Chicago Decline To Continue

[Sean Renaud]

You seem to think that I'm like you; someone who wants to impose all kinds of mandatory things on others.

The details in the Green New Deal for example.

All the while taking the freedoms and liberties which are actually written in the constitution away from people like me "for my own good."

And then you seem to forget my position on abortion which I actually stated to you in detail. Which makes me wonder if in fact you really are stupid or something.

I also wonder where you get the idea that I'm either pro or con on nukes in Iran and/or N. Korea since I don't remember posting any thoughts on that subject. But hey, you making up lies about everything is your usual bullshit routine so...

And I'm not evil, that's my boss. I'm just an Ass working under a lousy contract.

That's the thing. The Green New Deal doesn't take freedom from you it grants you more freedom. You're trying to harm me. Its that simple.

You don't have to post your beliefs on certain things for us to know what they are. We've been down the road before.

 

[HisArpy]

That's the thing. The Green New Deal doesn't take freedom from you it grants you more freedom. You're trying to harm me. Its that simple.

You don't have to post your beliefs on certain things for us to know what they are. We've been down the road before.

This is bullshit.

Right on it's face the GND bans fossil fuels. That's natural gas, gasoline, propane, and so on.

Trying to harm you? How? By pointing out that your ideas are childish and lack any basis in logic or reason? You poor baby, I didn't know you were so fragile and unsuited for posting on a porn forum message board. For you own health, you should stop.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Nobody is banning fossil fuels though we should get around to that. You are actively limiting choices. I'm opening them.

 

[phrodeau]

Right on it's face the GND bans fossil fuels. That's natural gas, gasoline, propane, and so on.

Wrong again. Adding taxes and removing subsidies is not the same thing as a ban.

 

[Rightguide]

Nobody is banning fossil fuels though we should get around to that. You are actively limiting choices. I'm opening them.

Joe Biden is:

“I want you to look at my eyes. I guarantee you, I guarantee you we’re going to end fossil fuels,”

“No more subsidies for the fossil fuel industry,” Biden said. “No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period,” Biden said, “It ends.”

 

[Sean Renaud]

I love how you lie.

 

[YDB95]

Joe Biden is:

“I want you to look at my eyes. I guarantee you, I guarantee you we’re going to end fossil fuels,”

“No more subsidies for the fossil fuel industry,” Biden said. “No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period,” Biden said, “It ends.”

That's not banning fossil fuels. It's taking necessary steps to move past them.

 

[JohnnySavage]

What brand of EV is "The Beast"?

 

[HisArpy]

Wrong again. Adding taxes and removing subsidies is not the same thing as a ban.

GO FUCK YOURSELF

 

[HisArpy]

That's not banning fossil fuels. It's taking necessary steps to move past them.

Lol, more lying to yourself.

Trust me, we get it.

 

[Rightguide]

That's not banning fossil fuels. It's taking necessary steps to move past them.

The truth hurts doesn't it?

"This year, against the backdrop of recent warnings from top scientists about the urgency of climate action, the EIA's projections don't look great. Coal, one of the most carbon-emitting sources of energy, is still projected to provide 17 percent of the United States' electricity in 2050, and that's assuming that no carbon-capture technology has been made mandatory. Natural gas—a fossil fuel that is less carbon-emitting than coal but still a problem for climate change—will increase its share of US electricity production from 34 percent to 39 percent.

These projections are from the EIA's "reference case," which omits any predictions about unplanned policy changes. But they do contain assumptions about how technology will change and the economy will grow. In the EIA's own words (PDF), "The AEO2019 Reference case represents EIA's best assessment of how US and world energy markets will operate through 2050, based on many key assumptions. For instance, the Reference-case projection assumes improvement in known energy production, delivery, and consumption technology trends."

As such, the projections give us a view into a world where we stick to today's status quo well into the future."
the rest here: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...id-until-2050-federal-energy-projections-say/

Yes, Joe Biden is an incompetent fool being advised by other incompetent fools, all of whom will be disgraced by future reality.

 

[YDB95]

The truth hurts doesn't it?

"This year, against the backdrop of recent warnings from top scientists about the urgency of climate action, the EIA's projections don't look great. Coal, one of the most carbon-emitting sources of energy, is still projected to provide 17 percent of the United States' electricity in 2050, and that's assuming that no carbon-capture technology has been made mandatory. Natural gas—a fossil fuel that is less carbon-emitting than coal but still a problem for climate change—will increase its share of US electricity production from 34 percent to 39 percent.

These projections are from the EIA's "reference case," which omits any predictions about unplanned policy changes. But they do contain assumptions about how technology will change and the economy will grow. In the EIA's own words (PDF), "The AEO2019 Reference case represents EIA's best assessment of how US and world energy markets will operate through 2050, based on many key assumptions. For instance, the Reference-case projection assumes improvement in known energy production, delivery, and consumption technology trends."

As such, the projections give us a view into a world where we stick to today's status quo well into the future."
the rest here: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...id-until-2050-federal-energy-projections-say/

Yes, Joe Biden is an incompetent fool being advised by other incompetent fools, all of whom will be disgraced by future reality.

