I honestly don't know too much about this bill.
If you support the green new deal, you can tell me why I should support it.
If you oppose the green new deal, you can tell me why I should oppose it.
The green new deal
Posts
Total:
8
-->
@TheUnderdog
I oppose the Green New Deal for the following reasons:
1. The "bill" to which you refer is not really binding legislation. It is a resolution, which bears no legislative teeth, i.e. its passage in Congress only means Congress should consider such legislation. The resolution amounts to nothing more than a wish balloon.
2. The resolution's second stated purpose is "Achieving net-zero green house gas emissions." Net-zero does not mean complete elimination [but tell that to Joe Biden, who does not understand the difference between net and gross, and I wonder if the resolutions sponsor, AOC is as confused]. Regardless, the specific GHG everyone targets is CO2. Yes, according to the EPA. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data it is responsible for 65% of all GHGs, but ignores that methane [CH4] is 16% [roughly 4x less], but that ignores that CH4 is a much higher influencer to GHG issues than CO2, by roughly 30x. So, why isn't the GND target CH4? Answer: an agenda, to wit:
3. The resolution calls for "removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agricultural sectors." Fine, but by singling out transportation and agriculture, transport makes sense: its engines are primarily GHG producers from fossil fuel. Why agriculture? Because it also uses a variety of engines, as well - planting, cultivating, and harvesting equipment, all using fossil fuels. However, one may think [and the generic inclusion of "agriculture" conveniently ignores that the natural [as opposed to cultivated] side of agriculture includes a huge portion of GHGs produced by... natural means, such as fermentation of wetlands [natural and cultivated, such as rice!] and microbial emissions, having naught to do with fossil fuels, and the elimination of fossil fuels will do nothing to curb these natural sources, will it? https://e360.yale.edu/features/methane_riddle_what_is_causing_the_rise_in_emissions, https://theprint.in/environment/why-methane-is-a-far-more-dangerous-greenhouse-gas-than-carbon-dioxide/378858/
4. The GND ignores that even green-energy turbine [hydro, geo-thermal, tidal, wind, plus solar panels, plus electric vehicles] use fossil fuel products [oil] to lubricate the moving parts, and fabricate all plastic parts, and all of them would literally seize if fossil fuels were to be eliminated, because nobody has yet invented AlGoreGooeyJuice.
5. The GND states in the the text: "(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses;" This sounds subtle and innocent enough, but the basis of HR109 is another production of AOC, from the Green Party's suggested framework that became HR109, https://www.gp.org/gnd_full which includes in its text, "Create a Commission for Economic Democracy to provide publicity, training, education, and direct financing for cooperative development and for democratic reforms to make government agencies, private associations, and business enterprises more participatory. We will strengthen democracy via participatory budgeting and institutions that encourage local initiative and democratic decision-making." Note the bolded text, and take a guess what "participatory budgeting" means relative to "businesses," i.e., private enterprise: government intervention in private enterprise budgeting in the name of GND. Does Congress have the right to meddle in private industry budgeting. According to the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8... nope. But, does the GNS give a rip about the Constitution? Nope.
There's more, but that's enough to soundly oppose the GND. The whole thing is an agenda, and it does squat for the environment. It isn't green, it isn't new, and it is no deal. It's a power-grab of monumental proportion.
-->
@fauxlaw
4. The GND ignores that even green-energy turbine [hydro, geo-thermal, tidal, wind, plus solar panels, plus electric vehicles] use fossil fuel products [oil] to lubricate the moving parts, and fabricate all plastic parts, and all of them would literally seize if fossil fuels were to be eliminated, because nobody has yet invented AlGoreGooeyJuice.
Vegetable oils can and have been used as lubricants in their natural forms. They have several advantages and disadvantages when considered for industrial and machinery lubrication. On the positive side, vegetable oils can have excellent lubricity, far superior than that of mineral oil.
Lubricity is so potent that in some applications, such as tractor transmissions, friction materials need to be added to reduce clutch slippage. Some crude vegetable oils tested at UNI-ABIL have passed hydraulic pump/wear tests, such as ASTM D2882 and ASTM D2271, in their natural form.
