Slashdot Mirror
California Governor Says 100 Percent Clean Electricity Not Enough, State Must Go Carbon Neutral (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Monday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill mandating that the state's utilities move to 100-percent zero-emission electricity generation by 2045. Brown also issued an executive order today requiring the state to become carbon neutral by 2045, that is, mandating that the state remove as much greenhouse gas from the atmosphere as it puts into the atmosphere. One of the most interesting aspects of the zero-emissions bill signed today is that it also specifies that California can't increase the carbon emissions of another state to get cheap electricity. It appears that buying electricity from a coal plant in Nevada is fine if that electricity had been supplied prior to the bill's passing, but seeking out new out-of-state natural gas-fired plants to buy from would not be allowed. The bill's ambitiousness is compounded by the executive order that Gov. Brown signed today. The order requires California to become carbon neutral by 2045. "The achievement of carbon neutrality will require both significant reductions in carbon pollution and removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, including sequestration in forests, soils, and other natural landscapes," Brown's executive order states (PDF).
State must go Paleo.
You first, Jerry; let's see how long you can hold your breath.
Then stop burning all your forests.
Unicorns!
One sure way of reducing emissions is to make the state so expensive that the only ones who can afford to live there are tech billionaires/millionaires.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
No, that would just increase the methane emissions from all that bullshit.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
If you want to live forever, with a fixed set of resources, you by defition need to recycle ALL of them.
Th
Build a bunch of solar powered CO2 collectors. That way you can still drive your car around LA.
Enron,
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinene...
Seeing as they are already importing a quarter of their electricity.
Look on the bright side all you people that want solar, will finally have it. It will be the only power anyone can actually afford in California. Of course anyone that actually needs reliable power at reasonable prices is going to be out of there.
If they don't balance their state's carbon neutrality against what they import, then it's a shell game. Let someone else have the burden of using massive amounts of carbon to create their "neutral" infrastructure.
It would be quicker and less painful!
Hey knucklehead humans are carbon-based LOL
Time to build more nuclear power plants, re-open San Onofre, and extend the life of Diablo Canyon. Nuclear energy is both clean and reliable, especially when combined with renewables.
You have a state that is headed for fiscal bankruptcy, the cost of living is so high the middle class is leaving in droves and you have one of the worst K-12 education systems in the nation.
The bottom line is that California is on a path to duplicate the failures of Venezuela and they are working on energy emission plans for 2045.
So are we still in "too late to save the world" mode or is this another "wait, wait...it may not be too late if we do this one crazy thing!"
With such cynical thought, nobody need to try to do any long term planning because it is automagically "glory grabbing bills".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Agriculture is a huge source of carbon emissions in California (both directly and indirectly through transportation and processing), a major source of environmental destruction in California, a big strain on limited water resources, and a magnet for unskilled illegal migration. To go carbon neutral, California would have to shut down much of its agriculture, which would not just result in much lower carbon emissions from the state but also address all those other problems. What a win-win solution for California and the world!
If legislators have signed a bill then a physical plan for power plant upgrades and decommissioning should exist. The problem is I cannot find it or it was never shared. Lawmakers passing a bill without a plan is foolish and wishful thinking.
Technological change cannot happen in a vacuum. It takes years of planning, research, development, and funding to implement the change. The question is not if this change achievable. The question is do you have the backbone and patience to complete it. Without any of the above it is a dream.
Want to know if people are moving out of California?
Cost to rent a one-way 10' U-Haul truck from Las Vegas to Los Angeles: $89
Cost to rent a one-way 10' U-Haul truck from Los Angeles to Las Vegas: $401
Which way do you think more people are moving?
I 100% applaud state level initiatives. If you think something needs to be done, do it in your state. If it works, other states will follow suit.
From energy to healthcare to cost of education, this is the path. If it can't be done at the state level, it has no business being pursued at the federal level.
I have to give him credit for pushing an ambitious agenda, but how's he gonna get the world's fifth largest economy there? Maybe he'll ban out-of-state gas-powered cars from crossing over CA state lines? Ban most forms of manufacturing in the state?
The only way CA could possibly get there is a huge expansion of nuclear power, and they're an earthquake prone state full of anti-nuclear NIMBYs.
