The Green New Deal

The thing that never gets brought up is the number of humans in what I call the Matrix issue. in the matrix robots used us for batteries off the heat we produce, we are actually terrible batteries, we don't produce enough heat to offset our consumption. but we are walking talking space heaters. stick enough of us in one space and it can get real hot real quick.

now obviously the world is huge, huge, even compared the almost 8 billion people here. but that heat has to go somewhere.

I don't bring this up as some rebuttal to climate change, just saying that we have to have an impact on the actual temp. not just the carbon we produce, or the damage to the environment we do.

going back to my schooling I think the human body produces as much heat as a 100 watt lightbulb (incandescent). incandescent are terribly inefficient, I can't remember how much of the energy they eat goes towards light vs heat, but I know its tiny in comparison.
100 watts x 8,760 hours = 876,000 watts per hour per person per year.
876,000 x 7,700,000,000 = 6.7452^e15 watts of heat energy a year for the worlds population.
6,745,200,000,000,000 watts
that's a decent bit of excess heat to account for. and the temperature change isn't that drastic.

just wondering if the literal human factor has ever been considered.

Nope, and you aren't going to hear climate change junkies bring it up either. They are finished the minute they do because population control is a topic that nobody will touch, and once population is recognized as the problem, it's all over for them. It's impossible to believe man is at the core of climate change without acknowledging there are a lot more of us now and while the curve may not be exponential, it's steep, and there are plenty more people on the way. And the countries with the worst environmental records are leading the charge.




population-by-country-gapminder+un.png
 
Nope, and you aren't going to hear climate change junkies bring it up either. They are finished the minute they do because population control is a topic that nobody will touch, and once population is recognized as the problem, it's all over for them. It's impossible to believe man is at the core of climate change without acknowledging there are a lot more of us now and while the curve may not be exponential, it's steep, and there are plenty more people on the way. And the countries with the worst environmental records are leading the charge.




View attachment 194085

This topic deserves a new thread.
 
From what I was told when we were looking at houses in Florida, the government was in the process of raising their flood insurance rates gradually over a period of a few years to have rates competitive to what was available from the private sector. In other words, they were lowering their subsidies of their flood insurance.

That is why several places were for sale because if you have a loan on a house there, you must carry very expensive flood insurance, and it was going up in the area just off the peninsula where FEMA was available. Some folks couldn't afford several thousand a year on top of their house payment. I agree with you that the government shouldn't be involved though.

Insurance companies will never back flood as it’s an absolute loss scenario. They will simply pull out of the area. If insurance began covering flood on their paper the ho premiums across the board would be insane.
 
Cotton says media was 'Stalin-like' in Ocasio-Cortez Green Deal cover up

But what particularly caught Cotton’s eye was how the media became complicit in hiding the now-infamous FAQ document circulated by the Ocasio-Cortez office, which included lines such as promising a job to “all people of the United States” – including those “unwilling to work” – and making air travel industry obsolete.

“I understand the Democrats that proposed this immediately tried to retract that white paper that went along with their resolution,” Cotton added. “And too many people in the media have been complicit in the Stalin-like or 1984 technique of disappearing it, sending it down the memory hole.”

Hewitt asked whether the Democrats who immediately jumped to endorse the radical package have actually read what’s inside it.

“Sure. I mean, Hugh, it’s pretty remarkable that when these Democrats put out the Green New Deal last week that you had many Democrats running for president leap onto a proposal that was going to confiscate every privately owned vehicle in America within a decade and ban air travel so we could all drive or ride around on high-speed light rail, supposedly powered by unicorn tears, yes,” Cotton said.


😂
 
How freeking stupid. Hey Kentucky can’t y’all vote that worthless POS McConnel out of office?
how is this stupid? I saw a bunch of stuff about riders, which I never like, but it seems like in this case its all actually tied to the idea of the bill.
 
how is this stupid? I saw a bunch of stuff about riders, which I never like, but it seems like in this case its all actually tied to the idea of the bill.

We do not need any more federal monuments, parks, forests or land set aside for unproductive uses. Just millions more in dead cost to us taxpayers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
Anybody catch one of luther's faves, Amy Klobuchar, on Brett Baier last evening?

Really, she is not ready for prime time. She'd vote for the Green New Deal but sees it as "aspirational."

When asked about the specifics contained therein, well, it seems, she really isn't for the Green New Deal after all.

Not for reducing air travel.

No on economic security for people unwilling to work.

Doesn't think net-zero greenhouse emissions is going to happen.

For nuclear energy.

No on rebuilding all buildings in the country.

The only snow storm wasn't during her campaign announcement.

 
We do not need any more federal monuments, parks, forests or land set aside for unproductive uses. Just millions more in dead cost to us taxpayers.
The costs are covered by the offshore drilling funds, from what I read there was 40 billion in untapped funds that for whatever DC bureaucratic reason couldn't be touched, but now can. It also states that those lands can now be hunted.

and its not like these are developed areas we are cutting off. are we really going to miss the 300,000+ acres added to Death Valley?

even if you want to piss and moan about all the non-arable land we lost, its not healthy for everything to be "productive". any farm system is going to allow land to go fallow. and having un-developed (wild) land near farms helps protect production. protecting our bio-diversity is more than a conservancy issue. allowing land to go through natural cycles helps keep minerals in the ground, cleans ground water, protects from run off.

and I hope this country or world never has to destroy every plot of green space to add another farm, strip center, or city.
 
The costs are covered by the offshore drilling funds, from what I read there was 40 billion in untapped funds that for whatever DC bureaucratic reason couldn't be touched, but now can. It also states that those lands can now be hunted.

and its not like these are developed areas we are cutting off. are we really going to miss the 300,000+ acres added to Death Valley?

even if you want to piss and moan about all the non-arable land we lost, its not healthy for everything to be "productive". any farm system is going to allow land to go fallow. and having un-developed (wild) land near farms helps protect production. protecting our bio-diversity is more than a conservancy issue. allowing land to go through natural cycles helps keep minerals in the ground, cleans ground water, protects from run off.

and I hope this country or world never has to destroy every plot of green space to add another farm, strip center, or city.

Maybe I mispoke. Not all land needs to be productive but putting it under federal control takes that decision out of the state or private owners hands. I'm all for undisturbed land, forests and pristine places I'm just against the federal government assuming control over more land. I think 30% is enough, yeah that right the feds already own almost 30% of ALL land in the US. That is way too much.
 
Maybe I mispoke. Not all land needs to be productive but putting it under federal control takes that decision out of the state or private owners hands. I'm all for undisturbed land, forests and pristine places I'm just against the federal government assuming control over more land. I think 30% is enough, yeah that right the feds already own almost 30% of ALL land in the US. That is way too much.
is this taking away from private ownership? I don't rightly now. I know for most of the companies out their mining/harvesting they just lease/rent land, at least from the fed. if they are resorting to some imminent domain crap, then year that sucks.
 
I'm on the record saying "it will go nowhere". Mitch knows this, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of what he is willing to bring to a vote.
Everybody knows it isn't going anywhere but every single new Democrat announcing a 2020 bid has come out and endorsed it when everyone on both sides should have laughed her out of the room.
 
Everybody knows it isn't going anywhere but every single new Democrat announcing a 2020 bid has come out and endorsed it when everyone on both sides should have laughed her out of the room.
If there were a ounce of honesty about this, the Senate would draft a version of their own.
 

VN Store



Back
Top