Indeed it could reduce the need for short haul air travel, but that's as far as it goes.

Europe is ahead of America when it comes to high speed rail networks. One thing is that just about every sizeable airport in Europe has a railway station right at the airport, that's something you hardly see in America. Having a rail station at the airport makes a rail-plane combination a viable option, lots of trains in Europe have flight numbers on them and are bookable as feeder flights. You arrive on a long haul flight and instead of taking a feeder flight to your final destination you take a high speed train. All on one ticket.

In order to implement this in America you'd have to restructure entire cities as there are no railway lines near the airports and there's no room to build them either. That's an impossible task. The easiest way would be to close the existing airports and build new ones in places that can be accessed by high speed rail. In some cases, that would sooner or later have to happen anyway.

But as said, even here in Europe all those high speed railway networks don't make air travel totally obsolete. When the distance becomes too big we still fly. However what you do see in America and you don't see in Europe is smaller cities have a regional airline fly to the nearest hub. In Europe such distances are covered by train, making those regional flights obsolete. Flights at regional airports are often bypassing the nearest hub and going straight to the next hub. After all, that's a distance that's too far by train so people fly.

In addition to this, one thing that struck me when I was visiting the USA is that very few railway lines are electrified. At least, I didn't see any other than the tram lines. In Europe almost every railway track is electrified, you hardly see any diesel trains anymore. In America, almost every train runs on diesel. That pollutes a lot more than the electric trains that are common in Europe. In fact, the power for the railway electrification mostly comes from green energy sources like wind. Here in the Netherlands our country is full of windmills, we even got "windfarms" at the North Sea. They produce a lot of our energy resources including the entire railway network.

Dutchy wrote:

You do not seem to understand, we need to cut our CO2 emissions (and other emissions) by 95% of the 1990 levels in 2050.

Oh nonsense. First - because it isn't going to happen. End of story.

As for electric vehicles, the best reason to push them is because it is a superior driving experience.

mham001 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

You do not seem to understand, we need to cut our CO2 emissions (and other emissions) by 95% of the 1990 levels in 2050.

Oh nonsense. First - because it isn't going to happen. End of story.

As for electric vehicles, the best reason to push them is because it is a superior driving experience.

The real story of whay Electric vehicled work, is beause for the consumer, it is a direct transfer of chemical energy into power, without the combusion/heat transtion in the middle. Fossil Fuels are easy to obtain for now, but the transition to solar and wind power is gaining traction.

CO2 emissions will trend downwards as renewables accelerate .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics
https://www.iea.org/renewables2018/

Renewables will have the fastest growth in the electricity sector, providing almost 30% of power demand in 2023, up from 24% in 2017. During this period, renewables are forecast to meet more than 70% of global electricity generation growth, led by solar PV and followed by wind, hydropower, and bioenergy. Hydropower remains the largest renewable source, meeting 16% of global electricity demand by 2023, followed by wind (6%), solar PV (4%), and bioenergy (3%).

AirFiero wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

It's just not profitable when you include infrastructure costs.

And that's the problem.

I'm honestly amazed that America is able to land people on the Moon, given that the venture is obviously not a profitable one. I mean, how can you profit from a bunch of moon rocks?

Forty years after Apollo 11 moon landing, consumers reap benefits of giant (technological) leaps

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/new ... /index.htm

Exactly. The Apollo program IN ITSELF is not a profitable venture, but the technologies developed from it has a multitude of benefits for everyone.

And the HSR can do the same thing too from a macroeconomic standpoint. People can benefit from it. But all you people ever think of is whether the train system is profitable.

bluestreak wrote:

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to make air travel obsolete:

Link : https://www.foxnews.com/politics/green- ... ng-to-work

In my opinion, it won't happen, definitely not in 10 years. Do you actually think air travel will become obsolete in the next 20-30 years?

That was Tucker Carlson's lie, and he was called out on it on national television. Ocasio-Cortez corrected him. Fox is simply perpetuating the lie, as they often do.

There is no intent to make air travel obsolete.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

And the HSR can do the same thing too from a macroeconomic standpoint. People can benefit from it. But all you people ever think of is whether the train system is profitable.

An HSR system CAN have macro-economic benefit, IF travel demand is not already saturated (which it is in the US). HSR has no inherent speed or price benefit over air travel.
You can obviously subsidize it enough to make it significantly cheaper than air travel, but that would not yield any macro benefit whilst costing wild amounts of tax payer money and at the same time impairing private enterprise (airlines). A full on disaster.

In the US, there is only one instance where an HSR could make sense from a macro standpoint - that's the Washington-New York-Boston route where it could free up capacity at the overly congested airports to be deployed elsewhere.

There is no other application in the US that would yield even a remotely acceptable cost-benefit ratio. One of the dumbest infrastructure projects ever is probably the LA-SF HSR project. Doesn't make any sense in the first place and is cripplingly expensive on top of that. The people who decided to spend our money on that crap should be in jail.

