takeover of America supported by the belief in unicorn logic .
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729033/Green-New-Deal-FINAL.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2gajwJx-L5ONCjhxeWy__wrkqo3gB8dXX4uc9r6jDKXaJBPvLI7ibJ23M

and here is the summary that AOC eventually scrubbed from her web site.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf?fbclid=IwAR33kWw9PVF0qvzhRWv-2i8FMIVzA67k_gZugC3HzEiHT_s-h0KTXRjsklw

eliminated from the documents is language that provides
“economic security” for those “unwilling to work.”

Well Tom I guess you have dug yourself out from the latest impack of climate change, I think the US needs to go back to their universal income plan, (remember Lyndon Johnson) because once these lunatics destroy your traditional base of employment there are going to be a shortage of park benches.

I would say that once the bill for all of this becomes more public, then voters will see it for the delusional idea it is, but then I remember we are 22 tril in debt and I lose any confidence in the American voter. I am convinced that a majority of voters no longer vote on issues but on how a candidate makes them feel.

When I look at AOC, it makes me glad I am not a democrat.

No worries guys, the people spoke in the last election, and will speak again in the next one. Green jobs have many benefits and while you can boohoo the science all you want the young folks are down with it, since they will be the ones paying for it, and breathing the air and drinking the water. It's the future folks, and since fossil industries cry about not investing in the technology to clean up their own mess because it cost too much, somebody has to step up and find a better way, and you may as well stop beetching about it, since you turn a blind eye whenever repubs come along and want to waste dollars on stupid stuff like walls on the southern borders and yet again enriching the rich with tax cuts that benefit them permanently, and us for a very short while if you call those slow trickling crumbs a benefit.

Face it, repubs are screwing up again and the dems have a big clean up job to fix it.

You are delusional Tal,

show me the science that says we can replace fossil fuels with renewable in 10 years . They talk of the moon landing ;but we already knew we could get out of Earth's atmosphere and all that was needed was a bigger rocket (which was already in development long before there was a NASA ) ; life support, and a landing craft . All that we knew was doable before Kennedy's proclamation.

Nobody can tell you how to consistently fuel a modern economy with renewables . The only one that is half way reliable is hydro power . You know how the Robert Moses plant on the Niagara river generates power ? It takes half the flow of the river that goes over the falls at night ,and moves it to a giant reservoir so it can generate power during the day . That is why if you go to see the falls at night ,it appears that less water is going over them .

The proposal calls for the elimination of gas powered autos . That would mean replacing them with battery cars and rail. But you know there is not enough power in renewables to mine the rare minerals to make the batteries that electric cars use . And the batteries have to be charged which means all you are doing is transferring the carbon source from the tail pipe to the smoke stack. You will never be able to generate consistent power with renewables . They are at best more expensive redundancy .
Come on man! The place I work has over 500 truck coming and going a week to deliver goods and ship out product we produce .Do you really think that a trailer hauling 20 -40 tons of goods can be powered by electric battery ?

This is such a bizarre ,believe in unicorn fantasy . Come back to me when you find a source of dilithium crystals for the warp drive ;or someone invents the flux capacitor ..... OR more realistically , creates a fusion generator . Oh wait ;nuclear power ;the only safe ,clean and reliable source of energy outside of fossil fuel, is going to be phased out in the plan . Brilliant !

You may be partly right, but as I watch cities, especially mine convert those carbon spewing buses and city vehicles to cleaner gas, and invest in infrastructure for rail expansion, there must be something we can do to modernize and transition from yesterdays technology to today's, so no one is chasing unicorns and maybe those 500 trucks you see everyday can be converted to a cleaner fuel, until we get those dilithium crystals, or cold fusion technology. OR A BETTER BATTERY.

Who cares how much water goes over the falls if it produces the power to run stuff that doesn't have to spew stuff in the air or make humans dig in the dirt and get cancer.

Incremental steps dude, not leaps and bounds is the history of man. What's wrong with that?

Incremental steps dude, not leaps and bounds is the history of man. What's wrong with that? nothing ... but that isn't what is proposed in the GND . What is proposed is draconian measures based on delusion. The very same thing that Stalin did to his country ;that Mao did to his ,that Chavez and Castro did to theirs .

The difference is that those dictators of the past didn't have free elections as we do, or the acceptance of opposition that we have. So don't compare us to them. It ain't the same no matter how hard you conservatives try to make it the same. It's no wonder you are afraid of any new ideas and make them bogey men to your own notions of freedom.

AOC for PRZ in 2032!

The difference is that those dictators of the past didn't have free elections as we do, or the acceptance of opposition that we have. So don't compare us to them. It ain't the same no matter how hard you conservatives try to make it the same. It's no wonder you are afraid of any new ideas and make them bogey men to your own notions of freedom.

AOC for PRZ in 2032!

There it is the extreme liberal agenda, and you don't care about what is destroyed along the way

Green jobs is an opportunity with great benefits. Foolish not to grow an already growing money tree. Who gets hurt..

Green jobs is an opportunity with great benefits. Foolish not to grow an already growing money tree. Who gets hurt..

Here is what is wrong with your argument. To fund green jobs with federal funds, money has to be taken from one person and then given to another, all with the typical waste of the fed government thrown in. It is a ludicrous idea, about on the level of thinking that taking money from your right hand pocket and putting it into your left hand pocket somehow makes you wealthier. It's just another wealth transfer proposal that is dressed up as economic policy.

