-
-
Sheep aren't great, I think pigs are better and fowl are relatively low. All-in-all GHG emissions from livestock globally make up about the same amount as transportation. One important difference to note - while methane is actually a more potent GHG than CO2, it stays in the atmosphere for only about 15 years, as opposed to 100 for CO2. So the best option is to go more plant-based (now I'm not vegetarian myself, but I'm not freaked out by the idea of eating more plant-based products)
I'm sure there's going to be a lot of huge numbers thrown out without context over the next couple of months, as though there's going to be no cost to not doing this and no benefit from having improved rail/electrical infrastructure and no plans for spending money on anything. The reality is the cost to inaction will be immense and is already beginning (I see that Ireland is looking like Canada again for the second year in a row-an unthinkable scenario before I left Cork in 1999, not to mention the direct hit from a hurricane in 2017-this costs lots of money to deal with). Much of the cost will be taken on through private investment if the right incentives are made through subsidies (giving out and removing) and taxes. Also, if the MAGA people could stop acting in a manner that increases emissions just to spite Democrats, that would probably reduce emissions by a fair percentage for a really low cost, and would be nice.
This is a potentially existential crisis for humanity with the potential for massive snowball effects - even President Trump's pet "crisis" of immigration will be larger by orders of magnitude if we don't deal with it fast - it's not as though anybody wants climate change to be happening... but it is. When you think about it that way, even if the $9 Trillion figure you mention over 12 years is correct (roughly the same as US Military spending BTW), then that's a worthwhile investment.Comment
-
Incandescent bulbs have been banned for about a decade now. It was a phasing out: old stock in shops could be sold off, but all new stock had to be energy saving. It meant you could just replace each bulb at home as it blew if you didn't want want to replace them all at once - they were a bit pricey at the time. For new buildings, energy efficient became the standard because you couldn't buy anything else.Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
- E Tattsyrup.Comment
-
There is nothing wrong with a bit of socialism Mark - the idea that if you get sick; you get treatment, the idea that if you end up out of work; you don't end up destitute, the idea that you have a few extra bob in your pocket from the state when you retire are things that are not going to dis-improve US society to any great degree apart from a small initial adjustment. It works practically everywhere else in the world. What I was trying to highlight earlier with the CPAC thread was the Republicans putting the fear of God into people by lying about what the Democrats are doing and people swallow it whole. There are plenty legitimate ways to attack Democratic policy without resorting to this nonsense and Trump has normalized this type of behavior to such an extent that its possibly irreversible. I mean - who is to say another Donald Trump type character won't get elected next?Comment
-
I think it’s funny that you (and RAM) are taking time to defend the Green New Deal when the majority of AOC’s colleagues have swerved sharply to avoid being associated with it. It has been criticized as completely unworkable by quite a few senior ranking members of the DNC.
From my perspective it’s not that we shouldn’t be doing something to combat the causes of man-made climate change but let’s be realistic about it! In addition the USA is leading the way globally in terms of reduction of co2 emissions from energy consumption, by huge amounts. In 2017 they reduced their emissions by 40m tons. China, by comparison, increased their emissions that year by 120m tons. The EU increased emissions in 2017 by over 40m tons. The hypocrisy is astounding when you think about it.I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.Comment
-
Nonsense - look at the list of Co-sponsors:
All prominent Democrats - a few of them are running for president.Comment
-
I see 11, RAM. There are 430 something House of Representatives members.Nonsense - look at the list of Co-sponsors:
All prominent Democrats - a few of them are running for president.I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.Comment
-
Well as posted already there is approx 80% poll support, it has the support of some very prominent Senators - the House may be tougher but I'm not sure the 'majority' as you say are diametrically opposed to it. I have not seen any evidence that some colleagues have "sharply swerved" the Deal either - while many have expressed some doubts on certain aspects of it. No doubt there will be some parts of it that will have to be amended but thats only natural for such a sweeping resolution.Last edited by Real ale Madrid; 04/03/2019, 1:55 PM.Comment
-
You make a lot of decent points to be fair. I have seen the effort to clean up plastics in the oceans in Europe and Asia and that is highly commendable. It can only help in the long run. And I am all for planting two trees to replace one (as the slogan goes). That will surely help down the road also. Indeed, not too long ago I drove past a mountain which had been struck by a tornado. Such devistation I have never seen. Trees ripped from their roots and whole paths cut through the forest. And that was just one isolated weather event. On the other hand the wildfires in the Western US are catastrophic. No trees left for miles upon miles. The ground eventually turns into scrub and then desert and that surely detracts from the earth's ability to absorb toxins in the atmosphere. If this green plan was something more along those lines (cleaning up plastics and planting more trees) - after all America is full of electric cars and energency saving appliances as it is, although there is plenty of room for improvement - it would be more palatable. What people don't like is the apparent ending of air and automobile travel. That is a bit oppressive and controlling to my mind. I can tell you that although it was all the talk a few weeks ago, enthusiasm appears to have cooled and AOC's popularity appears to be on the wane. Although she is still a force to be reckoned with.