Dutchy wrote:

So you can interpret data all by yourself? Better than the scientist of the IPCC? Those are the best scientific hypotheses we have. Climate denier is thus someone whom denies mainstream science.

The IPCC is not a scientific, but a political body that is promoting select scientific positions as having no alternative (in a rather Merkel-esque manner). The idea that all scientists agree with the IPCC position is pure nonsense with no foundation in reality. I hate to repeat myself, but there has been no conclusive proof that human GHG emissions are causing or even just accelerating climate change - all there is are correlations and indications, but as long as there just as many that point in the other direction, making huge policy decisions on that basis is just garbage.

mham001 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

You do not seem to understand, we need to cut our CO2 emissions (and other emissions) by 95% of the 1990 levels in 2050.

Oh nonsense. First - because it isn't going to happen. End of story.

As for electric vehicles, the best reason to push them is because it is a superior driving experience.

This. We need some common sense in this debate. It doesn't matter one bit if humans cause climate change or not. Since the emerging nations won't play along and we can't force them to, there is no hope of cutting GHG emissions in such an extreme way. Anyone who says otherwise or tries to convince people (be that just himself) that it IS possible is living in a dream world. Those people cause gross misappropriation of our assets and will cripple our ability to combat the inevitable effects of climate change. The sooner the mainstream realizes this, the better will we all be off.

I am a fan of electric vehicles and I hope they replace gas cars, but only because that will improve inner city air and noise and they are fun to drive. And, most importantly, any movement towards EVs must be because it makes economic sense. Not because of some abstractly constructed climate change crap.
The same goes for renewable power sources.

Kno wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Then again, we haven’t built a sizable new airport in decades—DEN and RSW might be the last ones for airline ops, neither was especially hard to find open land for.

GF

RSW simply has a new terminal I wouldn't say its a new airport

RSW opened as a new airport replacing FMY in 1983. Do keep up. The new central terminal was built 2006-ish.

GF

seb146 wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Less pollution, a better planet for every human? Or do you believe that your freedom to pollute succeeds the freedom for others to live? Think island nations in the Pacific Ocean whom are set to be submerged in a few decades.

More "straw man" arguments. I never said anything nor implied that I didn't care about pollution. You will NOT put words in my mouth.

And FYI, CO2 isn't pollution.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... pollution/
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overvi ... ouse-gases
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... n-dioxide/

The science people agree that CO2 is a pollutant, FYI.

Life cannot exist without CO2, it governs our respiration and it’s essential to plant life. Doesn’t sound too polluting to me, btw, it’s been at far higher levels than today.

GF

747Whale wrote:

That was Tucker Carlson's lie, and he was called out on it on national television. Ocasio-Cortez corrected him. Fox is simply perpetuating the lie, as they often do.

There is no intent to make air travel obsolete.

Well, if you look at the actual text, it's here:

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document ... w-Deal-FAQ

It says air travel will become unnecessary, not obsolete.

The woman's mad.

AirFiero wrote:

And FYI, CO2 isn't pollution.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Life cannot exist without CO2, it governs our respiration and it’s essential to plant life. Doesn’t sound too polluting to me, btw, it’s been at far higher levels than today.
GF

GF - you are undoubtedly a very experienced and very knowledgeable pilot, but don't over-reach yourself with this science stuff.

The human body (and indeed most animal life) has evolved to function at certain CO² levels.
Many species can survive at different CO² levels, up to a point.
It is even possible that us humans could thrive at increased CO² levels - after several hundred thousand years of Darwinian adaptation.

We don't have that timescale on our side.

There has been a 40% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO²), from 280 ppm in 1750 to 406 ppm in early 2017. This coincides with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, massive population growth, intensive farming, and the reduction of natural CO² sinks such as rainforests.
There has also been a dramatic increase in asthma and other breathing disorders..
When I was young, asthma was mostly an inconvenience that prevented you from joining in school sports. No biggie.
In 2015 it caused about 397,100 deaths, and the number of asthma sufferers has increased from 183 million in 1990 to 358 million just 25 years later.

Let's examine your statement bit by bit.

Life cannot exist without CO2,

It governs our respiration and X

Under normal conditions the human breathing depth and rate is automatically, and unconsciously, controlled by several homeostatic mechanisms which keep the partial pressures of carbon dioxide and oxygen in the arterial blood constant.
Or in simple terms; CO² produced within our bodies, and therefore in our blood governs our respiration; CO² in the surrounding atmosphere does not

and it’s essential to plant life.

Doesn’t sound too polluting to me, X

it’s been at far higher levels than today

- now do some proper research to see how those higher levels impacted life on earth.
Spoiler alert; it's not good news.

Congratulations on providing a variety of simple statements that between them were a mixture of truth, half-truth, and outright falsehoods.
aka a "smoke screen"
In total, none of what you said advances your argument for ignoring CO² production from internal combustion engines.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

More "straw man" arguments. I never said anything nor implied that I didn't care about pollution. You will NOT put words in my mouth.

