Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Blueshoe

KyussB wrote: »

No. We can eliminate emissions without needing to tax the fuck out of ourselves.

We are doing just fine

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Greenhouse_gas_emission_statistics

KyussB

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Why are people talking about socialism like it's a bad thing?

It's basically a giant straw-man - capitalistic private markets not only would co-exist with the Green New Deal - the GND and guaranteed jobs would actually make Capitalism work better, supercharging it, by fixing its core fault: The way economies shit themselves when recessions hit.

The Green New Deal combined with its Job Guarantee, makes Capitalism work more efficiently than ever - completely solving the problem of recessions (private sector downturns, just lead to public sector upturns, with work flowing back to the private sector as it recovers).

Capitalism is still in the stone age because idiots confuse fixing its core faults, with its exact ideological opposite - Communism...

KyussB

Blueshoe wrote: »

We are doing just fine

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Greenhouse_gas_emission_statistics

It took almost 20 years to drop from 100% to 80%, and we want to get to 0% in 11-12 years (then further shift into -x% thereafter) - that's far off the mark.

Blueshoe

KyussB wrote: »

It took almost 20 years to drop from 100% to 80%, and we want to get to 0% in 11-12 years (then further shift into -x% thereafter) - that's far off the mark.

As technology advanced so did drop off in emissions. This will continue to happen.

I'm not paying any more taxes while the majority of the planet carry on business as usual

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

It took almost 20 years to drop from 100% to 80%, and we want to get to 0% in 11-12 years (then further shift into -x% thereafter) - that's far off the mark.

Most of us do not want to get to 0% in 12 years. Only a small number of people want this and almost no scientists.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

The thing that most exposes you as regurgitating a script here, is that you ignore how my fairly succinct post says to use EV transportation powered by renewable sources - in order to shit out a scenario that reverts back to fossil fuel based transport, in order to re-inflate the perception of its carbon cost.

You can air-dry wood, with no added carbon release/cost, and if in a rush you can also renewably power kiln-dryed wood - zero carbon cost.

Soil disturbance and tree offcuts...that amounts to fuck all carbon, and overall still amounts to likely 90+% of the carbon sequestered from the atmosphere, staying sequestered.

It's immensely carbon-negative, done right.

Could you stop for once peppering your rants with expletives like "shit". It makes your comments at best unreadable.


You what lol? A script? All from that from my personal knowledge of forestry and timber production. If you dont like facts - then tough. If you are in doubt - please show from where my 'script' is derived. Your the one who brought up the bs of using EVs to transport timber - no one else. I simply showed how your suggestion was pure imagination. Perhaps you are believe you could stick a tree in a Nissan Leaf or similar

Again you know very little about timber production. Construction grade timber is nearly all kiln dried. Check your local building Mechant if you dont believe anyone.

There are many methods of removing moisture from timber including air, solvent, microwave and supercritical CO2 drying, but the most common in the sawn softwood industry is convective or condensing kiln drying. Convective drying, although energy and equipment intensive, offers the most accelerated means of drying dimensional timber for market. The ‘kiln’ is defined as an enclosed structure, typically 30–100 m3, that provides controlled heating, air circulation, humidification and ventilation. Heating is achieved by indirect (steam, hot water, thermal liquid, electricity) or direct means (gas/oil burner). It is common for convective kilns to enclose overhead or side fans that circulate warm or dehumidified air through and around an open stack of sawn timber. Equipment factors which can affect efficiency of softwood drying include standards of kiln thermal insulation and the modulation of fan speed speeds during different stages of the drying cycle. 

All the unusable material removed from felled trees can accounts up to between 30 - 50 of a tree by volume. Again carbon is lost at all stages of timber hsrvesting and processing. And no it does not all get magically locked up in the tree no matter how much you would like to think it does.

Sorry to bust yet another 'New Green Deal' / Socialist bubble fairytale...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

KyussB

jackboy wrote: »

Most of us do not want to get to 0% in 12 years. Only a small number of people want this and almost no scientists.

You don't speak for most people, let alone the majority of scientists.

We'll see what the votes say, regarding the growing number of political parties worldwide, supporting a variation of the GND.

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

You don't speak for most people, let alone the majority of scientists.