Once again I can only assume either you don't read your own links, or you're some sort of performance artist trying to make right-wingers look like even bigger fools than they already are. That link has nothing to do with whether or not Biden ever said he was going to ban fossil fuels (something he wouldn't even have the authority to do unilaterally anyway), but it does make it clear that action is urgently needed to reduce our dependence on them.

 

[Rightguide]

Once again I can only assume either you don't read your own links, or you're some sort of performance artist trying to make right-wingers look like even bigger fools than they already are. That link has nothing to do with whether or not Biden ever said he was going to ban fossil fuels (something he wouldn't even have the authority to do unilaterally anyway), but it does make it clear that action is urgently needed to reduce our dependence on them.

We will be using fossil fuels for as long as you live.

 

[Sean Renaud]

We will be using fossil fuels for as long as you live.

Hopefully not.

 

[phrodeau]

Hopefully not.

I think he’s right, but the reduction of fossil fuel use is imperative.

 

[PaxNurgle]

I'd be open to investing in carbon capture or emission-scrubbing technology as a future hedge against global warming and co2-emitting fossil fuels though. This is something I believe any government (Democrat, Republican, left, right, etc) could help invest in or even subsidize without pissing off either the "Green"/progressive wing or the fossil fuels industry. Because yes, we cannot simply quit fossil fuels cold turkey without another energy source coming on tap to replace them, and this cannot simply happen overnight.
Of course, as usual, the usual suspects are twisting and distorting the facts and statements from Biden simply because, you know, anything to discredit Biden.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1646267293079584769

 

[HisArpy]

We will be using fossil fuels for as long as you live.

I think anyone under 50 will probably see a transition to fusion within their lifetimes. At first it will be used to generate electricity in place of hydro/green/nuclear/fossil fuels because transmission of that energy already has the needed infrastructure/ However, fusion will eventually become portable/small enough that individuals will be able to use them for personal transportation and home energy needs.

Battery tech is yesterday's news and will go the way of the dodo before the GND's mandates come into full manifestation.

 

[Rightguide]

I think anyone under 50 will probably see a transition to fusion within their lifetimes. At first it will be used to generate electricity in place of hydro/green/nuclear/fossil fuels because transmission of that energy already has the needed infrastructure/ However, fusion will eventually become portable/small enough that individuals will be able to use them for personal transportation and home energy needs.

Battery tech is yesterday's news and will go the way of the dodo before the GND's mandates come into full manifestation.

That could solve a part of the consumption of fossil fuels but too much of what we have and use depend on petroleum products in their manufacture.

 

[ll74]

That could solve a part of the consumption of fossil fuels but too much of what we have and use depend on petroleum products in their manufacture.

The problem here is that you don't believe any shift from fossil fuels is needed at all. Your narrative is that the warming is natural.

So your.actual negotiating on how we do it is disingenuous.

 

[HisArpy]

That could solve a part of the consumption of fossil fuels but too much of what we have and use depend on petroleum products in their manufacture.

I'm more than positive that we will bioengineer replacement compounds to use for plastics instead of using fossil fuels like we do currently. Fusion will make plastic manufacturing easier and cheaper as well.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm more than positive that we will bioengineer replacement compounds to use for plastics instead of using fossil fuels like we do currently. Fusion will make plastic manufacturing easier and cheaper as well.

Same thing would have to apply to lubricants, hydraulic fluids, jet fuels, roofing shingles, asphalt, diesel fuels, tires, medicine capsules, Antihistamines, Cortisone, Synthetic Rubber, and a whole host of other items.

 

[schism666]

Same thing would have to apply to lubricants, hydraulic fluids, jet fuels, roofing shingles, asphalt, diesel fuels, tires, medicine capsules, Antihistamines, Cortisone, Synthetic Rubber, and a whole host of other items.

it certainly would not.

 

[phrodeau]

Plastics are pollutants because they end up in the food supply. They have nothing to do with atmospheric CO2. Likewise, asphalt, rubber, lubricants, shingles and pharmaceuticals.

 

[Sean Renaud]

That could solve a part of the consumption of fossil fuels but too much of what we have and use depend on petroleum products in their manufacture.

While I think Hisarpy is wrong that we will see fusion devices small enough to be used the ways he's claiming if we could get simply replace the power plants that run on fossil fuels and transition to mostly electric vehicles that really solves 90%+ of our consuption of fossil fuels.

You clearly do not have a firm grasp on either the technology nor the reasons we want to transition away from fossil fuels. The primary reason global warming and pollution. There are other reasons to do it like being truly energy dependent which we haven't been in a very, very long time. We import plenty of energy. That's before we count in the products that we consume that use oil in their production.

However a product made of oil doesn't effect the global warming issue. IT's "sequestered" which isn't the proper term I'm sure but close enough. Coal in the ground, harmless. Coal used for painting. Harmless. Coal burning powerplant BAD. Its really that simple.

The overwhelming majority of our fossil fuels are used for energy, so much so that electricity is considered separate from transportation. Whatever is left is stuff we can created in a lab and that would be pretty close to carbon neutral.