And FYI, CO2 isn't pollution.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... pollution/
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overvi ... ouse-gases
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... n-dioxide/

The science people agree that CO2 is a pollutant, FYI.

Life cannot exist without CO2, it governs our respiration and it’s essential to plant life. Doesn’t sound too polluting to me, btw, it’s been at far higher levels than today.

GF

There is no such thing as too much water, either? Like during Katrina? No such thing as too much nuclear energy? Like Chernobyl? No such thing as too much heat? Like Phoenix? No such thing as too much morphine?

Too much is fine? Sulfur is naturally occurring, too. Try living off that.

seb146 wrote:

[There is no such thing as too much water, either? Like during Katrina? No such thing as too much nuclear energy? Like Chernobyl? No such thing as too much heat? Like Phoenix? No such thing as too much morphine?

Too much is fine? Sulfur is naturally occurring, too. Try living off that.

Is water a pollutant? Is nuclear energy a pollutant? Is energy (heat) a pollutant? Etc.

Classifying CO2 as a pollutant is one of a long line of anti-science lies the climate alarmists have made for the purpose of advancing an agenda.

MSPNWA wrote:

seb146 wrote:

[There is no such thing as too much water, either? Like during Katrina? No such thing as too much nuclear energy? Like Chernobyl? No such thing as too much heat? Like Phoenix? No such thing as too much morphine?

Too much is fine? Sulfur is naturally occurring, too. Try living off that.

Is water a pollutant?

Yes. It kills thousands a year and carries deadly pollutants very easily.

Is nuclear energy a pollutant?

Yes. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Trojan

Is energy (heat) a pollutant?

Yes. Thousands are killed each year by heat. In Las Vegas, Phoenix. Riyadh, Libya, and what temperature is electricity?

Classifying CO2 as a pollutant is one of a long line of anti-science lies the climate alarmists have made for the purpose of advancing an agenda.

Live in a tent with only CO2 and your regular food diet for one week and tell us if your body is polluted by CO2 or not. Let the doctors examine and tell us, too. And not those fake orange man doctors but REAL doctors who have studied the cardio-vascular system their whole lives.

I always laugh when I see people from the West praise Socialism or how they promote expensive clean energies. Please, I come from a non-Western nation which suffered a great deal from Socialism. On top of that, the only way all of your countries can afford to pay for these expensive social programs is by exploiting poorer countries far away from your comfortable homes.

I sincerely hope all of you end up embracing full Socialism because it will eventually lead to Communism whose side-effects linger for generations after the regime has collapsed. Communism and Socialism regimes are basically a group of generally incompetent people getting hold of power which enables them to finally put their unsustainable ideas into motion. AOC's ideas remind me of when Communist Hungary tried to grow lemons for export. Why? Well just because someone believed it can be done. His feelings, hopes and desires were given priority over common sense.

Running a country is a difficult task and it requires a group of well educated visionaries. Giving so much attention to a broke, brainless ex-waitress from Bronx surely isn't the right way forward. I speak from personal experience, so I know first-hand how much damage these people can do.

I, for one, LOVE the "Green New Deal" as proposed; it's a surefire way to drive independent voters into the arms of the GOP in the next election cycle.

I can't wait for the #MABA hats to start showing up; "Make Alexandria a Bartender Again!"

Blerg wrote:

I always laugh when I see people from the West praise Socialism or how they promote expensive clean energies. Please, I come from a non-Western nation which suffered a great deal from Socialism. On top of that, the only way all of your countries can afford to pay for these expensive social programs is by exploiting poorer countries far away from your comfortable homes.

I sincerely hope all of you end up embracing full Socialism because it will eventually lead to Communism whose side-effects linger for generations after the regime has collapsed. Communism and Socialism regimes are basically a group of generally incompetent people getting hold of power which enables them to finally put their unsustainable ideas into motion. AOC's ideas remind me of when Communist Hungary tried to grow lemons for export. Why? Well just because someone believed it can be done. His feelings, hopes and desires were given priority over common sense.

Running a country is a difficult task and it requires a group of well educated visionaries. Giving so much attention to a broke, brainless ex-waitress from Bronx surely isn't the right way forward. I speak from personal experience, so I know first-hand how much damage these people can do.

Authoritarianism looks pretty similar whether you call it capitalism or communism. You're still slaves to a douche bag dictator and his cronies. I don't get why so few people understand this.

This bill is a pipe dream by somebody who doesn't quite have a grasp on reality.

I think we are a long way from being able to phase out air travel, even on short hauls. Just look at the domestic air travel between Tokyo airports and Kansai airports. The train definitely takes it's a share of passengers, but air travel is taking a good amount of the air travel.