Neither do you. Looking for 0% emissions in 12 years is an extreme position.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Could you stop for once peppering your rants with expletives like "shit". It makes your comments at best unreadable.


You what lol? A script? All from that from my personal knowledge of forestry and timber production. If you dont like facts - then tough. If you are in doubt - please show from where my 'script' is derived. Your the one who brought up the bs of using EVs to transport timber - no one else. I showed how your suggestion was pure imagination. Perhaps you are imagining you could stick a tree in a Nissan Leaf or similar

Again you know veryblittle about timber production. Construction grade timber is nearly all kiln dried. Check your local building Mechant if you dont believe anyone.

All the unusable material removed from felled trees can accounts up to between 30 - 50 of a tree by volume. Again carbon is lost at all stages of timber processing

EV = Electric Vehicle - i.e. electrically powered industrial vehicle, like a lumber truck...

This is an EV:
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/all-hail-edumper-largest-ev-world

Don't be so wilfully thick.

Blueshoe

jackboy wrote: »

Neither do you. Looking for 0% emissions in 12 years is an extreme position.

It's actually a totally impossible target. Won't ever happen.

It is like you said an extreme position. One held by a few. The same few who have no say or power.

As shown in the link I quoted EU emissions are consistently dropping. We are not the bad guy.

Go visit the Us, China, India and Australia instead. Lecture them. They are the polluters

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

EV = Electric Vehicle - i.e. electrically powered industrial vehicle, like a lumber truck...This is an EV:
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/all-hail-edumper-largest-ev-worldDon't be so wilfully thick.

Really? Is it? Wow! *insert sarcasm emoji here* Yes we all know what EVs are :rolleyes:

Indeed "Don't be so wilfully thick" - thats certainly not a lumber truck lol. Yes there a few vehicles like that but for the majority- the trucks travelling distances carrying goods on the roads are diesels. Funny that.

And just in case you think we are talking about some vague futuristic point in time. We are talking now. The trucks on our roads run on diesel not unicorn poop or fairy dust. And as you keep screaming supposedly we only have 10 years left - so exactly how where are all these EV trucks transporting the carbon 'neutal' timber (whatever that's supposed to be) from Scandanvia or wherever to Ireland?

Oh btw I forgot this gem of your imagination from previous

kyussB wrote:

Soil disturbance and tree offcuts...that amounts to **** all carbon, and overall still amounts to likely 90+% of the carbon sequestered from the atmosphere, staying sequestered.

And because you don't seem to believe anyone here except your self ..

Trees and woodlands play an important role in the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Through the biochemical process of photosynthesis carbon dioxide is taken in by trees and stored as carbon in the trunk, branches, leaves and roots. Carbon is also stored in the soil and indeed this is a major sink for carbon in the forest. Decay of the organic material eventually releases the CO2 back to the atmosphere

For any tree cut down approx only 50% is usable as timber (containing approx 50 % of carbon) All the remaining sequestered carbon included in the bark, leaves, branches etc gets released back into the atmosphere through decay or burning.

https://www.forestryfocus.ie/social-environmental-aspects/carbon-sequestration/

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://forestlearning.edu.au/images/resources/How%2520carbon%2520is%2520stored%2520in%2520trees%2520and%2520wood%2520products.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjxw9_mpb3kAhUwRBUIHaxTAPIQFjAKegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0XTopA-Qy5locKuXJXuyoi

That's the trouble with all this moldy Green New Deal rubbish that is published - it's written by eejits who simply dont have a clue and then taken up as gospel ...

batgoat

Blueshoe wrote: »

I googled it while having a poo. Socialism is poo

Socialism fails because it suffers from four fundamental design defects.

Question, why did you just try to pass that off as something that you wrote?

https://mises.org/wire/4-reasons-why-socialism-fails

Blueshoe

batgoat wrote: »

Question, why did you just try to pass that off as something that you wrote?

https://mises.org/wire/4-reasons-why-socialism-fails

Answer I didn't pass it off as something I wrote. I said I googled it.

Who the f is going to bother writing that much for a boards post

batgoat

Blueshoe wrote: »

Answer I didn't pass it off as something I wrote. I said I googled it.

Who the f is going to bother writing that much for a boards post

Plenty do, you pretty clearly made no effort to differentiate it from something that you wrote. Also it's not a great sign when you're sourcing from a libertarian think tank that infamously opposes child labour laws.