More importantly, IMO: He's missing the real problem on CO2 emissions. If he really wants to make a difference for CA and the world in the long haul, he should get on the horn to China and get them to slow down their coal-fired plants. Maybe really go nuts and say that he's not going to allow any Chinese imports into CA ports? Setting a good example for the Chinese with arbitrary CO2 bans isn't going to get them to have a change of heart alone.
Why do politicians always set such far off goals? Are they doing it to simply make the appearance of doing something? By the time 2045 rolls around, it's already going to be too late to effect any meaningful change. It starts right here, right now ... today.
Despite the actual data clearly showing that climate change is non-anthropogenic idiots like Brown keep pushing their money fueled agenda.
I wonder how much profit he stands to make?
I mean this sincerely. Simply because you 'must' do something doesn't mean it is physically possible.
I do not know of any fully carbon neutral nation. You basically have to fake the inputs and outputs to even show that such a system is possible. Why sequestering carbon takes energy, where to you get that energy?
To be carbon neutral you would have to:
1 ) sequester carbon ( is there a way of sequestering Carbon that does not require more energy then the energy produced by creating the carbon emission in the first place? )
2 ) virtually ban all internal combustion engines.
3 ) Generate all your electricity from clean sources
4 ) Somehow control where you source every item entering your territory from ( cars, lumber, solar panels, computers) so they were produced with only green power , or have some rule that requires you sequester carbon equal to the carbon cost of producing those items.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
won't supply and demand solve the cost of living thing all by itself? I mean, assuming there aren't external forces working against supply and demand. But that never happens, right?
Oh, as for CA turning into Venezuela, is the United States Federal Government going to lock them out of external banking systems and foreign aid via sanctions? No? Then I think they'll do just fine. And that's before we factor in that their economy is much, much stronger. Nice straw man though. You guys are really getting a lot of mileage out of Venezuela's misery. Plus the US got to seize all their overseas assets when they defaulted on the loans. Kind of a win-win for those sanctions and it didn't even cost all that much.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
My brother is the head of sales for a Government owned utility for a large European country and even him knows that this is plain stupid. Good intentions do not make good politics! Specially when it means taxing all Californians into oblivion.... You can make electricity with your own poop in your home, would you spend 1 million dollars to do so even when you do not have the money? If Moonbeam wants to save the planet REALLY, I would suggest to him & his acolytes to go jump off a cliff like lemmings! We need sensible people, not crazies in the is country.
Anyway, a good pandemic is coming, so it does not matter...
I call this a case of double bullshit.
First, the governor is making a plan so far in the future that he will not be responsible for making it happen. No politician can make such a promise because their actions cannot dictate the actions of a future executive or legislature. A goal in 2045 is, by my math, 27 years in the future. Unless he plans on staying in office that long I don't believe him in having any intention to attain this goal. On top of that the guy is 80 years old, so even if he thought he could stay in office for 25+ years then he must also have a plan to live well beyond his 100th birthday.
Had he made an energy plan for the remainder of his term, or even to the end of being re-elected on more time, then I'd take him seriously.
Second, he's shutting down all the nuclear power plants. No other energy source we know of has a lower CO2 output per energy produced than nuclear power. By shutting down the last of the nuclear power plants, and having no plans to build more, makes this plan of 100% carbon neutral power a load of bullshit. If he was serious about this plan then he'd include in the plan nuclear power, as unpopular as it might be to do so. Saying he'll do everything in his power to lower CO2 but use nuclear power tells me that he sees nuclear power a greater threat to the state, nation, human species, or whatever, than nuclear power.
If nuclear power is a greater threat than CO2 then I have to wonder just how much of a threat CO2 is to anyone. Someone explain this to me. How much of a threat is CO2? How much of a threat is nuclear power? How can nuclear power be a greater threat? If we can't have nuclear power to solve the problem of our CO2 emissions then why should I take any threat of global warming from CO2 seriously?
This is bullshit for a politician to make any promise of government action beyond the end of their term. This is bullshit to make any plan of lowered CO2 from energy production that does not include nuclear power. This is double bullshit to make both promises at the same time.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
As an alternative we simply need to announce that Trump solved all the warming issues by personally designing and insdtalling some magical technology and at least 35% of Americans can sleep tight firmly knowing that the orange lunatic has saved them completely.
