The Green New Deal

[Zan15]

I remember discussing rising gas prices with someone. They were totally cool with ignoring the pandemic and lockdowns = low demand and lower prices. Deer in heads lights when you suggest maybe we should go back on lockdown to lower gas prices again.

they also ignore that gas prices always rise in the spring-summer and that prices have been this high in then 2016-2020 time period before.

oh and the fact that the majority of the problem is with OPEC and Russia working together to manipulate prices...

BIDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENN!!!

[Theodarzna]

You mean like bumping up the taxes they'll pay or making the vaccine patent accessible by everyone which hurt those companies stocks?

I'll believe it when I see it. I also recall the half baked ineffective Public Option has been memory holed, since heavens knows we will never get Universal Health Care in our lifetimes in the United States.

[Dontrike]

I'll believe it when I see it.

One of those literally just happened.

[Theodarzna]

One of those literally just happened.

Well no Tax bill has been signed last I've read, or even passed and no Public Option is ever going to happen. So....

Where is it?

As for the Green New Deal, Unless its got a lot of nuclear power options it won't amount to much in term of generating a lot of power. And my guess is, it will vanish into a black hole of consultancy. Likely the same way the infrastructure plan will go.

[postman1782]

I'll believe it when I see it. I also recall the half baked ineffective Public Option has been memory holed, since heavens knows we will never get Universal Health Care in our lifetimes in the United States.

Not when you support Republicans and Trump.

[Dontrike]

Well no Tax bill has been signed last I've read, or even passed and no Public Option is ever going to happen. So....

Where is it?

You didn't see that as soon as Biden announced the vaccine for the world that stock dropped? Even that is a hit to them.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

I wonder whom this will fall on?

China, India, big conservative tech, etc.

[Felya]

China, India, big conservative tech, etc.

The thing is... fossil fuels are already paying for the New Green Deal. They are just spending fortunes to stop it, without anyone crying that their lobbying against the environment, is passed down to the consumer. Have they been paying fortunes for decades, to downplay or ignore climate change? Why aren’t they complaining that we pay for lobbying to prevent the new green deal, every time we fuel up?

It’s so hard to believe for a 90s kid that a liberal or leftist, would ask about who would pay for leaving oil. Unless one has been living under a rock, before 2015, the answer was repeated by the very people asking.

Edit:

I want to see statistics on how many people that buy into 9/11 truther bullshit, that are also confused about where the cost of maintaining fossil fuels, falls.

Edit 2:

Just because people got convinced Trump is a populist, it doesn’t inherently turn Exxon into a populist corporation. I understand the need for Trump supporters to compartmentalize 9/11 conspiracy theories and Tellison being Secretary of State, into boxes that can’t open at the same time... but, isn’t this going a little too far? Defending fossil fuels, by asking who will pay for it?

Asking who will pay or even imply it will be passed down, is the “freedom fries” of fighting climate change. It’s demanding we bring troops home, while golf clapping Trump send thousands of troops to defend Saudi oil.

- - - Updated - - -

Not when you support Republicans and Trump.

Coal subsidies... The drilling expansion... the carving up of America’s natural wonders, for drill baby drill... all happened under Trump and all were celebrated by these very people. Coming in here celebrating saving coal miner jobs thanks to Trump, before they kept the money and cut 20% of all coal miners.

If Trump continued and ya’ll take your kids to Yellowstone... when they ask who is paying for the oil drilling they see blocking the horizon... What would be the answer?

[Theodarzna]

China, India, big conservative tech, etc.

I would not be shocked if we get regime change wars for climate change. "Climate Outlaws" will get the drone strikes on locals. I'm thinking of Brazil specifically.

- - - Updated - - -

You didn't see that as soon as Biden announced the vaccine for the world that stock dropped? Even that is a hit to them.

Well, he kinda did something, I'll call myself surprised.

- - - Updated - - -

Not when you support Republicans and Trump.

Did I? I'll need a cite on that one. Or is this one of those "You didn't cheer for the Dems!" kinda things?

[draynay]

Did I? I'll need a cite on that one.