I'm wondering about the logistics of getting from San Francisco to Los Angeles on a plane. My home airport is OAK, and I can fly to any of LA airports pretty much at my convenience through out the day, so the plane will be more convenient. If I'm careful with my cost- it can cheaper. It's one thing if my destination is close to Union Station, but if it's in Fullerton or Thousand Oaks, it might be easier to choose the closer airport

As far as I can tell, trains are competitive in the best circumstances with distances inside of 200km, or just over the 120 mile mark. High speed trains are good to maybe 500km. After that, it's a bit of novelty SF to LA, it works, but SF to Seattle? That flight is an easy 2 hours, and I doubt we can get a train to do it in 6. Chicago to New York is another. It's 2 1/2 hours on a plane, but can a train do it in 7 hours?

AirFiero wrote:

Also, if it is takes more jobs to produce the same amount of energy, that energy will have to cost more. Does anyone understand economics??

It does not just matter how many jobs there are, it also matters where they are created. Renewable energy jobs are usually close to where power is created, fossil energy jobs are often in Saudi Arabia. I gladly unemploy 1000 people there to have 500 more people employed here.

Best regards
Thomas

Jouhou wrote:

Blerg wrote:

I always laugh when I see people from the West praise Socialism or how they promote expensive clean energies. Please, I come from a non-Western nation which suffered a great deal from Socialism. On top of that, the only way all of your countries can afford to pay for these expensive social programs is by exploiting poorer countries far away from your comfortable homes.

I sincerely hope all of you end up embracing full Socialism because it will eventually lead to Communism whose side-effects linger for generations after the regime has collapsed. Communism and Socialism regimes are basically a group of generally incompetent people getting hold of power which enables them to finally put their unsustainable ideas into motion. AOC's ideas remind me of when Communist Hungary tried to grow lemons for export. Why? Well just because someone believed it can be done. His feelings, hopes and desires were given priority over common sense.

Running a country is a difficult task and it requires a group of well educated visionaries. Giving so much attention to a broke, brainless ex-waitress from Bronx surely isn't the right way forward. I speak from personal experience, so I know first-hand how much damage these people can do.

Authoritarianism looks pretty similar whether you call it capitalism or communism. You're still slaves to a douche bag dictator and his cronies. I don't get why so few people understand this.

Because they get fooled by unrealistic notions such as freedom and equality. Both of these were promoted by all socialist/communist regimes around the world. First thing they did once they got hold of power was to massacre thousands or even millions of people. All that was needed for you to get a visit in the middle of the night was to have a different opinion or to be smart enough to argue with these raw thugs.

bluestreak wrote:

Do you actually think air travel will become obsolete in the next 20-30 years?

Save for an extinction-level event, no.

Blerg wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

Blerg wrote:

I always laugh when I see people from the West praise Socialism or how they promote expensive clean energies. Please, I come from a non-Western nation which suffered a great deal from Socialism. On top of that, the only way all of your countries can afford to pay for these expensive social programs is by exploiting poorer countries far away from your comfortable homes.

I sincerely hope all of you end up embracing full Socialism because it will eventually lead to Communism whose side-effects linger for generations after the regime has collapsed. Communism and Socialism regimes are basically a group of generally incompetent people getting hold of power which enables them to finally put their unsustainable ideas into motion. AOC's ideas remind me of when Communist Hungary tried to grow lemons for export. Why? Well just because someone believed it can be done. His feelings, hopes and desires were given priority over common sense.

Running a country is a difficult task and it requires a group of well educated visionaries. Giving so much attention to a broke, brainless ex-waitress from Bronx surely isn't the right way forward. I speak from personal experience, so I know first-hand how much damage these people can do.

Authoritarianism looks pretty similar whether you call it capitalism or communism. You're still slaves to a douche bag dictator and his cronies. I don't get why so few people understand this.

Because they get fooled by unrealistic notions such as freedom and equality. Both of these were promoted by all socialist/communist regimes around the world. First thing they did once they got hold of power was to massacre thousands or even millions of people. All that was needed for you to get a visit in the middle of the night was to have a different opinion or to be smart enough to argue with these raw thugs.

Do you know what Portugal did to their communists? The problem has always been authoritarianism.

I blame both communist and Islamist revolutions on their need to reject the influence of their old colonial powers. The old powers drew national borders without regard to ethnic and cultural boundaries. The colonial powers exploited these places economically for a long time. They created an identity crisis in these places, where autocrats exploited nationalist and populist sentiments to seize power.

Capitalism doesn't make you immune to that. We see it now in the US where various entities have synthesized a national identity crisis and proceeded to exploit it to create those same nationalist and populist sentiments.

maps4ltd wrote:

The woman's mad.

I wouldn't say that, but she's out of touch with reality. She's heading the right way, but she's in it too far.

Spark94541 wrote:

It's 2 1/2 hours on a plane, but can a train do it in 7 hours?

True, but if you got all the time in the world, why wouldn't you take the train? Specially if the train would be much cheaper than flying.

And that's just the problem as it is, the train is hardly cheaper than flying. In some cases it's even more expensive. This can be solved in two ways, either make air travel more expensive or make the train cheaper.

aviationaware wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So you can interpret data all by yourself? Better than the scientist of the IPCC? Those are the best scientific hypotheses we have. Climate denier is thus someone whom denies mainstream science.