He is not running for re-election.
Once the economy crumbles... producing less carbon will be easy.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Also Texas only has that high a per capita due natural resource extraction.
Wow, that only took five seconds on Google to disprove.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/304890/texas-real-gdp-by-industry/
Largest contributors to Texas GDP:
1. Financial/Real Estate
2. Manufacturing
3. Professional / Business Services
*4. Mining/Oil/Gas Extraction
Whoo boy #4. Yeah they got nothing else going on in Texas.
Gov Brown is an excellent administrator; if not the best in the USA in the last 50 years. You may not agree with his opinions but he has an exceptionally good understanding of how government can work. He is politically way too far ahead of his voters and that is his biggest problem... proven by his 1st term as gov decades ahead of his voters who thought he was a bit nuts-- but now have caught up to him. He LISTENS to science and reason and applies them and does not get stuck down to a position like a normal person.
As far as long term planning, that is done often; it might be news to YOU. It is not done enough with most politicians not thinking past an election cycle and many US administrators also not thinking even shorter term.
As far as tying them to policies and laws; they go forever unless stated otherwise - which is just fine because the system has ways to repeal them if necessary (otherwise lacking peaceful change violent change does it. ) FYI, the constitution allows for amendments. If you are SERIOUS about making something important CHANGE you entrench it as much as possible so future people have to deal with it.
Global Warming is physical reality no matter what you name it or believe; doesn't matter, it WILL happen. Using LAW to make the crisis real in the near future is artificial but a great administrator works AHEAD of a disaster instead of merely reacting to disasters which were foreseen. This such common sense that most administrators are amazingly good at BS excuses of about them being unprepared or unaware of disasters.
It's going to be much harder if you wait. Necessity is the mother of invention. Hell, look at all the progress major wars produce. This is bigger than WW1, WW2... but it's slow moving and subtle with decades long attacks.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Oh, wrong politician. This one just keeps raising taxes and and the Californians keep asking for more.
Is he going to do anything about methane?
1. You're original hypothesis was Texas was full of dumb unemployable people and the only reason they make money is resource extraction. Apparently that's not true.
2. So you're saying the revenue generated by the #4 industry in Texas is enough to cover the top industry AND the third largest industry? That doesn't even begin to make sense. Besides which, after the collapse in the price of oil, a lot of those jobs dried up in Texas. I know because my cousin, with a degree in civil engineering, moved to Houston to work in the industry for a year, then her entire office was closed and she couldn't find another job in the entire state. She ended up moving to Montanna.
100 percent is for wimps.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You could make that argument if the delta was 25-75%, but when the price is 400% higher, something else is going on.
And it is.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/169420-supply-and-demand-in-action-the-u-haul-indicator
How much did New York and New Jersey get from the banking bailout ?
A net negative. Bankers got the bailout, not states.
No mention of California already having the highest poverty rate in the country ?
That's the Mississippi you don't dare mention, sorry, but California isn't on top.
Just how do you count the value of warping our foreign policy so Hollywood can crackdown on "Piracy" all over the world ?
Despite all the claims about Piracy off Somalia, the only thing they've done is make a couple of movies, and that isn't anything like the arms industry, the fossil fuel industry, or the Dole Pineapple company.
And that isn't even talking about all the needless brouhaha over Israel, unless you want to blame that on Hollywood Jews.
Seems you have a bigger set of omissions
I've replied to your words, in case you didn't notice.
But anyway the idea is conservatives predict problems from California's bad government and they don't come to pass ?
The idea is that Conservatives are arrogant and smug to a degree that exposes their rampant hypocrisy as nothing more than the childish ranting of babbling fools.
Hows those permanent water restrictions doing https://www.sacbee.com/news/po...
Hey the snail darter is thanking you that has to count for something.
See? Now you're going into a random screed over nothing of real meaning while ignoring the poop of the elephant in the room.
This is not helping you at all.
I understand you believethat as a tenet of your faith, but your silence on actual documented examples of corruption tends to discredit you.
Billions for High Speed Rail, not one cent for another Sports Stadium.