Slight of hand

remember all those green jobs we payed for under the emperor's reign that went belly up ? The Energy Dept shelled out $35.2 billion for green jobs .
Solyndra by itself cost the taxpayer a half a billion. They went belly up and laid off a thousand workers . We invested money to companies like GM and Fisker to get a million electric cars on the roads . Here is the list and how much was squandered :


Evergreen Solar (http://www.usaspending.gov/search?form_fields=%7b%22search_term%22%3A%22everg reen+solar%22%7d) ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/15/despite-stimulus-funding-solyndra-and-4-other-companies-have-hit-rock-bottom/) ($500,000)*
Solyndra (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-12/obama-team-backed-535-million-solyndra-aid-as-auditor-warned-on-finances.html) ($535 million)*
Beacon Power (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-31/beacon-power-backed-by-u-s-loan-guarantees-files-bankruptcy.html) ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/236311-another-obama-backed-energy-firm-may-be-close-to-collapse) ($98.5 million)
SunPower (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/12/solar-firm-that-received-12-billion-federal-loan-plagued-by-financial-problems-702546811/) ($1.2 billion)
First Solar (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/doe-backed-solar-company-lays-2000/484901) ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown (http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/01/14/cbs-11-more-solyndras-in-obama-green-energy-program/) ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A1602AF6-F11F-4B9D-ABC4-AC9234EBEC41) ($118.5 million)*
Amonix (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/jan/25/some-200-laid-north-las-vegas-amonix-solar-plant/) ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/02/clean-energy-loan-recipient-lays-off-staff-113652.html) ($529 million)
Abound Solar (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20066660) ($400 million)*
A123 Systems (http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/04/04/taxpayers%E2%80%99-green-%E2%80%98investment%E2%80%99-battery-company-withers) ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group (http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/04/05/crickets-chirp-another-taxpayer-funded-solar-factory) ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-obamas-green-car-revolution-fits-and-starts/2011/11/29/gIQA0FdRdO_story.html) ($299 million)
Brightsource (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576359852009524680.html) ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57402463-10391695/stimulus-recipient-under-investigation-for-insider-trading/) ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970203710704577050412494713178.html) ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/309936/green-jobs-gone-bust-deroy-murdock) ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/15/despite-stimulus-funding-solyndra-and-4-other-companies-have-hit-rock-bottom/)($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/15/despite-stimulus-funding-solyndra-and-4-other-companies-have-hit-rock-bottom/) ($10 million)*
Range Fuels (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132453701004530.html) ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303644004577523282632904216.html) ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303644004577523282632904216.html) ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/azure-dynamics-wins-doe-award-to-develop-next-generation-traction-inverter-127521153.html) ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts (http://www.nrel.gov/solar/news/2009/677.html?print) ($500,000)
Vestas (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/13/Danish-Wind-Turbine-Company-That-Received-Over-50-Million-In-Stimulus-Lays-Off-800-Workers) ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/background-presidents-event-holland-michigan-today) ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower (https://lpo.energy.gov/?p=834) ($16 million)*
Navistar (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/autos/1004/gallery.electric_trucks/4.html) ($39 million)
Satcon (http://dailysignal.com/2012/10/18/another-doe-backed-solar-company-goes-bankrupt/) ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. (http://www.boston.com/businessupdates/2012/06/04/konarka-files-for-chapter-ceases-operations/afQFI6wU5DKTZbSJkUdJQJ/story.html) ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. (http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17123) ($100 million)



Con­ser­v­a­tives have long sus­pected that pro­gres­sives want to use cli­mate change to jus­tify
a gov­ern­ment takeover of the free mar­ket
econ­omy, but we never thought they’d be this can­did about it.

Yeah boy. We sure need to go back to the glory days of B. Obama. 10 tril in debt to go along with all of the above.

I thought this was kind of funny. It was captioned as AOC's plan for free electricity.

http://genesiustimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/aoc-free-elctricity-1024x577.png

Pretty good JL, you got a chuckle out of me this morning. Actually the green network has expanded in jobs and technology. Despite the Solyndra scandal and the failures of others the program that guarantees capital under Obama has done fairly well and highlighting just the failures is a bit one sided since in the capitalistic world companies fail all the time, and get sold, bought out, absorbed, and incorporated by other companies. Tom says that's the American way.

I just look at a bigger picture where green jobs and technology is growing and that's an undisputed fact and scrapping that model for a rapidly shrinking industry just makes no sense. I know fossil fuel plants balk at the expenses they would incur adapting brand new clean air technology, and push back against the cap and trade idea as helping the competition, but the truth is the market is crying for and investing more in clean green technology now more than ever before.

Maybe you and Tom don't see that but I certainly do in my RED state, that has been an oil icon forever. Look around and get with the program and get the facts of what's been done since 2005, and you may realize there are more winners with green than losers and the numbers from the energy department bear that out.

in the capitalistic world companies fail all the time, and get sold, bought out, absorbed, and incorporated by other companies. Tom says that's the American way. What Tom also says is heavily subsidizing them is not capitalism.


I know fossil fuel plants balk at the expenses they would incur adapting brand new clean air technology, and push back against the cap and trade idea as helping the competition, but the truth is the market is crying for and investing more in clean green technology now more than ever before. That is not in the NGD agenda . The agenda is to eliminate fossil fuels in a decade . It is delusional .


