The Environment

DevoHusker said:
It was a post on Twitter based on a WSJ article. I can't find it now. I was certain it quoted tenths...but I could be wrong. 

I don't have WSJ access, but maybe someone who does can find the article.
Click to expand...


The White House and Zero Carbon sources are aiming way high with their projections, so I have no doubt the realistic percentage is much lower. But I'd bet either the WSJ or the Twitter reposter left out some key context to get it that low. Good chance the Twitter reposter has a doozy of a posting history. 

At the same time, the Biden administration has overseen some historically robust U.S. petroleum production, which both Democrats and Republicans are keen to ignore for different reasons. 

Most of the goal-based initiatives are aiming for 2050, and one of the problems with that goal is that there will easily be another billion people on Earth, including those in rapidly developing economies that would have to buy into everything. So I've seen projections that the current pace of EV conversion might only result in a one or two percent carbon reduction by 2050. That's why the initiatives and mandates are getting more aggressive. 

The people who crunch the numbers contend cost is not an issue in converting to alternative energy sources, consumers could save $1,000 a year, billions of dollars in health related costs could be eliminated, and a green energy industry could be a boon to the U.S. economy. The issue is political will, including state and federal cooperation. The chances of things not working exactly as promised are 100%, but that was the case with everything we now deem a success.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/06/220602095102.htm

China and Russia have taken the lead on nuclear power plant production, which could bode well. Or not, if they are substituting speed for safety. 

I have a couple conservative friends who repost rightwing memes on Facebook, and a couple weeks ago the memes went all in on bashing EVs, which they've tied to liberalism in general. Pretty sure that's an orchestrated effort. It would be fun to see where the Venn diagram intersects on EV bashing and Elon Musk supporting. 

 
Scarlet said:
What regulations that are in place are so weak that companies like Tyson just blow them off and chalk up any fines to the cost of doing business.  Imagine the green light given to industries when the EPA is completely neutered under another Trump regime.  
Click to expand...
I don't know of any regulations that would have prevented this.  But, companies that allow this need to have major consequences.  There are lots or people who think those rules shouldn't exist or be greatly reduced.  There are people who think the EPA should be disbanded because they are horrible and we don't need them.

I'm showing an example of where these laws and the EPA is needed.

 
I’m shocked that houses being built where they had no business being built are falling over.   Shocked!   From the article…

North Carolina’s coast is almost entirely made up of narrow, low-lying barrier islands. And a modern wave of tourist-driven development, including acres of pricey vacation homes, has been built in places where it probably should not have been.

 
Archy1221 said:
I’m shocked that houses being built where they had no business being built are falling over.   Shocked!   From the article…

North Carolina’s coast is almost entirely made up of narrow, low-lying barrier islands. And a modern wave of tourist-driven development, including acres of pricey vacation homes, has been built in places where it probably should not have been.
Click to expand...
I know the enviro-bros will lose it but maybe building that close the the water is a bad idea.

I mean, I get wanting to be "on the water" but come on now.

 
Back
Top