Vegetable oils also have a very high Viscosity Index (VI); for example, 223 for soybean oil vs. 90 to 100 for most petroleum oils. Restated, the viscosity of a high VI oil changes less than that of a low VI oil for a given temperature change. The oil’s viscosity does not reduce as much when exposed to high temperatures, and does not increase as much as petroleum oils when exposed to cool temperatures.
Another important property of vegetable oils is their high flash/fire points; 610°F (326°C) is the flash point of soybean oil compared to a flash point of approximately 392°F (200°C) for mineral oils.
Most importantly, vegetable oils are biodegradable, in general are less toxic, are renewable and reduce dependency on imported petroleum oils. Additionally, using lubricants and greases made of soybean oil helps reduce soybean surpluses and helps stabilize soy prices for American farmers. For most industrial machinery users these products offer considerable public relations benefits and goodwill within the agricultural community.
Lubricity is so potent that in some applications, such as tractor transmissions, friction materials need to be added to reduce clutch slippage. Some crude vegetable oils tested at UNI-ABIL have passed hydraulic pump/wear tests, such as ASTM D2882 and ASTM D2271, in their natural form.
Vegetable oils also have a very high Viscosity Index (VI); for example, 223 for soybean oil vs. 90 to 100 for most petroleum oils. Restated, the viscosity of a high VI oil changes less than that of a low VI oil for a given temperature change. The oil’s viscosity does not reduce as much when exposed to high temperatures, and does not increase as much as petroleum oils when exposed to cool temperatures.
Another important property of vegetable oils is their high flash/fire points; 610°F (326°C) is the flash point of soybean oil compared to a flash point of approximately 392°F (200°C) for mineral oils.
Most importantly, vegetable oils are biodegradable, in general are less toxic, are renewable and reduce dependency on imported petroleum oils. Additionally, using lubricants and greases made of soybean oil helps reduce soybean surpluses and helps stabilize soy prices for American farmers. For most industrial machinery users these products offer considerable public relations benefits and goodwill within the agricultural community.
UNI-ABIL has licensed 16 formulated lubricants, greases and base oils made of high oleic soybeans that have been genetically enhanced for stability. These products meet and exceed industry requirements, and many do not cost much more than their petroleum counterparts. If these products can compete in performance and price, their environmental benefits will make them even more appealing to users.
Products currently available from soybean oils include: tractor transmission hydraulic fluid, industrial hydraulic fluids for process and machinery applications, food-grade hydraulic fluids and greases, greases for use in automotive, railroad and machinery applications, chainsaw bar oil, gear lubes, compressor oil, and transformer and transmission line cooling fluids. Currently, field tests are continuing on two-cycle engine oils, metalworking fluids and other specialty lubricants.
Products currently available from soybean oils include: tractor transmission hydraulic fluid, industrial hydraulic fluids for process and machinery applications, food-grade hydraulic fluids and greases, greases for use in automotive, railroad and machinery applications, chainsaw bar oil, gear lubes, compressor oil, and transformer and transmission line cooling fluids. Currently, field tests are continuing on two-cycle engine oils, metalworking fluids and other specialty lubricants.
-->
@FLRW
Vegetable oil as lubricant:
Sure, in the abstract, sounds good.
But, veg-oil has poor performance in oxidative and hydrolytic stability, resulting in reduced motor longevity, and that consequence worsens with use of re-processed oils from other, earlier uses.
-->
@fauxlaw
2. The resolution's second stated purpose is "Achieving net-zero green house gas emissions." Net-zero does not mean complete elimination [but tell that to Joe Biden, who does not understand the difference between net and gross, and I wonder if the resolutions sponsor, AOC is as confused]. Regardless, the specific GHG everyone targets is CO2. Yes, according to the EPA. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data it is responsible for 65% of all GHGs, but ignores that methane [CH4] is 16% [roughly 4x less], but that ignores that CH4 is a much higher influencer to GHG issues than CO2, by roughly 30x. So, why isn't the GND target CH4? Answer: an agenda, to wit:
It seems that CO2 is still the largest contributor to the warming effect. Hence why there is a focus on greenhouse gases in general rather than any particular gas.