Sweetemotion

batgoat wrote: »

Plenty do, you pretty clearly made no effort to differentiate it from something that you wrote. Also it's not a great sign when you're sourcing from a libertarian think tank that infamously opposes child labour laws.

He clearly stated that he googled it.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

You can air-dry wood, with no added carbon release/cost, and if in a rush you can also renewably power kiln-dryed wood - zero carbon cost.

Not in Ireland being surrounded by water with prevailing south-west winds means we have a damp climate with poor drying conditions. Even with several years of air drying it is almost impossible to achieve moisture content below 25%. Good luck building your eco-home with native Irish timber you have to kiln dry it if you want to house to last a lifetime. Irish softwood timber is not very good quality compared with that sourced from Sweden, Russia or Canada.

gozunda

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Not in Ireland being surrounded by water with prevailing south-west winds means we have a damp climate with poor drying conditions. Even with several years of air drying it is almost impossible to achieve moisture content below 25%. Good luck building your eco-home with native Irish timber you have to kiln dry it if you want to house to last a lifetime. Irish softwood timber is not very good quality compared with that sourced from Sweden, Russia or Canada.

The poster seems to deliberatly ignoring the facts tbh - I had already posted this link ...

European standards for structural timber also specify an upper limit of 20% moisture content for ’dry graded‘ timber in order for it to receive a defined strength grading. Drier timber also provides a more receptive substrate for gluing and is lighter to transport. Timber's durability and environmental resistance can be further enhanced by thermal and chemical treatments ...

There are many methods of removing moisture from timber including air, solvent, microwave and supercritical CO2 drying, but the most common in the sawn softwood industry is convective or condensing kiln drying. Convective drying, although enalthough energy and equipment intensive, offers the most accelerated means of drying dimensional timber for market. The ‘kiln’ is defined as an enclosed structure, typically 30–100 m3, that provides controlled heating, air circulation,  humidification and ventilation. Heating is achieved by indirect (steam, hot water, thermal liquid, electricity) or direct means (gas/oil burner). It is common for convective kilns to enclose overhead or side fans that circulate warm or dehumidified air through and around an open stack of sawn timber. Equipment factors which can affect efficiency of softwood drying include standards of kiln thermal insulation and the modulation of fan speed speeds during different stages of the drying cycle. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116306050

The fact remains that due to the removal of foliage, bark, roots (roots alone make up 20% of the tree) etc results in approx 50 % of the trees carbon being lost and that's before further carbon emissions from processing such as drying and transport over long distances.

Even allowing for alternative modes of transport and drying with timber used for construction - it is certainly not even close to carbon neutral or negative tbh

Pa ElGrande

The Limits of Clean Energy

In 2017, the World Bank released a little-noticed report that offered the first comprehensive look at this question. It models the increase in material extraction that would be required to build enough solar and wind utilities to produce an annual output of about 7 terawatts of electricity by 2050. That’s enough to power roughly half of the global economy. By doubling the World Bank figures, we can estimate what it will take to get all the way to zero emissions—and the results are staggering: 34 million metric tons of copper, 40 million tons of lead, 50 million tons of zinc, 162 million tons of aluminum, and no less than 4.8 billion tons of iron.

In some cases, the transition to renewables will require a massive increase over existing levels of extraction. For neodymium—an essential element in wind turbines—extraction will need to rise by nearly 35 percent over current levels. Higher-end estimates reported by the World Bank suggest it could double.

The same is true of silver, which is critical to solar panels. Silver extraction will go up 38 percent and perhaps as much as 105 percent. Demand for indium, also essential to solar technology, will more than triple and could end up skyrocketing by 920 percent.

And then there are all the batteries we’re going to need for power storage. To keep energy flowing when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing will require enormous batteries at the grid level. This means 40 million tons of lithium—an eye-watering 2,700 percent increase over current levels of extraction.

That’s just for electricity. We also need to think about vehicles. This year, a group of leading British scientists submitted a letter to the U.K. Committee on Climate Change outlining their concerns about the ecological impact of electric cars. They agree, of course, that we need to end the sale and use of combustion engines. But they pointed out that unless consumption habits change, replacing the world’s projected fleet of 2 billion vehicles is going to require an explosive increase in mining: Global annual extraction of neodymium and dysprosium will go up by another 70 percent, annual extraction of copper will need to more than double, and cobalt will need to increase by a factor of almost four—all for the entire period from now to 2050.