The IPCC is not a scientific, but a political body that is promoting select scientific positions as having no alternative (in a rather Merkel-esque manner). The idea that all scientists agree with the IPCC position is pure nonsense with no foundation in reality. I hate to repeat myself, but there has been no conclusive proof that human GHG emissions are causing or even just accelerating climate change - all there is are correlations and indications, but as long as there just as many that point in the other direction, making huge policy decisions on that basis is just garbage.

IPCC is a hybrid scientific and political body. If anything they are too conservative in their conclusions because they take into account countries with huge fossil fuel reserves.
No conclusive proof? What is conclusive proof? It doesn't work like that in science. It is a scientific hypothesis thus it is a good basis for policy decisions. What else would you like to base policy on? Your feelings perhaps?

aviationaware wrote:

mham001 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

You do not seem to understand, we need to cut our CO2 emissions (and other emissions) by 95% of the 1990 levels in 2050.

Oh nonsense. First - because it isn't going to happen. End of story.

As for electric vehicles, the best reason to push them is because it is a superior driving experience.

This. We need some common sense in this debate. It doesn't matter one bit if humans cause climate change or not. Since the emerging nations won't play along and we can't force them to, there is no hope of cutting GHG emissions in such an extreme way. Anyone who says otherwise or tries to convince people (be that just himself) that it IS possible is living in a dream world. Those people cause gross misappropriation of our assets and will cripple our ability to combat the inevitable effects of climate change. The sooner the mainstream realizes this, the better will we all be off.

Ok, then we can write off around 70% of the Netherlands and Florida to take it more home to you. Thanks for your selfishness.

MSPNWA wrote:

seb146 wrote:

[There is no such thing as too much water, either? Like during Katrina? No such thing as too much nuclear energy? Like Chernobyl? No such thing as too much heat? Like Phoenix? No such thing as too much morphine?

Too much is fine? Sulfur is naturally occurring, too. Try living off that.

Is water a pollutant? Is nuclear energy a pollutant? Is energy (heat) a pollutant? Etc.

Classifying CO2 as a pollutant is one of a long line of anti-science lies the climate alarmists have made for the purpose of advancing an agenda.

The key word is balance. Planet earth needs a balance of all that it needs to function just like the human body needs to have a balance
of everything it needs. As long as all needs are balanced everything is just fine but as soon as you start to shift the balance problems starts to happen.
It's called homoeostasis (when applied to living organisms) https://medical-dictionary.thefreedicti ... moeostasis

Oxygen is not a pollutant but too much oxygen and it will cause hyperoxia which will damage your body. Too little oxygen and it will cause hypoxia.
Too little water and sustainable life will be limited and too much water will cause floodings and etc.The human body needs water to function but too
little and we get dehydrated and too much water will cause hyperhydration/water intoxication.
All of your body's needs will/can be dangerous/problematic in too large concentrations/quantities.

All this goes for earth as well. Too little CO2 and not enough oxygen will be produced. Too much co2 and the plants/trees can' deal with it and
co2 concentration in the air increased contributing to the greenhouse effect and can also be toxic for humans/animals.

Reducing emission of pollutants (including co2) can never be a negative thing.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

More "straw man" arguments. I never said anything nor implied that I didn't care about pollution. You will NOT put words in my mouth.

And FYI, CO2 isn't pollution.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... pollution/
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overvi ... ouse-gases
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... n-dioxide/

The science people agree that CO2 is a pollutant, FYI.

Life cannot exist without CO2, it governs our respiration and it’s essential to plant life. Doesn’t sound too polluting to me, btw, it’s been at far higher levels than today.

GF

Yes, it has been at far higher levels than today, the world looked way different than today.
Just be honest and say: I do not want to change my life in any way, I think my life standard is way more important than the wellbeing of others and I do not care about the consequences because most will not hurt me personally.

Then you would be at least honest, instead of making a fool of yourself by making this kind of statements.

Jouhou wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

Authoritarianism looks pretty similar whether you call it capitalism or communism. You're still slaves to a douche bag dictator and his cronies. I don't get why so few people understand this.

Because they get fooled by unrealistic notions such as freedom and equality. Both of these were promoted by all socialist/communist regimes around the world. First thing they did once they got hold of power was to massacre thousands or even millions of people. All that was needed for you to get a visit in the middle of the night was to have a different opinion or to be smart enough to argue with these raw thugs.

Do you know what Portugal did to their communists? The problem has always been authoritarianism.

I blame both communist and Islamist revolutions on their need to reject the influence of their old colonial powers. The old powers drew national borders without regard to ethnic and cultural boundaries. The colonial powers exploited these places economically for a long time. They created an identity crisis in these places, where autocrats exploited nationalist and populist sentiments to seize power.