This post is everything that's wrong with California.
First off, the budget surplus you refer to is at the expense of tremendous taxes. California has nearly the highest marginal tax rate in the country for an average income at 9%, and that's reached at a paltry $50K income which is impossible to live on. It also includes crazy car registration taxes higher than most states ($400+ for a new car) and the fifth highest gas taxes in the country. Property tax rate may be low, but the total tax burden is still high due to the insanely high cost of homes, and we're not even talking about Mello-Roos, condo/HOA fees, and the like. For all those taxes, you get one of the worst public school systems in the country with some of the highest child care costs and 3-4 year wait lists to get in.
On that note, the cost of living in California is the highest in the country with the exception of Hawaii. Property is completely disproportionate to incomes, even with the supposedly higher salaries. If you try to move further away from major population centers, you now face the worst commute in the US (possibly excepting Hawaii and DC, which are special cases) with the highest air pollution. Anyone trying to move to California today doesn't have a choice in when they buy a house. That's just an outrageously ignorant statement. The San Francisco Bay Area has the highest outward migration in the country of any metro area precisely for this reason, and one of the highest auto theft rates as well due to lack of enforcement of crime.
So keep trying to justify your ridiculous logic. It's typical of everyone who doesn't realize how bad things have gotten there.
If you actually believe this, I despair for the future. Jerry Brown is another in a long line of dope-smoking hippie morons that we now have infesting American life. This plan has as much likelihood of happening as being struck be a meteorite while on the way to pick your winnings with your new girlfriend Natalie Portman on a unicorn.
Time to build more nuclear power plants, re-open San Onofre, and extend the life of Diablo Canyon.
Got any other fantasies since that one isn't going to come to pass? Nuke plants aren't going to get built in the US any time soon so get over it. That's just the political reality of them.
Nuclear energy is both clean and reliable, especially when combined with renewables.
Nuclear energy is only clean in the sense that it doesn't produce significant carbon and particulate pollution. But it still generates substantial amounts of rather nasty waste products for which we have no proper means of disposal. Saying nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuels is the very definition of damning with faint praise. I actually agree that I'd rather we use nuclear than fossil fuels but I'm not about to get ridiculous and claim it is clean.
are you going to enforce it on products and make sure car/phone/etc is produced out side of the state with zero carbon emission (... in China)?
I just watched a documentary on the future of nuclear power
Oh well then you must be an expert then. ;-)
Research is starting to pick up on small design reactors, molten salt cooled reactors, and melt down proof reactors. Reactors that don't use water to cool them down. Reactors that use the laws of physics to stop a melt down before it even starts. Designs for self correcting reactors.
Every single reactor design we've ever made requires substantial human oversight to operate safely. The problem with that is that humans make mistakes. Humans get greedy and cut corners on maintenance. Humans fail to anticipate disasters of a certain scale. Humans screw up the engineering. Humans don't want nuclear waste anywhere near them (and not just the hippies either) but humans also haven't agreed on a place to store said waste. The flaw with nuclear plants is the people running them and that fact alone is going to keep them from being much more than they are today regardless of their merits.
We would have had these designs in place and running 15 years ago if research hadn't ground to a halt thanks to hippie protesters.
No we really wouldn't have. Nuclear fission has some technical and social problems that no new design of reactor has fully mitigated. Not to mention that because of the regulatory requirements they are difficult to profitably operate.
Actually if you really wanted nuclear to get a second look, you would need to force fossil fuels taxed to pay for the full cost of the problems they cause. Then and only then would nuclear look like an attractive option even in the face of its flaws.
Our newest senator fucked her way into her career. Willie Brown's main squeeze.
The SF homeless industrial complex spends over 40k$/(bum * year). It doesn't go to the bums.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
invest in grey paint now
He still gets an _allowance_ from a trust his parents setup. Never had an honest job in his life.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The US Seized their assets because they defaulted on loans. It was _not_ done in retaliation for Venezuela seizing US company assets. And perhaps Venezuela would stop seizing US assets if we'd stop meddling in their affairs and attacking them with economic sanctions because we disagree with their politics...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
this is not to say Venezuela's gov't is all sunshine and kittens. Venezuela was a third world hell hole who inexplicably became a first world nation almost overnight when their populist government took their oil profits and spent them on the people instead of handing them over to multinationals like most of the rest of the world does. When that oil money dried up they were bound to have problems. Having the most powerful country in human history hitting them with sanctions like a ton of bricks cinched it.