The problem here is not that we’re going to run out of key minerals—although that may indeed become a concern. The real issue is that this will exacerbate an already existing crisis of overextraction. Mining has become one of the biggest single drivers of deforestation, ecosystem collapse, and biodiversity loss around the world. Ecologists estimate that even at present rates of global material use, we are overshooting sustainable levels by 82 percent.


source

Just imagine all that green new deal money destabilising Africa and South America in the race to capture minerals. I would like to re-submit a modest proposal for the reduction of consumption in Ireland.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

Not in Ireland being surrounded by water with prevailing south-west winds means we have a damp climate with poor drying conditions. Even with several years of air drying it is almost impossible to achieve moisture content below 25%. Good luck building your eco-home with native Irish timber you have to kiln dry it if you want to house to last a lifetime. Irish softwood timber is not very good quality compared with that sourced from Sweden, Russia or Canada.

Fair enough - yet the kiln-drying is fairly easily made zero-emissions as well.

KyussB

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

The Limits of Clean Energy




Just imagine all that green new deal money destabilising Africa and South America in the race to capture minerals. I would like to re-submit a modest proposal for the reduction of consumption in Ireland.

It will definitely require a restriction of the use of those materials from other industries - and massive R&D for material substitution, to replace the rare-earths.

All the more reason to immediately start allocating a significant percentage of GDP, to R&D, as part of the GND - so we can develop these technologies and substitutions, urgently.

Pa ElGrande

KyussB wrote: »

It will definitely require a restriction of the use of those materials from other industries - and massive R&D for material substitution, to replace the rare-earths.

All the more reason to immediately start allocating a significant percentage of GDP, to R&D, as part of the GND - so we can develop these technologies and substitutions, urgently.

You've been watching too much Star Trek.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAmjnxF7uJM

Jimmy Garlic

KyussB wrote: »

Fair enough - yet the kiln-drying is fairly easily made zero-emissions as well.

When year zero comes maybe green new deal gulags..ahem, sorry, "climate rehabilitation camps" could be set up so deniers could be worked to death before you compost them. A giant CE scheme with an Uncle Joe twist. You could feed them genetically modified carbon neutral lentils to get the best out of them before they end up on the compost heap, just enough lentil energy enough to work , but not to run away. Human powered hamster wheel generators to run the kilns.

KyussB

Or just combine electric kilns with renewable energy sources (the technology for both, already existing), like anyone who isn't a fuckwit or being wilfully thick, can figure out.

Jimmy Garlic

KyussB wrote: »

Or just combine electric kilns with renewable energy sources (the technology for both, already existing), like anyone who isn't a fuckwit or being wilfully thick, can figure out.

It's Marx's will. Glorious. Stupendous. Another cog in the green New deal wheel. Onwards to the supreme revolution. Our utopia is in sight.

KyussB

Personally, I view the Green New Deal and its variations, as being a supercharged version of Capitalism - every Capitalist economy on Earth inherently depends on having a strong government, in order to correct the faults that would exist in a pure Capitalist economy (hence why economies tend to be Mixed Economies) - and the GND fixes the problems of externalized costs leading to accelerated climate change, while also solving the problem of unemployment even during recessions (due to its policy of guaranteeing jobs).

An actual/real Capitalist, who wants Capitalist economies to function at their most efficient level, will not shy away from the inevitable need for a Mixed Economy, and strong governments, in order to achieve this - they will not shy away from acknowledging the faults that such an economy creates, and which need fixing to prevent us going down an unsustainable path.

The Green New Deal, adjusts our economies to preserve Capitalism, by preventing it from continuing down an unsustainable path.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Personally, I view the Green New Deal and its variations, as being a supercharged version of Capitalism - every Capitalist economy on Earth inherently depends on having a strong government, in order to correct the faults that would exist in a pure Capitalist economy (hence why economies tend to be Mixed Economies) - and the GND fixes the problems of externalized costs leading to accelerated climate change, while also solving the problem of unemployment even during recessions (due to its policy of guaranteeing jobs). An actual/real Capitalist, who wants Capitalist economies to function at their most efficient level, will not shy away from the inevitable need for a Mixed Economy, and strong governments, in order to achieve this - they will not shy away from acknowledging the faults that such an economy creates, and which need fixing to prevent us going down an unsustainable path.
The Green New Deal, adjusts our economies to preserve Capitalism, by preventing it from continuing down an unsustainable path.