Capitalism doesn't make you immune to that. We see it now in the US where various entities have synthesized a national identity crisis and proceeded to exploit it to create those same nationalist and populist sentiments.

Colonial powers might have exploited many colonies they had control over but equally so, they improved the living standards by bringing new knowledge. Furthermore, colonialism ended some 70 years ago. If those countries are still suffering we can no longer blame it on the Europeans. Let's not forget that Europeans didn't really find technologically advanced societies in sub-Saharan African when they arrived. If several generations are refusing to reform then it's on them.

Capitalism might not be perfect but for the time being it's the best solution, especially when compared to Socialism.

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:

The key word is balance. Planet earth needs a balance of all that it needs to function just like the human body needs to have a balance
of everything it needs. As long as all needs are balanced everything is just fine but as soon as you start to shift the balance problems starts to happen.
It's called homoeostasis (when applied to living organisms) https://medical-dictionary.thefreedicti ... moeostasis

Oxygen is not a pollutant but too much oxygen and it will cause hyperoxia which will damage your body. Too little oxygen and it will cause hypoxia.
Too little water and sustainable life will be limited and too much water will cause floodings and etc.The human body needs water to function but too
little and we get dehydrated and too much water will cause hyperhydration/water intoxication.
All of your body's needs will/can be dangerous/problematic in too large concentrations/quantities.

Good stuff so far...

All this goes for earth as well. Too little CO2 and not enough oxygen will be produced. Too much co2 and the plants/trees can' deal with it and
co2 concentration in the air increased contributing to the greenhouse effect and can also be toxic for humans/animals.

I regret I cannot award a green tick to these final statements

If I may offer some clarification; regarding "not enough oxygen will be produced". I understand what you are trying to say, but the numbers don't work that way.
Currently we have an atmosphere comprised of nitrogen (about 78%), oxygen (about 21%), argon (about 0.9%) , carbon dioxide (0.04%) and other gases in trace amounts.
You can probably already see where your statement falls down now.

Also; brief increases in CO² can be dealt with by natural processes, over time.
Sustained increases, combined with a reduction in plant matter across the globe, is a recipe for disaster. Long term the planet will recover, but sensitive delicate organisms (that's us!) will be wiped out long before the recovery process makes things right again.

I would also add that CO² concentrations in the air would have to increase dramatically before it has a direct toxic effect on human or animal life.
It is the indirect effects that will kill us, …. or make us wish we were dead.

Reducing emission of pollutants (including co2) can never be a negative thing.

Blerg wrote:

Capitalism might not be perfect but for the time being it's the best solution, especially when compared to Socialism.

You think in absolutes. Capitalism needs to be contained, market forces are great, but need to have a strong government as a market master to regulate capitalism and have a good liveable future for most of the citizens.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

maps4ltd wrote:

The woman's mad.

I wouldn't say that, but she's out of touch with reality. She's heading the right way, but she's in it too far.

Spark94541 wrote:

It's 2 1/2 hours on a plane, but can a train do it in 7 hours?

True, but if you got all the time in the world, why wouldn't you take the train?

Just because you have all the time in the world, why must you be forced to use it all up on a train?

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Specially if the train would be much cheaper than flying.

But nowhere near safer over up to thousands of miles including countless thousands of grade crossings...Or do you also want to spend the money to bridge every last paved and unpaved country road crossing in the middle of nowhere?

PatrickZ80 wrote:

And that's just the problem as it is, the train is hardly cheaper than flying. In some cases it's even more expensive. This can be solved in two ways, either make air travel more expensive or make the train cheaper.

Neither "solves" anything...but for the academic sake of a ridiculous pipe dream.

Dutchy wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Capitalism might not be perfect but for the time being it's the best solution, especially when compared to Socialism.

You think in absolutes. Capitalism needs to be contained, market forces are great, but need to have a strong government as a market master to regulate capitalism and have a good liveable future for most of the citizens.

Capitalism can be contained but I haven't seen a full socialist/communist regime being contained. It only keeps on expanding until the balloon bursts.

Blerg wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Capitalism might not be perfect but for the time being it's the best solution, especially when compared to Socialism.

You think in absolutes. Capitalism needs to be contained, market forces are great, but need to have a strong government as a market master to regulate capitalism and have a good liveable future for most of the citizens.

Capitalism can be contained but I haven't seen a full socialist/communist regime being contained. It only keeps on expanding until the balloon bursts.

Whom here is advocating communism?

So can we leave the climate problems deniers and ethnic cleansing deniers at one side and move forward and look how we all can achieve the Paris goals of 2050. This Green-New-Deal is a great start and hopefully is the beginning of this creeping into mainstream American politics.

tjwgrr wrote:

I'll be thrilled if this is their platform in 2020. A real gift.

I wish aoc was 35, trump would eat her alive!
They are just ignoring history, and it’s sad because if they actually get this running we will see the beginning of the end for our great country

aviationaware wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Never mind, if AirFiero wants to be the resident climate denial, fine by me. Not going to put any effort into that.

