Democratic 2020 Presidential Primary Thread

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I've read it, but I also think viewing that as a final bill is foolish.  I view it as an idealistic initiative more than anything else. 

 

Interesting that this shifted automatically to the Green New Deal as binding language rather than Global Warming, which is what I brought up.

 

I view the Green New Deal as a kind of goal and acknowledgment of the necessity to shift priorities to the environment, which is what I was initially talking about and the conversation shifted.

 

And maybe the reason the conversation shifted is because of the prevalence in the Green New Deal in the narrative today.  I'd counter that the idealistic Green New Deal is more a counter to the extreme negligence and irresponsibility of the Industrialized world over the last century and, in the US, the Republican Party at large over the last few decades.

 

The Green New Deal will never go in place exactly as it is.  It just can't in the polarized society we live in.  What it serves as (or should serve as) is a starting point for a serious conversation/negotiation/discussion.

I have a proposed solution to carbon reduction that has shown an impressive track record over the last decade plus:

 

https://eidclimate.org/eia-u-s-carbon-emissions-fall-2017-mainly-natural-gas/

 

As the above chart shows, the U.S. has reduced energy-related carbon emissions 14 percent since 2005, and the EIA has once again affirmed that these reductions are “mainly” attributable to increased natural gas use for electricity generation. From the EIA report:

“The underlying energy consumption trends that resulted in these changes—mainly because more electricity has been generated from natural gas than from other fossil fuels—have helped to lower the U.S. emissions level since 2005 because natural gas is a less carbon-intensive fuel than either coal or petroleum.”

[transplantbillsfan]

51 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

If they wanted a serious discussion on the environment and climate change they wouldn't have shoe-horned in all of the social inequity and policy that has no relation to environmental policy. It was never about a serious discussion, it was about numbing the American people to socialist policies based on race and gender.

 

Once again, I'm talking about global warming, I'm not focused on the Green New Deal, specifically, though I like that it was put forward and is such a big talking point. 

 

I think Inslee's plan is closer to something that realistically should/might happen, though I just don't think he's a viable candidate at this point.  But what he said about the Green New Deal being "aspirational" is exactly how I feel.

 

But there's absolutely an aspect of social inequity that's interconnected with climate change.  If you accept that global warming/climate change is real, it's almost illogical to assume the 2 are completely disconnected.

[transplantbillsfan]

9 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I have a proposed solution to carbon reduction that has shown an impressive track record over the last decade plus:

 

https://eidclimate.org/eia-u-s-carbon-emissions-fall-2017-mainly-natural-gas/

 

As the above chart shows, the U.S. has reduced energy-related carbon emissions 14 percent since 2005, and the EIA has once again affirmed that these reductions are “mainly” attributable to increased natural gas use for electricity generation. From the EIA report:

“The underlying energy consumption trends that resulted in these changes—mainly because more electricity has been generated from natural gas than from other fossil fuels—have helped to lower the U.S. emissions level since 2005 because natural gas is a less carbon-intensive fuel than either coal or petroleum.”

 

And yet as a country we still emit the 2nd highest amount in the world.

 

500 pound guy losing 100 pounds doesn't make that 400 pound guy healthier than the 250 pound guy.

[keepthefaith]

2 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

So is he just assuming that this would be just added on to what we spend annually rather than helping to pay for it by cutting our spending from other things, like the proposed cut in half of our military spending?

 

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I've read it, but I also think viewing that as a final bill is foolish.  I view it as an idealistic initiative more than anything else. 

 

Interesting that this shifted automatically to the Green New Deal as binding language rather than Global Warming, which is what I brought up.

 

I view the Green New Deal as a kind of goal and acknowledgment of the necessity to shift priorities to the environment, which is what I was initially talking about and the conversation shifted.

 

And maybe the reason the conversation shifted is because of the prevalence in the Green New Deal in the narrative today.  I'd counter that the idealistic Green New Deal is more a counter to the extreme negligence and irresponsibility of the Industrialized world over the last century and, in the US, the Republican Party at large over the last few decades.

 

The Green New Deal will never go in place exactly as it is.  It just can't in the polarized society we live in.  What it serves as (or should serve as) is a starting point for a serious conversation/negotiation/discussion.

You're making my real world math argument by not doing any math.   What's the goal of reducing man's impact on climate change?  How is it measured?  What reductions in emissions/pollutants have to be made globally to meet the goal? Does the technology exist to achieve it and if so what is the cost of deployment and over what period of time?  Globally speaking how will that responsibility be split?  What will the costs be nation by nation?  How will it be funded?  Is it feasible?  How will it be managed?  How will progress be measured and reported? 