Regarding Trump's stance on immigration - it is anything but a pet project. Just recently a truck coming across the Southern border was found to contain enough Fentanyl to kill 60 million Americans (there was another similar incident last year with a larger haul).
Among the regular people who sneak across the border there are all manner of criminals coming in, including some 80,000 MS 13 gang members currently in the country after sneaking across.Comment
-
Is that all you have RAM?
In a way they do fill out a form. On their faces, necks and chests. In permanent marker.I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.Comment
-
What you mean? Do mean to tell me that 80,000 of these guys have come over from Guatemala to the USA from this gang do you? The population of Limerick City. There is no way you would be able to prove that. You might as well say 800 people or 8 million people. Its absolute nonsense.Comment
-
I'm sorry but you have changed your argument. That is not the question you asked of Mark. You didn't dispute the number he posted; you asked how would they know which gang they are in and you enquired whether they fill out a form. My response was nothing to do with the number (because that wasn't what you asked) but was intended to point out that they don't need to fill out forms - a lot of these gangs have certain symbols that they must get tattooed all over their bodies as part of their initiation into said gang. Quite easy to identify. Symbols and identification are kind of a gang thing, RAM.What you mean? Do mean to tell me that 80,000 of these guys have come over from Guatemala to the USA from this gang do you? The population of Limerick City. There is no way you would be able to prove that. You might as well say 800 people or 8 million people. Its absolute nonsense.
You can shout "absolute nonsense" all you like but, before you do, at least try and stay consistent with the information you are challenging and the questions you are asking. It will make for a far more enjoyable experience for all.
If you are deciding to now challenge whether it is 80,000 MS13 members that have crossed the border, my answer is simple. Even if it was just one of these animals that had crossed the border, then it would be one too many and steps should be taken to discourage any more from crossing. Do you agree?I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.Comment
-
I was CLEARLY being facetious Stu. If you thought that the idea of Gang members ticking the affiliated gang on a form was a serious point then I'm not sure how to tease that out any further.
Telling us without back-up that there was 80,000 MS-13 crossing the border into the US is nonsense - if you can back up that figure in any meaningful way from a reasonable source then we can tease it out. I'm not sure I can be more consistent.You can shout "absolute nonsense" all you like but, before you do, at least try and stay consistent with the information you are challenging and the questions you are asking. It will make for a far more enjoyable experience for all.
I do.If you are deciding to now challenge whether it is 80,000 MS13 members that have crossed the border, my answer is simple. Even if it was just one of these animals that had crossed the border, then it would be one too many and steps should be taken to discourage any more from crossing. Do you agree?
But he would save a lot more lives by declaring a National emergency on handguns.Comment
-
I was kind of hoping you would sense the droll sarcasm in my response.
I didn't proffer the statistic. I will repeat. I answered the question you asked "how would they know which gang they are in?". You called my response "absolute nonsense" in the context of a question that was never asked.
I think that is a valid point alright and worthy of some analysis but I would offer the following initial thoughts. Perhaps he has not done that for the same reasons as a litany of other presidents who have also failed to do so when it would have been equally appropriate/inappropriate (delete as applicable). My speculation would be that there are two main reasons why all presidents have chosen not to do so. 1) Money talks and "there aint no money like the NRA money" as the old saying goes (theres no such saying ) - and 2) it would be challenged immediately as an unconstitutional provision going specifically against the 2nd amendment provisions - "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" [edit: which, if successful would likely close the door on the matter completely given the current make-up of the SCOTUS]. In the interest of transparency and to state my position on this issue, I think there should be a full review of the existing restrictions on what arms can be sold to the public an updated list developed, loopholes closed and that the full package should be put to the people (to whom the right belongs) to remove or amend the constitutional right. That referendum would be fascinating. But even that is a risky endeavor from a public safety perspective, not to mention implementation.
Irrespective of my thoughts above, I do think that this is potentially holding Trump to a standard that is higher than that to which his predecessors were held - which I think is unfair.I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.Comment
Comment