The United States has been fucking with South America for hundreds of years. Always at the behest of corporations and against the interests of South American people. 30 seconds on google will tell you as much. My country's behavior on the national stage has been abhorrent in everything except WWII (and there's some nasty examples around that war too...). As a result a more than half of my tax dollars go to fighting the wars we caused and I don't get guaranteed healthcare, advanced education for my kids or any of the other things a civilized country with this much wealth should have.
It's always cheaper to drop food than bombs. You'd think we'd 've learned that in post WII. Damn, but we never learn a god damn thing in this country.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Have fun paying more taxes to provide that clean, carbon neutral, energy for free to all of the illegal immigrants and welfare babies. Don't forget the homeless and pitch-in next time you visit San Francisco by bringing a pooper scooper with you to pick some of the human feces up off of the sidewalk. I wonder if they've taken into equation the tent cities as well for all of the homeless drug addicts and winos?
You would have had clean energy by now if you had kept Davis in office, but he wanted to approve nuclear power plants and the hippies lost their collective shit.
Gov Brown is an excellent administrator; if not the best in the USA in the last 50 years.
He LISTENS to science and reason and applies them and does not get stuck down to a position like a normal person.
I might be able to find this believable if Gov. Brown supported nuclear power. He is stuck on an anti-nuclear position in spite of science and reason. We are going to have to decide which is the greater threat, nuclear power or global warming. If nuclear power is the greater threat then I have to wonder just how much of a threat global warming truly poses. If global warming is the greater threat then we must build more nuclear power plants.
Don't give me bullshit over a "false dichotomy". I'm merely asking which poses a greater threat. If you want to tell me that nuclear power poses a greater threat then I'll simply move along in my gasoline powered 4x4 truck. If you believe global warming is a greater threat than nuclear power then I'd be quite pleased to buy a new electric vehicle once that nuclear power plant comes on line. As I'm quite confident that people would rather choose global warming over nuclear power then I have no fear in having to scrap my truck.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Mod parent up -- a poster who gets it. Except the 4x4 truck. If I can't have an electric car powered with nuclear power, I'd rather sip fuel in an Insight, Prius, or on a Vespa.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/006081-a-generation-plans-an-exodus-from-california
California is the great role model for America, particularly if you read the Eastern press. Yet few boosters have yet to confront the fact that the state is continuing to hemorrhage people at a higher rate, with particular losses among the family-formation age demographic critical to California’s future.
Since the recovery began in 2010, California’s net domestic out-migration, according to the American community survey, has almost tripled to 140,000 annually. Over that time, the state has lost half a million net migrants with the bulk of that coming from the Los Angeles-Orange County area.
In contrast, during the first years of the decade the Bay Area, particularly San Francisco, enjoyed a renaissance of in-migration, something not seen since before 2000. But that is changing. A recent Redfin report suggests that the Bay Area, the focal point of California’s boom, now leads the country in outbound home searches, which could suggest a further worsening of the trend.
You're ok when someone steals your car and the SFPD tells you to go pound sand and call insurance?
Today, if you get assaulted in most big cities in California, the cops will again do nothing. Only aggravated assault or assault with a deadly weapon is prosecuted, and then not particularly consistently.
But hey - if you want to call stricter enforcement than that a police state, go live there.
...where everyone is a fruit, a nut, or a flake...
nothing to see here - move along
You don't get to make that argument when you're ok that trump did the same thing. It's clear you'll use any excuse to shit on a liberal.
1. CA has no budget surplus - it's a one-party state and the Democrats running the place are simply not counting the state workers union pension payouts that are most definitely going to be paid out. That makes those claims of Jerry "moonbeam" Brown a big bold lie.
2. CA used to have some of the best K-12 schools in the USA, but now they (statewide) rate in the bottom 10.
3. The public university system in CA has gone insane - it's now home to the Jew-hating BDS movement, pushing Marxism, and offering a huge number of majors that have no real-world applications, while raising fees and tuitions.