[RochesterRob]

2 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

And yet as a country we still emit the 2nd highest amount in the world.

 

500 pound guy losing 100 pounds doesn't make that 400 pound guy healthier than the 250 pound guy.

  I don't find your analogy very apt.  How do you arrive at 500 lbs for what you presumably are saying is the US.  Who is the 250 lb guy.  What does China weigh in your analogy?  Some people carry a lot of weight well while others that are moderately overweight can be at extreme risk for diabetes and heart disease.  How old is this analogy you are spouting?  Does it presume that all kinds of smoke stacks are belching pollutants into the air circa 1940?  What is your take on cadmium as a point source pollution?  Do you presume that mercury and lead find their way into water sources in other countries?  The 250 lb guy might die a lot sooner if he has considerable exposure to such elements.

[/dev/null]

2 hours ago, Foxx said:

nanobots.

coming soon to a climate change nightmare near you

 

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

But there's absolutely an aspect of social inequity that's interconnected with climate change.  If you accept that global warming/climate change is real, it's almost illogical to assume the 2 are completely disconnected.

Go ahead and connect those dots with something substantive.

[njbuff]

My God is Swalwell as stupid as they come.

[4merper4mer]

On April 11, 2019 at 7:33 AM, BeginnersMind said:

 

Who are you arguing with? 

 

 

I'm arguing with the commies who have the same solution to health care, global warming, real or perceived inequalities of every type, the designated hitter rule, and problems that haven't even happened yet.

 

Sorry if it felt like I was singling you out.

[GG]

13 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

And yet as a country we still emit the 2nd highest amount in the world.

 

500 pound guy losing 100 pounds doesn't make that 400 pound guy healthier than the 250 pound guy.

 

And we have the largest industrial economy by far.  Mull that for a second.  

 

What do you think will be more destructive to the American public - dealing with whatever effects climate change throws at us, while coal plants are retired or take dramatic steps to adopt completely unproven technologies that won’t do squat to address the problem that you think exist?

[SoCal Deek]

Put solar on your house and then get back to me. I’ve had it for almost ten years. Works great, and costs next to nothing. Are we done now?

[BuffaloHokie13]

12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Put solar on your house and then get back to me. I’ve had it for almost ten years. Works great, and costs next to nothing. Are we done now?

Okay, just convince the 287 other residents in my building.

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Okay, just convince the 287 other residents in my building.

No need. Assuming you’re living in high density housing you too have also already done your part. You’re good! Thanks for helping out. Now....we’re done.

[BuffaloHokie13]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

No need. Assuming you’re living in high density housing you too have also already done your part. You’re good! Thanks for helping out. Now....we’re done.

I've found the biggest issue (at least here in the DC area) in proposing things like this is actually maintenance responsibility. The local government has all kinds of stormwater management regulations for private property, but as soon as you propose any in public space (where DDOT would need to maintain it) they tell you it's unnecessary unless you're willing to put a covenant on it to maintain it privately.

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, BuffaloHokie13 said:

I've found the biggest issue (at least here in the DC area) in proposing things like this is actually maintenance responsibility. The local government has all kinds of stormwater management regulations for private property, but as soon as you propose any in public space (where DDOT would need to maintain it) they tell you it's unnecessary unless you're willing to put a covenant on it to maintain it privately.

You’re correct. None of this is rocket science. I’m a LEED accredited professional (look it up). Just do your part when and where you can and let technology and innovation take care of the rest. This ‘problem’ doesn’t need the heavy hand of government!

[snafu]

7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You’re correct. None of this is rocket science. I’m a LEED accredited professional (look it up). Just do your part when and where you can and let technology and innovation take care of the rest. This ‘problem’ doesn’t need the heavy hand of government!

 

^^^^^^Blasphemer.

 

[4merper4mer]

May 1 is a big day for commies.  Maybe they could hold an event to show how much they care about CO2 and they could all hold their breath for fifteen minutes straight.  Duct tape.  No cheating.  I have a feeling they'd save way more CO2 than even they thought.

[row_33]

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

May 1 is a big day for commies.  Maybe they could hold an event to show how much they care about CO2 and they could all hold their breath for fifteen minutes straight.  Duct tape.  No cheating.  I have a feeling they'd save way more CO2 than even they thought.

 

after the duct tape, give them a tap on the chin with a rubber hummer to make sure they don't cheat

 

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

 

after the duct tape, give them a tap on the chin with a rubber hummer to make sure they don't cheat

 

A rubber hummer? Sounds very Canadian.

[row_33]

16 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

A rubber hummer? Sounds very Canadian.

 

oh geez, how did spell correct make it that....

 

*hammer