I don't know why anybody bothers with comments like these. They must imagine themselves so crafty and guarded about their stances despite constantly posting them for all of us to see.

[Zan15]

You didn't see that as soon as Biden announced the vaccine for the world that stock dropped? Even that is a hit to them.

Hmmm, seems you don't understand how stock prices work relative to how a company functions. Care to explain how its a "hit to them" in any way?

Also the two majors have gained back most of the initial drop as I indicated last time you made this comment.

Its not going to effect those companies in the least bit since the countries they are already and currently plan to sell vaccinations, are not all of a sudden going to magically find billions of vials in some willy Wonka factory no one knew exsisted.

[DarkTZeratul]

Hmmm, seems you don't understand how stock prices work relative to how a company functions. Care to explain how its a "hit to them" in any way?

Also the two majors have gained back most of the initial drop as I indicated last time you made this comment.

Its not going to effect those companies in the least bit since the countries they are already and currently plan to sell vaccinations, are not all of a sudden going to magically find billions of vials in some willy Wonka factory no one knew exsisted.

The CEO of Moderna even said he wasn't remotely concerned by it.

[Theodarzna]

The CEO of Moderna even said he wasn't remotely concerned by it.

Ah, so the great "Sticking it to Corporate America" is some inconsequential thing.

As is expected. Biden did promise "Nothing will fundamentally change"

[Dontrike]

Hmmm, seems you don't understand how stock prices work relative to how a company functions. Care to explain how its a "hit to them" in any way?

You're right I don't, you wanna a cookie or somethin'? Go put on a baseball mitt so you can catch the hint.

[Shadowferal]

New study exposes multi-billion dollar factor in Superstorm Sandy's destruction

A new study has found that roughly 13%, or $8 billion, of the $62.7 billion in damages across New York, New Jersey and Connecticut from Superstorm Sandy in 2012 can be attributed to rising sea levels from human-caused climate change.

The study found that thousands of people and homes were impacted and billions of dollars in damage caused by the roughly 4 inches that were attributed to human-caused sea-level rise in the New York area, or about 55% of all sea-level rise observed in the area since 1900.

Just a handswidth of sea-level rise from climate change caused more than 10 percent of the damage from Sandy's towering floodwaters," author Dr. Benjamin Strauss, chief scientist and CEO of Climate Central said in a press release.

"The implications are enormous ... Human-caused sea-level rise is already making every coastal flood more destructive and costly. Our approach can be applied to other past or future storms or even just the high tide flooding that's becoming so common around the world. The costs of climate change are likely much greater than we appreciate today."

[Endus]

New study exposes multi-billion dollar factor in Superstorm Sandy's destruction

A new study has found that roughly 13%, or $8 billion, of the $62.7 billion in damages across New York, New Jersey and Connecticut from Superstorm Sandy in 2012 can be attributed to rising sea levels from human-caused climate change.

The study found that thousands of people and homes were impacted and billions of dollars in damage caused by the roughly 4 inches that were attributed to human-caused sea-level rise in the New York area, or about 55% of all sea-level rise observed in the area since 1900.

Just a handswidth of sea-level rise from climate change caused more than 10 percent of the damage from Sandy's towering floodwaters," author Dr. Benjamin Strauss, chief scientist and CEO of Climate Central said in a press release.

"The implications are enormous ... Human-caused sea-level rise is already making every coastal flood more destructive and costly. Our approach can be applied to other past or future storms or even just the high tide flooding that's becoming so common around the world. The costs of climate change are likely much greater than we appreciate today."

I mean, we largely knew this already. What the study provides is solid quantification, which is valuable nonetheless.

People keep thinking "pff, 4 inches, so what". The problem is when you take that 4 inches, slap it on top of mean high tide, and then push a big storm surge on top of that. Which is what happened, during Sandy; the storm wasn't that big an outlier in terms of strength (biggest storm of the season, but not out of scale with seasonal variations), but it hit New York right around a particularly high tide (full moon, tides are higher), and storm surges aren't like waves. It's literally the entire ocean under the storm being pulled up by low pressure; you're not getting bigger waves, with higher peaks and valleys; the mid-point between both is rising. Unlike bigger waves, this leads to a LOT more flooding if it tops current seawalls or the like, as NYC saw with Sandy.