4. Every gallon of gas in CA has 98cents of taxes on it, and prices spike every spring and fall as the refineries have to stall and re-configure to produce the summer or winter boutique blends of gas that CA lawmakers mandate and which are unlike the gas sold in most other states.
5. All the taxes and regs have slowed new housing construction so much that there is a major housing shortage in the state - so prices for a single family home in much of the state are far beyond the means of any young family.
6. Electricity costs are through the roof. This summer many people in southern CA got hit with new state-mandated penalties of several hundred dollars a month (on top of the actual per-kilowatt-hour charges) for having run their air conditioners - and there are huge areas of the state where not using AC in the summer is insane.
7 Water costs have skyrocketed and now water rationing is scheduled to begin in about 6 years. We have a massive coastline so desalination is a no-brainer but the Democrats running the state have no brains so they've done everything they can to block this.
Middle class people are fleeing the state. The very rich can afford all this, the politically-connected have escape hatches (did you know that the Democrat lawmakers in Sacramento have provided themselves and their families with their own private DMV office?), and the poor get subsidies for some of this junk.
This is Jerry Brown doing a time-honored political stunt.
He is not going to be in office next year (it'll either be Democrat Gavin Newsome (likely) or Republican John Cox). Jerry's not on the ballot. Jerry is pulling a Bill Clinton (Barack Obama pulled a Bill Clinton too, incidentally). Bill Clinton passed a bunch of stuff like huge new requirements for "clean water" just before he left office, and therefore took political credit for being for clean water - but those new standards were never in effect while he was in office and his administration never paid the increased costs. When Bill's successor (Bush43) got into office and found the new water regs unworkable, he killed them (leaving the standards exactly where they were doing the Clinton administration) and the Democrats and their media pals spent the entire 8 years of Bush pushing the lie that Bush was for "arsenic and lead in drinking water (the same levels of those things that Bill had had for his entire 8 years).
This 100% clean energy thing is not going to go into effect. It's unworkable, so the only issue will be which future politician takes the political heat for "killing the planet" by backing away from this drivel.
Lol what a retard. "Reality has a liberal bias" just another southern moron pretending to know better than experts. Also you completely misquoted your own source. Nothing in that article said anything about lying. Only that an estimate was raised by 20%. Unless you've never worked a day in your life you should know, project estimates often creep up.
"Reality has a liberal bias"
So sad.
Nothing in that article said anything about lying. Only that an estimate was raised by 20%.
what's 10- 20 billion amongst friends.
WTF is an honest job?!
This is a man who DOES NOT HAVE TO WORK hard at all. He not only works but his work IS HIS LIFE; the obsessive kind of worker that no normal person can compete with because they have a life.
So you dismiss a man who works hard completely by his own choice when he is free to do jack shit. Not only that he picks arguably the hardest job of all. Being an elected public servant who is honest and actually does what they think is best for the public despite the voters not thinking longer term is NOT easy. Those types never quit to become lobbyists they find another way to make a difference. Yes those types can be righteously annoying as hell sometimes but they are not corrupt evil pricks and are motivated by selflessness. The ones who can CHANGE based upon reason are not so common either. But simply because some people think nuclear power is the greatest thing ever and his disagreement is not a good enough reason to oppose him. It's a reason to convince him because these types are powerful allies.
Somebody who needs money or works to survive is supposed to be a great leader? All that gives you is some perspective which you are greatly overvaluing.
Mostly, I find such attacks are by insecure people trying to bring somebody down because they themselves only work because they are forced to do what they do; probably they'd be doing jack shit if they could, they resent people who work just as hard due to more ideal motives. They don't have the chance to prove their character in that way; maybe they feel they wouldn't match up?
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
This will bring the death culture that the NWO justifies through environmentalism. In fact it is quite what could potentially be justified because of the fairy tale called Global Warming: forced abortion, forced inoculation, concentration camps, euthanasia, assisted suicide, humans eating manmade garbage, AI programmed to place less of a value on human life in order to achieve balance with nature and to comply with the carbon neutral mandate. What will we eat? Both plants and animals emit carbon so whatever kills us off the fastest I guess!!! WAKE UP
Get rid of the Cows since they produce methane that does more damage than CO2. Now eat greens only, then you creatae Methane, now you are the biggest threat to the planet. Sounds like a drawn out suicide by regulation. Don't worry CA, eventually the right will save you from yourselves har har har.
