The goal isn't actually to help the environment but make other people miserable.
United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread
- Thread starter Tyzuris
- Start date
The goal isn't actually to help the environment but make other people miserable.
bintananth
behind a desk
No, that's just a side effect.
The real goal is to stuff cash into the pockets of the people who are set to profit big time if the cheap, safe, reliable, and proven alternative to the expensive *cough* "green" *cough* solution is regulated to extinction or outright banned.
Are humanities CO2 emmissions a problem? Oh, most definitely.
However, the lazer-guided focus on targeting end-user CO2 emmissions to the exclusion of looking at the big picture often results in "you're not helping" solutions getting pushed to the forefront.
mrttao
Well-known member
That is an incredibly naive view.
It is not all about money, it is all about power.
Money is a form of power.
But in the age of fiat money being printed by private citizens of sufficient privilaged (see fractional reserve banking) or simply the extreme amounts of money they rake in on rent. Money becomes just a meaningless number to them.
So they "spend" money like water to seek out real power. Control people and take their rights. That is the goal in of itself.
It really, really, isn't.
Bigking321
Well-known member
Not really. Co2 is about as benign a emission as you can get and the planet has a rather robust and effective way of dealing with it. Plants love it, absorb it, then trap it till they decompose. A large amount of Co2 causes a large abundance of plants which causes a large amount of Co2 to be stored.
Humanity has other much more problematic things to deal with.
The overabundance of plastics, drugs and chemicals spreading throughout the environment and disrupting everything, industrial level agriculture destroying ecosystems, cities causing mass pollution.
But those aren't as universal and undefinable as Co2 emissions. Plus everything we do creates Co2 in some way or other. So if you claim you need to regulate that you can claim control over anything.
bintananth
behind a desk
Eh, we're looking at this differently.
To me, what makes our CO2 emmissions a problem is the horriffically wasteful way we go about doing things.
C + O2 -> CO2, ΔH = -393.5kJ/mol is what it is.
How we go about utilizing that -393.5kJ/mol is often quite stupid. Stuff like some parking lot and sinage lighting being left on 24/7, to give just one egregious example. Or the trend of sticking electronic displays all over the place, like FIBA recently did with an LED basketball court. You read that right, the actual playing surface is a giant goddamn fucking electronic display.
Bigking321
Well-known member
Eh...
Sure that's fair.
Sure that's fair.
Nuclear the obivious generations old solution will eventually be used.
In time politics are forced to kneel before the might of the real world weather the idelogues like it or not.
Wargamer08
Well-known member
South Africa still has rolling blackouts and they keep shutting down power plants. People are willing to accept a lot to avoid dealing with obvious incompetence.
The thing about power is that if your obviously incompetant your not going to keep power forever. Sooner or later someone will take it from you.
In south africa's case I think their going to suffer quite a bit more and either people will vote for another party or the military will get tired of the bullshit and just coup the government line up the leadership against the wall and take power by force.
In the later case the Military Junta might just end up doing a better job.
Batrix2070
RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
Can you read?
This is what they wrote in their own justification.
This is what they justify these comedies with. You and I both know full well that this is absurd and that the injured will easily outnumber the "saved."
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
It breaks down to about one in five million per year, across those thirty years, estimated to be saved by the emissions difference. Give or take for the estimated population change.
Edit: To be exact, 2,184,000,000/331,449,281/30=0.22 micromorts.
mrttao
Well-known member
No, it doesn't.
1. they vastly inflate the numbers of people harmed.
2. they don't account for it being replaced with something else. Most likely electricity from a coal power plant. Which means it will kill way more people. As coal power plants actually spew toxic ash that is radioactive and toxic.
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste
By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation
Germany shut down their nuclear power plants... and replaced them with coal plants.
The day of the switch electricity price jumped (IIRC tripled?) and also now they will have way way way more people dying of cancer.
Natural gas is the cleanest of all fossil fuels. so shutting it down is killing people.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
The point is that you don't need to make shit up to get this number because as compared to the scale of what it's for it's nothing. A year under the "elevated" current emissions relative to the anticipated reductions is a third the risk of a single skiing trip. Less than one in thirty-six thousand deaths would be averted if they achieved their emissions target.
Edit: It's like bitching about global average temperatures rising by a full degree. It has been higher than that in recorded history, and by that history it lines up quite well with seemingly cyclic fluctuations and life tends to be better in Europe at such a point. The claim can be accurate yet meaningless, driving up a panic over practically irrelevant minutia.
Sergeant Foley
Well-known member
Will Biden get impeached? Sounds like McCarthy is looking into an impeachment inquiry soon.
Blasterbot
Well-known member
unlikely. Republicans have too many establishment types that don't want to escalate with the dems and would prefer to go to business as usual. they can't guarantee pushing it through the house. they got no shot at the senate. so odds are it will be viewed as being worse for them to try and fail than if they just sit on their thumbs and spin.
Personally I'd rather them try so we know which people need to be replaced.
The dems have already escalated with them sitting on it just encourages more bad behavior.
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
Blasterbot
Well-known member
I agree. so would most people. but congress critters are a bit removed from what their constituents want and would disagree. there is a reason most republicans dislike their congress critters.
That reason is why their in the process of slowly being purged
Sergeant Foley
Well-known member
Plus they know the Democratic-controlled United States Senate will never convict Biden.