Maybe you and Tom don't see that but I certainly do in my RED state, that has been an oil icon forever. Look around and get with the program and get the facts of what's been done since 2005, and you may realize there are more winners with green than losers and the numbers from the energy department bear that out. Horizontal drilling has made untapped reserves more available than ever before . It is by far the most important breakthrough in energy in our life time . Back in the day your oil wells burned off natural gas because they did not know what to do with it . Now natural gas is the best source of fueling a 21st century economy. All those thousands of windmills that blight the landscape in your state are at best more expensive supplemental sources of power. Wind power just fails to deliver 100% of the time . What do you do when the wind doesn't blow ? Blackout ? No Because all your windmills are backed up 100% of the time with fossil fuel generators . And it takes CO2 emissions to even build a windmill . Even before the blades start spinning ; the average wind farm clocks up thousands of tons of CO2 emissions: in thousands of tons of steel and concrete. . Making steel ,aluminum ,concrete takes heat ......lots of heat . Renewables except biomass cannot be burned .So how is your windmill going to power a steel plant ?

here's one solution .......self generating renewable energy .https://statici.behindthevoiceactors.com/behindthevoiceactors/_img/chars/beany-boy-the-beany-and-cecil-show-7.02.jpg

By your own statements if it cannot produce 100% then don't do it? I know that's not what you meant nor a reason to stop improving on the green technology. For now, yeah we need a back up plan. It's like this Medicare for all will destroy insurance companies, which is far from truth and hasn't happened anywhere in the world as far as I know, and indeed Medicare in America as it is still requires a supplemental secondary insurance to cover the 20% MC doesn't.

Human ideas are at best limited and adjustments always can be made, but for NOW, we should continue to explore options that lead to better outcomes. Even Steelmakers recognize that.

https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/can-renewable-energy-power-a-steel-mill/8965796

but for NOW, we should continue to explore options that lead to better outcomes.

You do realize that the NGD goes about a thousand times farther than simply exploring options? I am all for exploring other ideas. As for green energy, if it wasn't for government subsidies, there would not be a single wind generator in America. It is much more expensive electricity than from conventional plants.

Tom's comment's about the necessity for keeping fossil fuel plants was intended, I think, to illustrate how ridiculous AOC's idea for eliminating fossil fuels is. It is totally in fantasy land and shows she has no sense whatsoever. It should be alarming that someone like her is trying to make serious economic proposals. It should be far more alarming that every dem candidate for president has endorsed her terrible idea.

Does anyone else think it is kind of awkward timing that one week after the NGD is proposed with its call for high speed train networks, California cancels its plan for a "bullet train" due to out of control costs? Ooops.

Hey, this debate is nonsensicle there are ways of extracting clean energy, got plans of one myself, problem is the capital needed to research scaling it up. Yes, high speed rail can offset emissions from aircraft, buses, etc but the energy needed to run it comes from the grid. Where is all that innovation to avoid replacing "pollution" from one source with pollution from another. Refining lithium and other rare earths is a far greater problem than CO2, if CO2 is actually a problem. One day we all will have to lay aside the romance with the dinosaur SUV and make better choices, and stop underestimating the cost of fighting climate change. It is a zero sum game

Refining lithium and other rare earths is a far greater problem than CO2, if CO2 is actually a problem. One day we all will have to lay aside the romance with the dinosaur SUV and make better choices, and stop underestimating the cost of fighting climate change. It is a zero sum game.

What??

What do you mean "what"? You don't know how polluting the mining and refining of lithium used in these technologies is? You don't know that this CO2 debate is nonsense, the Earth is warming from other sources and has been for 10,000 years

One day we all will have to lay aside the romance with the dinosaur SUV and make better choices, Why would we do that, and what better choices are you referring to? If climate change in unrelated to man-made CO2, why wouldn't we drive large cars?


and stop underestimating the cost of fighting climate change.

Fight it how? If it's not man-made, then how will we fight it? For that matter, why should we fight it?

the Earth is warming from other sources and has been for 10,000 years we have a winner ! The unusual part of the earth's climate was the ice ages .

If climate change in unrelated to man-made CO2, why wouldn't we drive large cars?

In case you haven't heard, oil is a finite resource. Plastics, a derivative of oil production is a serious pollutant, Of course since you are willing to rely on shale and other polluting sources it is not a problem for you. CO2 is a manufactured problem, climate change is a northern hemisphere problem. The major populations are in the northern hemisphere, the major polluters in all forms are in the northern hemisphere




Fight it how? If it's not man-made, then how will we fight it? For that matter, why should we fight it?

You can't, it is a fallacy, a leftist ideology

Thanks

In case you haven't heard, oil is a finite resource. Plastics, a derivative of oil production is a serious pollutant, Of course since you are willing to rely on shale and other polluting sources it is not a problem for you. CO2 is a manufactured problem, climate change is a northern hemisphere problem. The major populations are in the northern hemisphere, the major polluters in all forms are in the northern hemisphere.

I see.

I see.

I really hope you do

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Australia



Historically–and until recent times–energy in Australia was sourced largely from coal and natural gas [1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Australia#cite_note-1) however due to the increasing effects of global warming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming) and human-induced climate change (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change) on the global environment, there has been a greater shift towards renewable energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy) such as solar power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power) and wind power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power) both in Australia and abroad.[2][3] This in turn has led to a decrease in the demand of coal worldwide.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Australia#cite_note-4)




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Australia

Glad your government is smarter than you about climate change. Mine too for that matter Clete.

In case you haven't heard, oil is a finite resource. Oil and natural gas reserves are steadily increasing, but yes, some day a number of decades from now the supply of oil will begin to be a problem.