What is the emissions of creating and then running an ICE and its battery? Is it more or less than that for just a battery and the charging of it from local solar power?
Tell you what, we'll kill a moron like you for every battery we make, and that will offset the extra carbon emissions of its creation.
Meaning that no mater WHAT politicians do or say YOU will whinge about them because you don't like it.
Our newest senator fucked her way into her career. Willie Brown's main squeeze.
The SF homeless industrial complex spends over 40k$/(bum * year). It doesn't go to the bums.
Yep. And if you point that out it means you hate homeless people.
Do you have ESP?
The biggest problem is people in denial that Americans are so polluting. It makes them want other people to solve the problems instead of them.
Which nation is 80% coal and buying electric vehicles?
It's just an excuse to allow Americans to emit way over the average while blaming someone else.
Per capita Americans use more coal than just about anyone. More than India, even more than China.
America also uses more nat gas which is still a problem, and is growing their gas rapidly.
Why will Chinese coal plants run for 40 years? China has committed to not increase coal much more that it already is. Where is all this coal growth coming from? You are still looking to blame other countries to avoid looking in the mirror at the real cause.
Always a coward and a liar.
Per capita Americans use more coal than just about anyone. More than India, even more than China.
You are not even CAPABLE of logic. China consumes over 1/2 of the consumed coal on this PLANET EACH YEAR for the last 10 years. .31
BUT, they are 1/6-1/5 of the worlds population or ~19%.
America consumes 15-8% of all of the consumed coal for the last 10 years. Yet, population of 5%. It is obvious that with MINOR knowledge that America's coal per capita can not even be FUCKING CLOSE.
So, here are some REAL numbers.
What follows is 2017 coal consumption equivalence in million metric tons of oil equivalence| population in millions | coal consumption per million capitia.
China: 1, 892.6|1,409| 1.34
India: 424| 1,339|
USA: 332| 324| 1.02
Russia: 92.3|143|.65
S. Africa: 82.2|56| 1.47
Germany: 71.3|82|.87
While China is not the highest in per capitia, it is one of the highest.
And America is not even CLOSE to China in terms of per capita.
Porky, you keep speaking of per capita, and yet, you constantly lie, rather than simply face the facts.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Coal alone accounts for 40+% of global emissions,
Care to back up this lie WindBourne?
As such, for nations that are 80+% coal, EVs will make things worse.
Which nations would they be?
Can you back up this either?
Again random AC's are me. Again you accuse me of lying with no evidence whatsoever. When will you learn Windy?
You are still yet to show a single lie, yet you claim it all the time. You like to also claim any random AC is me, it's probably you. You are dishonest enough to pull that shit.
I often point out your lies and lies more lies more lies even more lies lies and lies When you aren't lying, you are just making shit up that is in no way believable, and lying.
I've showed you numerous times Windy. here here and here at least 3 times just recently and many more previously. Don't pretend you don't know you are being dishonest.
Each time the discussion was about coal used for eletricity.
Even now everyone has been talking about electricity and you throw in a number (with a paywalled link, step up from no link at all I guess) that is including industrial coal use as well. Then claiming people are lying. (quite deceitful of you)
Strange that you would claim for the last 10 years. When even your own data shows 10 years ago in 2008 America consumed 535.9 and China consumed 1609.3
It's obvious even using total coal and not just electricity, per person America is way way higher. You can find the year it crossed over if you like. But why did you have to lie about it in the first place?
So you move the goalposts, claim falsely that other people are lying, and then with your moved goalposts you still have to lie anyway to make it seem even worse. You just can't help yourself.
China consumes over 1/2 of the consumed coal on this PLANET EACH YEAR for the last 10 years.
And then there is this blatant lie. You can clearly see the red line is under the black one. Why lie all the time?
Coal alone accounts for 40+% of global emissions, with Nat gas at 20%..
Only in Windy math does 8.9 round down to 8
While 4.3 rounds up to 5