3. The resolution calls for "removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agricultural sectors." Fine, but by singling out transportation and agriculture, transport makes sense: its engines are primarily GHG producers from fossil fuel. Why agriculture? Because it also uses a variety of engines, as well - planting, cultivating, and harvesting equipment, all using fossil fuels. However, one may think [and the generic inclusion of "agriculture" conveniently ignores that the natural [as opposed to cultivated] side of agriculture includes a huge portion of GHGs produced by... natural means, such as fermentation of wetlands [natural and cultivated, such as rice!] and microbial emissions, having naught to do with fossil fuels, and the elimination of fossil fuels will do nothing to curb these natural sources, will it? https://e360.yale.edu/features/methane_riddle_what_is_causing_the_rise_in_emissions, https://theprint.in/environment/why-methane-is-a-far-more-dangerous-greenhouse-gas-than-carbon-dioxide/378858/
When one thinks of agriculture as a producer of greenhouse gases, one thinks of cows that fart, not tractors. At anyrate the GND focuses on sustainable farming and land use practices which addresses your gripes I think.
4. The GND ignores that even green-energy turbine [hydro, geo-thermal, tidal, wind, plus solar panels, plus electric vehicles] use fossil fuel products [oil] to lubricate the moving parts, and fabricate all plastic parts, and all of them would literally seize if fossil fuels were to be eliminated, because nobody has yet invented AlGoreGooeyJuice.
The GND does not assert that all fossil fuels should be eliminated. This concern doesn't even make sense.
5. The GND states in the the text: "(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses;" This sounds subtle and innocent enough, but the basis of HR109 is another production of AOC, from the Green Party's suggested framework that became HR109, https://www.gp.org/gnd_full which includes in its text, "Create a Commission for Economic Democracy to provide publicity, training, education, and direct financing for cooperative development and for democratic reforms to make government agencies, private associations, and business enterprises more participatory. We will strengthen democracy via participatory budgeting and institutions that encourage local initiative and democratic decision-making." Note the bolded text, and take a guess what "participatory budgeting" means relative to "businesses," i.e., private enterprise: government intervention in private enterprise budgeting in the name of GND. Does Congress have the right to meddle in private industry budgeting. According to the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8... nope. But, does the GNS give a rip about the Constitution? Nope.
Nonsensical mumbo jumbo.
There's more, but that's enough to soundly oppose the GND. The whole thing is an agenda, and it does squat for the environment. It isn't green, it isn't new, and it is no deal. It's a power-grab of monumental proportion.
Not that I'm advocating for the GND, but your justifications for opposing it are intellectually bankrupt.
-->
@dustryder
It seems that CO2 is still the largest contributor to the warming effect.
When one does not understand the effect of a 30x factor of heat-retaining property, yes, that is the ignorant conclusion. With percentage being a constant factor where in 2% is twice 1%, and 65% [the contribution of CO2 to heat retentive GHGs] is twice 32.5%, one must nevertheless realize that that CH4 has a 30x factor increase in heat retentive capability over CO2. Therefore, if CO2's 65% is causing a rise in temperature of 1 degree C, CH4's 16% cause of GHG heat-retention effect, is:
65 / 16 = 4.06, therefore, there is 4x more CO2 than CH4 in the atmosphere.
30 : 1 is the ratio of Ch4's effect of heat retention over CO2.
Therefore, CH4's increased change is of much higher effect than CO2
The GND is after the wrong GHG, period. And, GND ignores that the primary source of atmospheric CH4 is NOT fossil fuels, but microbial activity, i.e. every living thing on Earth farts, including rice paddies more than cows. Inconvenient? Well, the GND prophet AlGore said it was inconvenient, didn't he? He was just misinformed about what the inconvenience really is. Pure and simple. GND is an agenda, not science. What's the agenda? Answered above in my #2.
-->
@fauxlaw
The GND is after the wrong GHG, period.
The GND is not after any GHG in particular. The idea that the GND specifically focuses on CO2 and not CH4 is nonsensical fiction.
And, GND ignores that the primary source of atmospheric CH4 is NOT fossil fuels, but microbial activity, i.e. every living thing on Earth farts, including rice paddies more than cows.
The GND indicates that agriculture (and by agriculture, not tractors as you seem to think) is a specific concern when targeting a reduction of greenhouse gases. Unless we have redefined what agriculture is, it's fair to say that emissions related to rice paddies (not excessively relevant to the US I would assume) and cows are covered under the green new deal.
-->
@fauxlaw
Lol, USA is in a deathspiral.
Buy crypto, and make an exit plan.