Plastics, a derivative of oil production is a serious pollutant, How is that related to not driving SUVs?

Of course since you are willing to rely on shale and other polluting sources No serious pollution risks with fracking.

CO2 is a manufactured problem, climate change is a northern hemisphere problem. Fair enough.

The major populations are in the northern hemisphere, the major polluters in all forms are in the northern hemisphere. Polluters of what? If you are talking about CO2, then you also say it is not a problem, so I don't understand what that statement is about in regards to pollution.

C02 is not pollution. If it is then outlaw breathing . You know what C02 does ? It helps plants grow . Were the dinosaurs driving SUVs when the North Pole and Antarctica had a tropical forest ?

C02 is not pollution. If it is then outlaw breathing . You know what C02 does ? It helps plants grow . Were the dinosaurs driving SUVs when the North Pole and Antarctica had a tropical forest ?

True, CO2 is not a pollutant in the sense that something like sulfuric acid is, but it is a greenhouse gas. Now it is debatable how much it contributes to any tendency towards global warming, but it doesn't strike me as a good idea to nearly double atmospheric CO2 as has taken place over the last fifty or so years.

I really don't care much about what people drive.

There is no doubt I hit a raw nerve there

C02 is not pollution. If it is then outlaw breathing . You know what C02 does ? It helps plants grow . Were the dinosaurs driving SUVs when the North Pole and Antarctica had a tropical forest ?


The above is a good example how climate change/global warming is misunderstood by deniers.

The following may help.

There are some positive effects of global warming from increased CO2 emissions. For example, improved agriculture at high latitudes and increased vegetation growth in some circumstances. However, the negatives will far outweigh the positives (https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm). Coast-bound communities are threatened by rising sea levels (https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm). Melting glaciers threaten the water supplies of hundreds of millions (https://skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Himalayan-glacier-2035-prediction.htm). Species are already becoming extinct at a rate 100 to 1000 times higher than the “background” rate of long spans of geological time (https://skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.htm), partially due to the effects of global warming and climate change.

The above is a good example how climate change/global warming is misunderstood by deniers.

The following may help.

There are some positive effects of global warming from increased CO2 emissions. For example, improved agriculture at high latitudes and increased vegetation growth in some circumstances. However, the negatives will far outweigh the positives (https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm). Coast-bound communities are threatened by rising sea levels (https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm). Melting glaciers threaten the water supplies of hundreds of millions (https://skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Himalayan-glacier-2035-prediction.htm). Species are already becoming extinct at a rate 100 to 1000 times higher than the “background” rate of long spans of geological time (https://skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.htm), partially due to the effects of global warming and climate change.

So it is said without offering any other explanation, it may be that human exploitation of the environment is causing detrimental effects particularly deforestation however to focus on a single element, CO2, is ridiculous and dangerous. The greatest threat to the planet and its species is human population, instead of checking CO2 emissions we should be focused on checking the rise of human population

So it is said without offering any other explanation, it may be that human exploitation of the environment is causing detrimental effects particularly deforestation however to focus on a single element, CO2, is ridiculous and dangerous. The greatest threat to the planet and its species is human population, instead of checking CO2 emissions we should be focused on checking the rise of human population


There was no exclusive focus on CO2 - that was simply a response to the discussion. There's more than enough info out there for you to educate yourself.

I was referring to the debate in general, CO2 is demonised

For good reason Clete, but it is an easy distraction. Climate change is many things and most can be traced to human activity. Please be specific though, and I have an interest, into your ideas of population control. I think that's a part in managing resources, and we humans have a mandate to go forth and multiply, but does that apply to ALL humans, or just the handpicked chosen few?

CO2 is balanced in nature but destroy that balance there are equal and adverse consequences.

I can see the problem with CO2, but to find a reasonable solution is a problem. Wind and solar have many more negatives (wind/sunlight are not constant, very expensive, still requires fossil fuel backup) than positives. Hydroelectric is already pretty much maxed out. Nuclear could be an option if we would grow a collective brain and use it properly. Conservation has some promise but not even close to doing the job by itself. Truth is, we are stuck with fossil fuels for several more decades. Sorry, AOC.

AOC has a lot to learn dealing with law, process and shooting her mouth off, but she will. Will the dufus? His face saving emergency is quite laughable and honestly stupid. I can forgive a young energetic know nothing, but am having a hard time doing the same for an old LIAR and bully. Amazon has no clean hands either considering their VAST resources, and expertise. Stupid humans, more noise than brains!

As to CO2, seems a simple deduction for upgrades to aging plants and technology would solve that problem though it could take decades. CO2 is not the only dangerous biproduct of processing CO2 as far as fossil fuels are concerned, and the air isn't the only thing that burning fossil fuels pollute.

AOC has a lot to learn dealing with law, process and shooting her mouth off, but she will. Will the dufus? His face saving emergency is quite laughable and honestly stupid. I can forgive a young energetic know nothing, but am having a hard time doing the same for an old LIAR and bully. Amazon has no clean hands either considering their VAST resources, and expertise. Stupid humans, more noise than brains!

As to CO2, seems a simple deduction for upgrades to aging plants and technology would solve that problem though it could take decades. CO2 is not the only dangerous biproduct of processing CO2 as far as fossil fuels are concerned, and the air isn't the only thing that burning fossil fuels pollute.