"Climate denier' is an intentional pejorative (insult) meant to argue to the person and not the facts. Yet another lazy dismissal technique meant to relieve someone from of the actually making a factual argument.

Worse, it's a terminology that is deliberately close to "holocaust denier". It's mainly used by "people" like jetero and Dutchy who don't really understand data but want to have an opinion.

Precisely, and it is intentional

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

And that's the problem.

I'm honestly amazed that America is able to land people on the Moon, given that the venture is obviously not a profitable one. I mean, how can you profit from a bunch of moon rocks?

Forty years after Apollo 11 moon landing, consumers reap benefits of giant (technological) leaps

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/new ... /index.htm

Exactly. The Apollo program IN ITSELF is not a profitable venture, but the technologies developed from it has a multitude of benefits for everyone.

And the HSR can do the same thing too from a macroeconomic standpoint. People can benefit from it. But all you people ever think of is whether the train system is profitable.

What "we people" think about are things like...

1. How do you pay for for the construction cost
2. How do you (order can you) cover the operating costs.

"You leftists" tend not to worry or even care much about such things, push things because you have an emotional attachment to them, then insult anyone who dares question you and your proposals.

Yes, things have to be paid for. The question is whether there are enough resources to do so.

EA CO AS wrote:

I, for one, LOVE the "Green New Deal" as proposed; it's a surefire way to drive independent voters into the arms of the GOP in the next election cycle.

I can't wait for the #MABA hats to start showing up; "Make Alexandria a Bartender Again!"

LOL, brilliant!

I want to make She Guevara t-shirts. Put a beret and a communist star on it, perfect!

AirFiero wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

"Climate denier' is an intentional pejorative (insult) meant to argue to the person and not the facts. Yet another lazy dismissal technique meant to relieve someone from of the actually making a factual argument.

Worse, it's a terminology that is deliberately close to "holocaust denier". It's mainly used by "people" like jetero and Dutchy who don't really understand data but want to have an opinion.

Precisely, and it is intentional

What is your point? You intentionally go against scientific wisdom and decides that the scientist are wrong probably in order not to change your way of life.

AirFiero wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

I, for one, LOVE the "Green New Deal" as proposed; it's a surefire way to drive independent voters into the arms of the GOP in the next election cycle.

I can't wait for the #MABA hats to start showing up; "Make Alexandria a Bartender Again!"

LOL, brilliant!

I want to make She Guevara t-shirts. Put a beret and a communist star on it, perfect!

I say DO IT BOYS!!!!

You’ve probably worn out your “It’s better to be Russian than to be a Democrat” shirts so you need something new to go torching around in.

There has been a 40% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO²), from 280 ppm in 1750 to 406 ppm in early 2017. This coincides with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, massive population growth, intensive farming, and the reduction of natural CO² sinks such as rainforests.
There has also been a dramatic increase in asthma and other breathing disorders..
When I was young, asthma was mostly an inconvenience that prevented you from joining in school sports. No biggie.
In 2015 it caused about 397,100 deaths, and the number of asthma sufferers has increased from 183 million in 1990 to 358 million just 25 years later.

Do you have ANY evidence that CO2 is the cause, or even A cause of alleged increased asthma?

now do some proper research to see how those higher levels impacted life on earth.
Spoiler alert; it's not good news.

You seem to be saying that higher levels of CO2 in the past were bad life on earth. You also seem to be saying that you did the research. Present your evidence.

AirFiero wrote:

Yes, things have to be paid for. The question is whether there are enough resources to do so.

Question what the cost will be when we continue on the path we are set on: 4°C - 5°C, because that is what you want apparently.



And a skets of what The Netherlands might look like by Dr. Kim Cohen, if you disagree with him, I suggest you e-mail him at K.M.Cohen@uu.nl:



From this article: Sea rise: plan B

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... pollution/
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overvi ... ouse-gases
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... n-dioxide/

The science people agree that CO2 is a pollutant, FYI.

Life cannot exist without CO2, it governs our respiration and it’s essential to plant life. Doesn’t sound too polluting to me, btw, it’s been at far higher levels than today.

GF

There is no such thing as too much water, either? Like during Katrina? No such thing as too much nuclear energy? Like Chernobyl? No such thing as too much heat? Like Phoenix? No such thing as too much morphine?

Too much is fine? Sulfur is naturally occurring, too. Try living off that.

Another BS argument, basically changing the subject or making a a false equivalent. We are not talking about water or anything else. We are talking about CO2 concentration. And we are nowhere near levels harmful to humans...

https://ohsonline.com/articles/2016/04/ ... l.aspx?m=1

Exposure to carbon dioxide can produce a variety of health effects. These may include headaches, dizziness, restlessness, a tingling or pins or needles feeling, difficulty breathing, sweating, tiredness, and increased heart rate.