Those kinds of confluences aren't particularly common, but when they line up, you get disasters like Sandy. And that's the big looming risk of climate change in the near future; a rise in the number of devastating impacts when such events occur, as protections that had been barely-enough in the past suddenly cease to be sufficient. You get no real warning until the damage is already being done.

[Santti]

I mean, we largely knew this already. What the study provides is solid quantification, which is valuable nonetheless.

People keep thinking "pff, 4 inches, so what". The problem is when you take that 4 inches, slap it on top of mean high tide, and then push a big storm surge on top of that. Which is what happened, during Sandy; the storm wasn't that big an outlier in terms of strength (biggest storm of the season, but not out of scale with seasonal variations), but it hit New York right around a particularly high tide (full moon, tides are higher), and storm surges aren't like waves. It's literally the entire ocean under the storm being pulled up by low pressure; you're not getting bigger waves, with higher peaks and valleys; the mid-point between both is rising. Unlike bigger waves, this leads to a LOT more flooding if it tops current seawalls or the like, as NYC saw with Sandy.

Those kinds of confluences aren't particularly common, but when they line up, you get disasters like Sandy. And that's the big looming risk of climate change in the near future; a rise in the number of devastating impacts when such events occur, as protections that had been barely-enough in the past suddenly cease to be sufficient. You get no real warning until the damage is already being done.

Unfortunately, it seems we really need to hit proper catastrophes, before we actually learn anything, or understand the situation to actually do anything about it. Sandy? Water under the bridge.

[Edge-]

Unfortunately, it seems we really need to hit proper catastrophes, before we actually learn anything, or understand the situation to actually do anything about it. Sandy? Water under the bridge.

We're on the end of what I think we could argue is a proper catastrophe...and it seems we've still learned nothing. Refusal to learn seems to be an American hallmark, nowadays.

[Shadowferal]

Unfortunately, it seems we really need to hit proper catastrophes, before we actually learn anything, or understand the situation to actually do anything about it. Sandy? Water under the bridge.

More like water over the bridge.

[Slant]

He's a bit late to the party...

https://www.motor1.com/news/495958/v...e-development/

The industry has already made the decision. The question is not if, it's when. Easy for politicians to score credit with this.

Side note: This is also the beginning of Tesla's new (old) role as an exclusive electric vehicle luxury product (which it is, but will be even more niche in the future). Once VW and Audi ramp up production and electric becomes affordable for anyone, people will realise just how tiny Tesla actually is in comparison to the big automakers. Yes, even with all the bells and whistles.

Just to hook into this, the moment VW decided to go all in on electric, this was predetermined. Watch every single one of the other automakers to choose this or the next year to announce them stepping away from fossil fuel and following suit:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/26/ford...c-by-2030.html

AUTOS
Ford boosts electric vehicle spending to more than $30 billion, aims to have 40% of volume all-electric by 2030

It's happening. The question is not if. It's when. Possibly how, I can see some variation in different kinds of renewable energy management, but fossil fuel is going to die within the next 50 years. First it'll be voluntary, because these new cars are shiny toys and you get incentives from the state. Then it'll be the responsible thing to do, because it's actually becoming economically viable and you want to leave a not completely wrecked planet for your children, at some point it's going to be just easier, because Governments are going to clamp down on fossil fuel emissions, making it more and more difficult to retain fossil fuel cars that aren't listed as oldtimers, while at the same time there will be a new segment figuring out how to convert an oldtimer to new energy solutions. And the final nail will be Governments simply outlawing fossil fuel on public streets. And I can already predict how they're going to do it. They're of course thinking about emissions and it'll be a part of it, but the actual big impact argument that'll sell it is going to be noise emissions in inner cities. That neatly leaves a loophole open for the farmers and other people that rely on long endurance in their working vehicles, cos it just won't do to recharge that combine every hour or two while you're on the field with no electricity.

And that'll be the end of it.