Tal there is no doubt we need better technologies and retrofitting old plants doesn't cut it. Anything produced by man has a finite life. However our new technologies so far cause serious problems so it is illusionary and this is the problem with AGW and climate change

If the challenge is too great you can do like the Chinese do and that get a silly little mask and wear it 24/7.

As to CO2, seems a simple deduction for upgrades to aging plants and technology would solve that problem.

There are no upgrades I have heard of that will prevent the burning of coal or natural gas from producing CO2. What upgrades did you have in mind? Masks do no good for CO2 simply because it is not the breathing of the CO2 that is the problem.

The only long term solution is the development of a reasonably priced, plentiful replacement for fossil fuels. Other than nukes, I don't know of one.

If the challenge is too great you can do like the Chinese do and that get a silly little mask and wear it 24/7.


The Chinese wear masks because of pollution, particulate pollution, they have some very unhealthy practices there. I don't need to do that because I live in a place of open blue skies and no pollution. We have a sensible attitude to coal as well as no fracking, another source of pollution. We leave all those unhealthy practices to be visited on the denizens of the northern hemispherewho delight in screwing themselvesd

What pollution does fracking produce?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DziD3OCXgAAtHlz.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DziD3OCXgAAtHlz.jpg

What a chump Bezos is. A little opposition he takes his ball and runs.

What pollution does fracking produce?

The chemicals used pollute ground water and the wells release methane

The chemicals used pollute ground water and the wells release methane

It has repeatedly been demonstrated that the chemicals do not pollute ground water. Fracking is done FARRR below groundwater. As to methane, I understand that is a concern, but it's a concern for all oil wells, not just the ones that used fracking. I've seen many wells that simply burn the methane off, but if we need to address that, then I'm all for it.

It has repeatedly been demonstrated that the chemicals do not pollute ground water. Fracking is done FARRR below groundwater. As to methane, I understand that is a concern, but it's a concern for all oil wells, not just the ones that used fracking. I've seen many wells that simply burn the methane off, but if we need to address that, then I'm all for it.

Oh it must be wonderful to believe all the B/S you are fed. We have proven the detrimental effects of fracking and it is no longer allowed here. Simply burning the methane off means you have a well generating CO2 which you are against, you might as well dig the coal up and burn it as derive fuel this way

Oh it must be wonderful to believe all the B/S you are fed. We have proven the detrimental effects of fracking and it is no longer allowed here.

So when Aussies do research it is all believable, but when Americans do multiple studies that all show the same thing, it is BS. What a wonderful fantasy world you live in. Might add that..surprise..there is fracking being done in Aussie land. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/what-is-fracking-and-why-is-it-dividing-australia


Simply burning the methane off means you have a well generating CO2 which you are against, Or not burn it off which produces methane which you are against. Pick your poison.


you might as well dig the coal up and burn it as derive fuel this way
When you figure out how to pull up to a gas station and fill your tank up with coal, then go for it. Petroleum is largely used for transportation fuels, not coal.

So when Aussies do research it is all believable, but when Americans do multiple studies that all show the same thing, it is BS. What a wonderful fantasy world you live in. Might add that..surprise..there is fracking being done in Aussie land. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/what-is-fracking-and-why-is-it-dividing-australia

No doubt many undesirable methodologies are use in primitive societies. The NT is a somewhat primitive place but in more enlightened places it has been discontinued


Or not burn it off which produces methane which you are against. Pick your poison.

What I would prefer is that it is not produced in the first place. The point of fracking is to produce a gas for fuel so burning it is a waste of resources



When you figure out how to pull up to a gas station and fill your tank up with coal, then go for it. Petroleum is largely used for transportation fuels, not coal.

You have heard of steam vehicles, not used much these days

No doubt many undesirable methodologies are use in primitive societies. The NT is a somewhat primitive place but in more enlightened places it has been discontinued

So anyone who disagrees with you is primitive??


You have heard of steam vehicles, not used much these days


That one made me laugh. A steam car powered by coal. They'll sell like hotcakes!

Keep on trolling you might catch something

What a chump Bezos is. A little opposition he takes his ball and runs. The corrupt Democrat Tammany Hall pols make NY the worse state in the country to conduct business . Why should Bezos have to deal with them ? AOC and her NIMBY economic ignorant cronies did Amazon a favor. She's dumb enough to now think the $3 billion that Amazon was getting in tax incentives will now be available for her community activist projects . But how is she going to replace the 25,000 jobs Amazon was bringing to the city ? The city would've recouped many times more in economic activity the move would've brought .

Why would you burn off the methane instead of capturing it to use it as a natural gas energy source ?

Why would you burn off the methane instead of capturing it to use it as a natural gas energy source ?

This is a question that can only be resolved by deciding what methane actually is, but the ignorant don't know what it is, so they burn it. Some actually think that by burning it, that is combining it with oxygen that it becomes less harmfull




Methane (CH4) is a colorless, odorless gas at standard pressure and is the primary component of natural gas


. It's an attractive fuel source because it burns cleanly and is relatively abundant. Methane is also used extensively in industrial chemistry since it's the precursor for many chemical reactions

This is a question that can only be resolved by deciding what methane actually is, but the ignorant don't know what it is, so they burn it. Some actually think that by burning it, that is combining it with oxygen that it becomes less harmfull

Well, it becomes CO2 and water vapor when burned, and you say that CO2 is harmless, so what would the problem be?

Do you really believe that the oil companies that burn off natural gas actually don't know what it is?? Really?

Well, it becomes CO2 and water vapor when burned, and you say that CO2 is harmless, so what would the problem be?