The problem with the Green New Deal is that it promises everything whilst failing to explain how any of the utopian green dream is actually going to be realised...

This from the home of the "Green New Deal"

In a single sub-paragraph, American people are promised “high-quality health care; affordable, safe and adequate housing; economic security; and clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.” There is no further elaboration. Along with the previous guarantee of “a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security,” this vision of American society is beautifully utopian. It quite literally promises the world. Yet each component of this paradise would require massive upheavals. Voters deserve a bit more explanation on how to get from here to there.

Such objections are thought unsportsmanlike by the proposal’s backers. The Green New Deal has people excited in ways think-tank white papers on cap-and-trade schemes never did. Boosters argue that it moves the “Overton window” of political dialogue: towards taking serious action on climate change. The little details, like how to pay for universal health care and a federal jobs guarantee can be dealt with later. 

https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2019/02/11/the-problem-with-the-green-new-deal *

Much of this political social jumbo is greenwash. It's like putting lots of lovely cakes and buns on a table in your front lawn and telling all and sundry to join the party and there will soon more of the same for everybody.

Ask any real questions about how this is supposed to work or even pointing out that a load of the proposed ideas are complete pie in the sky and you will be agressively told that the detail is not important at this point - and we should all just shut up and sign up now to the wonderfully shiney GND !

I dont think so ...

That greta now appears to be the poster child for this hogwash is hardly unsurprising .

https://i.imgflip.com/39zktr.jpg


* subscribe for free access

KyussB

Pretty much everything has been answered, only to be met with "but Communism...".

I've got pretty much a solution to every problem put to me - even stupid/obvious shit like the exact solutions for producing timber in a carbon-negative way - and I'm just met with retarded Communism accusations.

It's the level of discourse you'd expect from a child - one who thinks responding to everything with "but Communism! :rolleyes:" is hilarious.

If it's meant to be humorous or something, it fails to even meet the level of "yore ma" jokes - it's just retarded.

The people spouting that shite aren't even supporters of Capitalism either, because they want Capitalism to run itself into the ground through gradual climate change - instead of leveraging the full power of Capitalist Mixed Economies, to prevent that.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Pretty much everything has been answered, only to be met with "but Communism...".I've got pretty much a solution to every problem put to me - even stupid/obvious shit like the exact solutions for producing timber in a carbon-negative way - and I'm just met with retarded Communism accusations.It's the level of discourse you'd expect from a child - one who thinks responding to everything with "but Communism! :rolleyes:" is hilarious.If it's meant to be humorous or something, it fails to even meet the level of "yore ma" jokes - it's just retarded.The people spouting that shite aren't even supporters of Capitalism either, because they want Capitalism to run itself into the ground through gradual climate change - instead of leveraging the full power of Capitalist Mixed Economies, to prevent that.

Even more "shite"?

You see that's the the type of hogwash the NGD is right there.

No one not even all our best and brightest can "produce timber in a carbon-negative way". Fell a tree for timber, remove the bark, roots and foliage and you lose half the stored carbon right there. Not even a fully qualified arboriculturalist can fix that.

(To paraphrase) Point this or any other reality out and it's reduced to the level of discourse you'd expect from a child - one who thinks responding to everything with "but you're calling me a communist whaaaaaa" :rolleyes:" it is hilarious.

Welcome to the green new deal folks ....

jackboy

KyussB wrote: »

I've got pretty much a solution to every problem put to me - even stupid/obvious shit like the exact solutions for producing timber in a carbon-negative way - and I'm just met with retarded Communism accusations.

It's the level of discourse you'd expect from a child - one who thinks responding to everything with "but Communism! :rolleyes:" is hilarious.

So good discourse is calling people who disagree with you ‘retarded’ and ‘fckwits’?

biko

Every time I hear about communism from young people I want to ship them off to an island for some Lord of the Flies action.