Carbon dioxide levels and potential health problems are indicated below:

250-350 ppm: background (normal) outdoor air level
350-1,000 ppm: typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange
1,000-2,000 ppm: level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air
2,000-5,000 ppm: level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air; poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.
>5,000 ppm: This indicates unusual air conditions where high levels of other gases also could be present. Toxicity or oxygen deprivation could occur. This is the permissible exposure limit for daily workplace exposures.
>40,000 ppm: This level is immediately harmful due to oxygen deprivation.

tommy1808 wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Also, if it is takes more jobs to produce the same amount of energy, that energy will have to cost more. Does anyone understand economics??

It does not just matter how many jobs there are, it also matters where they are created. Renewable energy jobs are usually close to where power is created, fossil energy jobs are often in Saudi Arabia. I gladly unemploy 1000 people there to have 500 more people employed here.

Best regards
Thomas

You still haven't addressed the economic reality that if you it requires millions more people to produce the same amount of energy, then the price of that energy WILL rise. So if you like your already high electric, heating and air conditioning bills then you will love the higher bills when you get all the renewable energy costs figured in.

Edit, add: Also, the US is less dependent on Saudi or other imported oil. We are currently a net exporter of "finished products", and have made remarkable progress in producing our own petroleum products here at home

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... e-oil/amp/

AirFiero wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Also, if it is takes more jobs to produce the same amount of energy, that energy will have to cost more. Does anyone understand economics??

It does not just matter how many jobs there are, it also matters where they are created. Renewable energy jobs are usually close to where power is created, fossil energy jobs are often in Saudi Arabia. I gladly unemploy 1000 people there to have 500 more people employed here.

Best regards
Thomas

You still haven't addressed the economic reality that if you it requires millions more people to produce the same amount of energy, then the price of that energy WILL rise. So if you like your already high electric, heating and air conditioning bills then you will love the higher bills when you get all the renewable energy costs figured in.

Are you prepared to pay the cost of not doing this, which will be much and much higher? Or are you living at a place which will not be affected perhaps? I posted a map of the world, so you can see if your home is going to be affected or not.

Dutchy wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

It does not just matter how many jobs there are, it also matters where they are created. Renewable energy jobs are usually close to where power is created, fossil energy jobs are often in Saudi Arabia. I gladly unemploy 1000 people there to have 500 more people employed here.

Best regards
Thomas

You still haven't addressed the economic reality that if you it requires millions more people to produce the same amount of energy, then the price of that energy WILL rise. So if you like your already high electric, heating and air conditioning bills then you will love the higher bills when you get all the renewable energy costs figured in.

Are you prepared to pay the cost of not doing this, which will be much and much higher? Or are you living at a place which will not be affected perhaps? I posted a map of the world, so you can see if your home is going to be affected or not.

They don't care. Some lobbyist-funded propaganda told them wind and solar will make their electric bills go up and that's all they care about. They are selfish and gullible jerks who just want to watch the world burn. Doesn't matter that depending where you live, those are frequently cheaper than other energy sources.

tjwgrr wrote:

I'll be thrilled if this is their platform in 2020. A real gift.

Literally handing trump another term of Kampala Harris or some other green new deal idiots run. Unless the dems run a centerist, they will die in 2020! Biden vs trump, idk because i’m Jewish and us jews are indebted to Trump for the embassy being moved to our CAPITAL Jerusalem, along with tax cuts and a better economy, and the fact that my family was a partner of pence before he got into politics But Biden? He might get my vote against trump if that’s the ballot.

AirFiero wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Ohh, she just went full retard. Everybody knows you never go full retard.

Except when you are a US liberal/Democrat. Then the sky is the limit (sky soon to be replaced by high speed rail).

The new nickname going around the internet for AOC is" She Guevara".

I personally like comrade occasiovich cortezberg

AirFiero wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

And you are ok with this? Government mandate to eliminate all ICE powered cars? Were you the one not wanting 100% individualism? What about 100% government control, people use that somehow ok?

Pfff government regulates all kinds of things, but somehow ICE powered cars are in the constitutional right or something and cannot be changed? Or are you against government regulation in general? And believe we should live in anarchy?

Yet another typical flawed argument, this one being the logical fallicy know as Reductio ad Absurdum


https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... d-Absurdum
Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion. Arguments that use universals such as, “always”, “never”, “everyone”, “nobody”, etc., are prone to being reduced to absurd conclusions. The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.

At no point did I suggest anarchy or complete lack of government regulations. As you previously said, balance is important. Your argument to the 100% extreme is nonsense and fellacious.

Guys you might think people who don’t believe in climate change are crazy but we also have evidence and have a right to say our opinion without being attacked

Dutchy wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

Worse, it's a terminology that is deliberately close to "holocaust denier". It's mainly used by "people" like jetero and Dutchy who don't really understand data but want to have an opinion.

Precisely, and it is intentional

What is your point? You intentionally go against scientific wisdom and decides that the scientist are wrong probably in order not to change your way of life.

The use of the word "denier" is intentionally insulting. That is my point. The rest of what you said is a change of subject, something you seem to love to do.