Do you really believe that the oil companies that burn off natural gas actually don't know what it is?? Really?

No, I think you don't know what it is and they don't care. Having more CO2 and water vapour is considered by some to not be helpful. I think CO2 in the right environment such as plant propagation may be useful but there is generally a disconnect between CO2 production and its uses. As I have said before, if this is a problem, it is a northern hemisphere problem. You created the problem, you fix it. Otherwise, just move along, nothing to see here

No, I think you don't know what it is

Methane is CH4. Learned that about forty years ago.

Methane is CH4. Learned that about forty years ago.

And...

And... read your own previous post and you will understand.

And... read your own previous post and you will understand.

So you are saying I told you something you already know, ah well, some of us need reminding

No. Read it carefully. Read the first nine words very carefully, and then you will understand.

And on a different note, this made me laugh. Could you have been any more tentative? I mean, "..considered by some to be not helpful." Talk about straddling the fence. Are they bad or not?
Having more CO2 and water vapour is considered by some to not be helpful.

No it is a statement of fact some think CO2 is bad, I don't share that view but I don't see the point of being wasteful either

You will have to trust me Clete but high levels of CO2 is harmful to humans. A simple enough test is put a bag over your head and see how that works for you trying to breathe CO2 that you have dispelled. Or try a small room with no ventilation. No oxygen, no life so yeah it can be BAD. The CO2 level doesn't have to kill you, you get disorientated and have trouble thinking, even headaches at slightly elevated levels.

Even worse for newborns and babies. Studies have shown that living close to a coal fired plant poses health risks.
I'm sure you've seen the pictures from China when they shutdown the power plants for a few days so the tourists can see where they're going. Silly humans keep denying the facts right in front of you. Do your dirt buying Chinese a favor and sell them some modern technology so they can stop using those disgusting masks that do literally nothing.

You will have to trust me Clete but high levels of CO2 is harmful to humans. A simple enough test is put a bag over your head and see how that works for you trying to breathe CO2 that you have dispelled. Or try a small room with no ventilation. No oxygen, no life so yeah it can be BAD. The CO2 level doesn't have to kill you, you get disorientated and have trouble thinking, even headaches at slightly elevated levels.

Even worse for newborns and babies. Studies have shown that living close to a coal fired plant poses health risks.
I'm sure you've seen the pictures from China when they shutdown the power plants for a few days so the tourists can see where they're going. Silly humans keep denying the facts right in front of you. Do your dirt buying Chinese a favor and sell them some modern technology so they can stop using those disgusting masks that do literally nothing.

Must be a lot of CO2 around my place

Actually there was a lot more until your government got smart and did something about it.

You will have to trust me Clete but high levels of CO2 is harmful to humans. A simple enough test is put a bag over your head and see how that works for you trying to breathe CO2 that you have dispelled. Or try a small room with no ventilation. No oxygen, no life so yeah it can be BAD.

Atmospheric CO2 in measured in parts per million. It is a tiny, tiny, tiny component of air, and there is no one who suggests that breathing in air with a substantially higher level of CO2 will be bad in the least for anyone's health. The concern is about its warming effect, not any ill health effects. Comparing atmospheric CO2 with putting a bag over your head is a poor comparison.


I'm sure you've seen the pictures from China when they shutdown the power plants for a few days so the tourists can see where they're going.

That has absolutely, positively nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

Actually there was a lot more until your government got smart and did something about it.

Not really I am surrounded by forest, as far as smart is concerned, yes, a few old coal fired power stations were closed and we now have massive solar and wind installations, you may think that is smart, I do not, as in places where this has happened they have power outages in summer

AOC has adopted a new theme song for the green new delusion :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRDOrCFIY4c

You have to think big to get a little good work done.

You have to think big to get a little good work done.

She's thinking big all right. She would take a disastrous level of debt and make it much, much bigger.

you also need pixi dust and unicorns for her plans .

you also need pixi dust and unicorns for her plans .

What a pity I'm fresh out of pixie dust and unicorns, will yowies and brolgas dancing in the moonlight do instead

She's thinking big all right. She would take a disastrous level of debt and make it much, much bigger.

Don't act like you care about the debt when you elected the King of Debt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HWI4Y6GWNg

Don't act like you care about the debt when you elected the King of Debt.



No I'm fairly sure that was the one you elected, BO, Trump speaks of being skilled and he must be the only one, because the others certainly weren't

No I'm fairly sure that was the one you elected, BO, Trump speaks of being skilled and he must be the only one, because the others certainly weren't

Have you been sniffing brolgas or something?

Don't act like you care about the debt when you elected the King of Debt.

I am beyond astonished you would allege that. You voted for Obama, who added as much to the national debt in his two terms as every single president before him combined, and yet you want to bring up Trump in connection with debt. Wow. That is amazing.

Have you been sniffing brolgas or something?

You don't sniff them you watch them dance, and no I haven't been sniffing glue or petrol but I certainly think AOC has. What a dope, but then Tal what do you expect from these leftists, they are all hop heads

In America, we have a full spectrum of humans, left, right with fringes on both sides and a variety in the middle. That's why we are a melting pot that needs constant stirring. The pendulum of ideas and self governing has always swung both ways as we reach a consensus and make adjustments. By law, the vote rules, and as more people vote we get a more defined direction to travel. The conflict has always been who makes the law and how it's enforced, and who gets control of the money.

That's the story of America Clete, from hip hop newbies, to old duffers who can't dance and can barely walk, and everybody in between. Doesn't matter how you do your dope. Or don't!

The conflict has always been who makes the law and how it's enforced, and who gets control of the money.

Who makes the laws and assuring they are enforced are certainly two keys. Those are two great points you make, and so long as that is fairly done, then no one should complain. I have no idea why the government should care about who has or controls the money.

I think that having to many people who think they are unfairly treated by those that control the money is a HUGE issue. Seems that government would have a huge interest in it's citizens being treated fairly by those with that kind of power and influence. I think we both know that those who have more money are treated differently than those who don't have as much I mean they even have country clubs that rich wrong doers go to when they break the law which is nothing like what the average citizen experiences. Such disparity is but the tip of the iceberg, and only one example off the top of my head as an example of unequal protection under the law.

I haven't been sniffing glue or petrol but I certainly think AOC has. What a dope, but then Tal what do you expect from these leftists, they are all hop heads
she actually graduated CumLaud from Boston U majoring in economics. I think she deserves a refund because she did not learn any economics.

I'm actually astonished at her level of ignorance. She thought that the $3 billion in tax incentives NYC was offering to Amazon would now be available for public works projects . But of course that money would not be available until Amazon was paying taxes into NYC.

She lives in this leftist fantasy that money grows on trees. Note her proposal in the GND that public banks would be available to give money away. In the FAQ section she writes :
“The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit. There is also space for the government to take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment.”


It is typical with positions she has taken in the past when asked how her proposals like Medicare for all ,and other proposals that liberal economists estimate would cost into the $40 trillion range would be paid for; she replies ……"just pay it!"

I also have to note that the level of economic understanding appears to be on low low side for people of the left. Note how often the complaint you are hearing is that the tax cuts are hurting people because they are getting less of a refund from their taxes .Well the reason you are getting less of a refund is because you had less taken out of your pay check . https://www.fool.com/taxes/2019/02/17/smaller-refund-its-not-the-governments-fault-its-y.aspx

I also have to note that the level of economic understanding appears to be on low low side for people of the left. Note how often the complaint you are hearing is that the tax cuts are hurting people because they are getting less of a refund from their taxes .Well the reason you are getting less of a refund is because you had less taken out of your pay check

Well said and exactly true.

I feel the same way about Nunes, Ryan, and McConnell, and many times worse about the dufus, so I can understand your feelings.

you can make a case again Yertl and Ryan and convince me . But Nunes knows what he talks about .

Over the last 50 years, there is no fresh source of energy: what we have is legacy energy.
Hydrocarbons are unrivaled, no matter the subsidies.
Wind and solar are cynical political gestures.

You need to get out more.

https://ktla.com/2019/03/25/more-bad-news-for-coal-solar-and-wind-energy-getting-cheaper/

I read the ridiculous link. Yeah, solar and wind are great so long as we are all prepared to spend twice as much for our electricity and do without when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining sufficiently to generate power. It is nonsense. I want to see what New Mexico plans to do on those nights when the wind is not blowing. Good luck with that one.

I guess we will find out when New Mexico goes green just like Texas and those other states mentioned in the article. Hold on a minute... the wait is over.

https://tucson.com/news/local/tucson-electric-power-to-double-its-renewable-energy-output-with/article_5521cf2e-623c-5194-bf38-051f058c2977.html

You are a bit behind there guy.

It is all a fallacy, the largest part of the cost of power is distribution, so whether solar or wind is cheaper is a Moote point and it is a zero sum gain due to the emissions associated with production of these technologies. Just papering over the problem.

Hold on a minute... the wait is over.

Do you even read your links? If so, then tell me, from the article, what percentage of it's power will be "green" in the next ten years? What will they do when the wind is not blowing? What will they do at night?


the largest part of the cost of power is distribution, so whether solar or wind is cheaper is a Moote point

1. I would have to see documentation to believe that. I would think, by far, the greatest cost is fuel.
2. The cost is not the only consideration. I'll ask again. What do you do on those days when the wind is not blowing and it's cloudy? Just do without? Hardly a "moote point" or a fallacy.

Do you even read your links? If so, then tell me, from the article, what percentage of it's power will be "green" in the next ten years? What will they do when the wind is not blowing? What will they do at night?

Either you are going to have massive over installation of wind or massive battery storage or nuclear or the hated coal




1. I would have to see documentation to believe that. I would think, by far, the greatest cost is fuel.
2. The cost is not the only consideration. I'll ask again. What do you do on those days when the wind is not blowing and it's cloudy? Just do without? Hardly a "moote point" or a fallacy.


You can believe what I tell you because I spent twenty years in the power industry. The greatest part of the cost is poles and wires, the distribution network, and there are significant losses in that, the power can be generated for a few cents a Kwh, but renewables are much more expensive even if the cost is coming down. Anyway you want evidence, I'm sure you have heard of Google

For us it will be natural gas. Best of the fossil fuels and we have a lot of it.

Yeah, I've heard of Google, but no, I'm not going to try and document your point for you. At any rate, that grid is largely already in place.

Makes logical sense if many states are already going green and yes that does includes the much cleaner natural gas, and closing it's coal burning power plants, they have obviously figured out how to stay warm at night and have lights. One could conclude the GND is already here and growing. Don't know how long ago you worked in the power industry Clete, but even in Australia they are moving forward.

Makes logical sense if many states are already going green and yes that does includes the much cleaner natural gas, and closing it's coal burning power plants, they have obviously figured out how to stay warm at night and have lights. One could conclude the GND is already here and growing. Don't know how long ago you worked in the power industry Clete, but even in Australia they are moving forward.

Oh yes moving forward, solar massively oversold, wind farms dot the countryside in the most unlikely places and in places where they have done away with coal fired generation they have summer blackouts. It is progress. The solar feed-in tariff competes with base load for dispatch because it is cheaper, poor fools those who thought they could sell power to the grid, and Hydro is being reengineered. The only thing that has changed here is the ownership of the industry.

Wehave moved so far the government is once again going to compensate the poor for the world's highest cost of power. Thank you renewables

It's all a fantasy world. When we can no longer borrow money, and let us hope that day comes soon, then maybe having to live within our means will demolish this dreamland liberals love to contemplate.

What the states are doing to move from fossil fuel energy to renewables is a fantasy? Really? Obviously they don't think so. No matter where your political sentiments lie, the transition is under way and has been for a while now. I doubt we go back.

No. I'm saying that the idea that we can get a steady, cheap flow of energy from wind and solar is a fantasy. What do you do when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining? Think of it as though you have a car that only runs half the time. What good would that be?

No. I'm saying that the idea that we can get a steady, cheap flow of energy from wind and solar is a fantasy. What do you do when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining? Think of it as though you have a car that only runs half the time. What good would that be?

There are batteries but a polluting technology anyway, the problem is the greenies have painted us all into a corner by objecting to various technologies for many reasons, halting real progress

There are batteries but a polluting technology anyway, the problem is the greenies have painted us all into a corner by objecting to various technologies for many reasons, halting real progress

Feel free to elaborate if you can.

Feel free to elaborate if you can.
They have demonised Coal, they have demonised Oil, they have demonised transporting Oil, they have demonised exploration, why haven't they demonised lithium production, very polluting? Why haven't they demonised silicon production, very polluting, they have demonised CO2 without realising that it is all that is preventing the next ice age, when they will be happy to be warmed by coal

Please elaborate on this high pollution lithium and silicon production. Is it more polluting than refineries and steel mills? Is the risk of global warming more likely than the coming ice age?

how do you figure they extract that rare mineral out of the ground ? How are you going to extract it without steel production to make the equipment , and fuel to power the heavy equipment to extract the lithium ? Geeze you don't get it yet that solar and beanie and cesil propeller caps can't fuel a 21st century economy ?

How do you figure we have a 21st century economy yet when we still are using 20th century thinking? My questions were to pin down the assertions Clete was making. By your statement though you obviously think that we will be stuck in the last century for most of this century. I think we can forge ahead at a quicker pace myself.

How do you figure we have a 21st century economy yet when we still are using 20th century thinking? My questions were to pin down the assertions Clete was making. By your statement though you obviously think that we will be stuck in the last century for most of this century. I think we can forge ahead at a quicker pace myself.

Tal, for example to refine silicon you need charcoal which is created by burning wood in large quantities so there is no advantage as far as CO2 is concerned. Lithium pollutes the ground as well as needing equipment, etc, created in industries which are themselves polluting as Tom indicated. Renewables are premised in the idea you don't Have to count certain costs but they are a zero sum gain overall. If you want energy without CO2 the best option is nuclear but you need to effectively deal with the waste

If you want energy without CO2 the best option is nuclear but you need to effectively deal with the waste

Well stated, except that I would say nuclear is the only realistic option. Solar and wind would not exist at all without fed subsidies.

We don't use wood anymore, LOL, we invented electric arc furnaces quite a while back. You are correct though about nuclear but did you know nuclear waste can be used as fuel?

https://whatisnuclear.com/recycling.html

removed post image was too big.

We don't use wood anymore, LOL, we invented electric arc furnaces quite a while back. You are correct though about nuclear but did you know nuclear waste can be used as fuel?

https://whatisnuclear.com/recycling.html

Yes we have almost solved the nuclear waste problem but remember that the energy has to come from somewhere, you don't get it for nothing

f you want energy without CO2 the best option is nuclear but you need to effectively deal with the waste

Yes we have almost solved the nuclear waste problem Theoretically fast breeder reactors recycle spent waste . The world has been pretty much scared off from investing in nuclear technology . I for one believe the next generation of power will be fusion ;and that is where investments should be made .

Theoretically fast breeder reactors recycle spent waste . The world has been pretty much scared off from investing in nuclear technology . I for one believe the next generation of power will be fusion ;and that is where investments should be made .

How do you invest in something that doesn't exist

Don't be so sure of that Clete

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/05/lockheed-portable-fusion-proejct-still.html

Clete ,electic generation was a technology that did not exist in the 19th century . Nuclear power did not exist beyond concept until the 1940s . It took investment to make those realized. We won't be around to see it fully realized. But fusion power will happen . https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2019/01/14/is-fusion-power-within-our-grasp/#7d68a9789bb4

It took investments and time, and a few failures along the way.

Breeder reactors are least a few decades away for widespread use. Wind and solar are bad jokes. Nuclear would work but we are too afraid of it, so it would seem we are left with fossil fuels.

Yes, that is the opinion of some

Breeder reactors are least a few decades away for widespread use. Wind and solar are bad jokes. Nuclear would work but we are too afraid of it, so it would seem we are left with fossil fuels.

And natural gas. There is expensive technology for coal fired power plants, and policies that Big Coal rejects as helping the smaller competition though, as well as making cleaner vehicles, and more efficient buildings. Transitions and innovations are expensive, and detrimental to the bottom line.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel.