The Green New Deal

[Zambo]

Originally Posted by Wayward son

You think that children are going to be constructing and decommissioning nuclear plants?

Child labor was the issue. I didn't bring it up. The initial point was that child labor would be used at some during the solar energy process. I was just replying that it was as likely that child labor would be used in the construction or decommissioning of nuclear energy plants. In fact I think the child labor issue is just a distraction that should be addressed separately from energy policy.

[Wayward son]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The greens didn't have to do anything. People have been wary of nuclear power since days of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Sure some people have been. But for instance nuclear was quite popular in Ontario in the 60s and 70s and started to decline in the 80s and 90s. Not because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - most people are smart enough to understand the difference between nuclear energy and nuclear bombs. And not because of Chernobyl - people viewed that as incompetence in the Soviet system. Environmental groups in Ontario knew that it would take a shifting of views about the competence of building nuclear reactors in Ontario to shift public opinion and that is what they worked on - successfully pushing for and getting endless delays which also dramatically increased the costs. There is minimal fear of nuclear accidents among the Ontario public. Where disapproval comes from is a belief that any new plant would come online far over-budget and several years later than planned.

Still nuclear is popular in Ontario. In fact the majority of voters of all three main political parties (on the right, center, and left) support nuclear energy, and that has never really changed (despite all three of those parties opposing nuclear at times). Nuclear is far less popular in the Canadian provinces that don't have nuclear energy.

[Zambo]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Isn't electricity one of the dominant costs in aluminum smelting even now?

Your wording on steel smelters is confusing. What role did you see renewable electricity playing in steel smelting before you realized coke was involved?

Coke is the nearly the sole source of energy for iron smelting right now. Its' a lot cheaper than electricity. It also has the advantage of being an easy way to get rid the dangerously hot oxygen. Which, of course, is the problem since that leads to CO2.

For aluminium smelters electricity can be from renewables.

For steel, recycled steel can be made in electric-arc furnaces instead of coking coal blast furnaces but this currently is only about 30% of the total.

But i think that CFPP and oil for transport are the easy first steps to replace.

[Wayward son]

Originally Posted by Zambo

Child labor was the issue. I didn't bring it up. The initial point was that child labor would be used at some during the solar energy process.

Where I brought up child labor was for batteries - that would need to be mass produced on an absurd scale to make solar and wind reliable. Cobalt (for which there is 8 times more of it that lithium in lithium batteries) and lead (of which 85% of global production are used in batteries) are both predominantly mined in the Congo - using child labor.

Quote:

I was just replying that it was as likely that child labor would be used in the construction or decommissioning of nuclear energy plants.

No - it is zero percent likely. The construction and decommissioning both require enormous amounts of skill and no part of either will ever consist of child labor or low paid jobs.

Quote:

In fact I think the child labor issue is just a distraction that should be addressed separately from energy policy.

The only way to keep the prices of batteries down is for the mined components to be mined using child labor and or poverty wages and in the worst conditions possible. This whole green utopia is about allowing rich-world yuppies to feel great and smug about themselves as the poorest of the poor live in complete misery to enable it. I am glad that you consider that a distraction.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/campus-reform/

And? Does that invalidate the point? No, it really doesn't.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And? Does that invalidate the point? No, it really doesn't.

It does if we can't trust the video to accurately reflect reality. To pick an extreme example, if they interviewed a thousand students at an extremely conservative university and only those 7 (or however many it actually is) said that they disagreed with the proposals in the New Green Deal while all the rest said they still thought it was a good idea, what would the video actually tell us about the opinion of the average student? Nothing.

I bet you that if I had the time, inclination, and if I were actually in America, I could spend a day traipsing around a university campus and create a 5 minute video of students saying that the New Green Deal doesn't go nearly far enough. What do you think that video would prove? Would you think it had a valid point to make about the opinions of all students?

Come on, this is very basic stuff. Don't switch your critical faculties off just because the source you're posting is telling a story you want to be true.

[lobosrul5]

As far as flying goes, even reading an article that is critical of it: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/c...l-warming.html

11% of US transportation related green house gas emissions are from airline travel. So, first off, completely eliminating it would still leave us at 89%. Secondly, the article says traveling business class is 3 times worse than going coach. Here is an easy fix: one class airline travel. And, ban private/corporate jets. Everyone can fly coach. That would probably eliminate a significant portion of air travel pollutants. The high and mighty can run elbows with the great unwashed if its so important to them to save the planet. We can then build rail at a reasonable pace. Probably makes most sense for north/south travel.

ETA: I believe we should be doing more to combat global warming, it just rubs me the wrong way when celebrities pay for carbon offsets, then fly on a private jet. If its such a big looming catastrophe, how about you go carbon negative by fyling coach?

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Wayward son

No - it is zero percent likely. The construction and decommissioning both require enormous amounts of skill and no part of either will ever consist of child labor or low paid jobs.

I'm not sure all of it requires enormous skill. You need someone to move barrels of waste on a forklift, and you need train conductors to move it to long term storage, for example. Granted, you want someone really really good at driving that fork lift, and really really good at driving a train, but its not an enormous skill.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

As far as flying goes, even reading an article that is critical of it: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/c...l-warming.html

11% of US transportation related green house gas emissions are from airline travel. So, first off, completely eliminating it would still leave us at 89%. Secondly, the article says traveling business class is 3 times worse than going coach. Here is an easy fix: one class airline travel. And, ban private/corporate jets. Everyone can fly coach. That would probably eliminate a significant portion of air travel pollutants. The high and mighty can run elbows with the great unwashed if its so important to them to save the planet. We can then build rail at a reasonable pace. Probably makes most sense for north/south travel.

ETA: I believe we should be doing more to combat global warming, it just rubs me the wrong way when celebrities pay for carbon offsets, then fly on a private jet. If its such a big looming catastrophe, how about you go carbon negative by fyling coach?

Even better, ban coach and have everyone stand instead of sit. That way we can pack in twice as many people per plane!

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Even better, ban coach and have everyone stand instead of sit. That way we can pack in twice as many people per plane!

Might fall afoul with the ADA and NTSB

[Zambo]

Originally Posted by Wayward son

Where I brought up child labor was for batteries - that would need to be mass produced on an absurd scale to make solar and wind reliable. Cobalt (for which there is 8 times more of it that lithium in lithium batteries) and lead (of which 85% of global production are used in batteries) are both predominantly mined in the Congo - using child labor.



No - it is zero percent likely. The construction and decommissioning both require enormous amounts of skill and no part of either will ever consist of child labor or low paid jobs.



The only way to keep the prices of batteries down is for the mined components to be mined using child labor and or poverty wages and in the worst conditions possible. This whole green utopia is about allowing rich-world yuppies to feel great and smug about themselves as the poorest of the poor live in complete misery to enable it. I am glad that you consider that a distraction.

The reason i think that child labor is a distraction is not because i hate children or have some need to feel great or smug. My point is that child labor can be addresssed without
giving up on solar power or electric vehicles. For example:

1. Developing battery types that use less, or no, cobalt
2. Mining cobalt in more controlled environments than the Congo.
3. Applying pressure to large corporations who are controlling mining and also onto the companies buying the cobalt.

You mention lead. Lead is used for radiation shielding including in some constructions as lead shot to make dense concrete.

As far as the highly skilled work during the construction of nuclear power plants is concerned yes i have a high level of respect for all construction workers in all countries. But nuclear construction includes a lot of concrete works and steel work with workers both on site and offsite. It would be naive to think that the use of child labor is not going to be an issue at all. Perhaps the confusion is that I am posting about renewable energy worldwide and the solution to replacement of CFPP everywhere including rapidly growing, developing countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh not just Canada and USA.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

It does if we can't trust the video to accurately reflect reality.

We cannot trust the poll to accurately reflect reality. That point remains true regardless of any cherry picking in the video. Polls like this are inherently unreliable.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Quote:

Come on, this is very basic stuff. Don't switch your critical faculties off just because the source you're posting is telling a story you want to be true.

I'd ask you to do the same.

[Delvo]

The expensive seat classes are where the airlines get most of the revenue they depend on. The result of eliminating them would be that either everybody else needs to pay more or the airlines just can't sustain their business.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Delvo

The expensive seat classes are where the airlines get most of the revenue they depend on. The result of eliminating them would be that either everybody else needs to pay more or the airlines just can't sustain their business.

Yes, every seat would have to go up in price some, therefore the free market would compel more people to take trains or buses. Or so the theory goes. From what I see on domestic flights there aren't that many business class seats anyways (but ive never done an LA/SF to NYC flight), and hardly any first class. Much higher percentage on internationals.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

We cannot trust the poll to accurately reflect reality. That point remains true regardless of any cherry picking in the video. Polls like this are inherently unreliable.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

You think the questions were leading? Since the article published the full text o the questions asked, can you explain how you think they're leading?

Quote:

I'd ask you to do the same.

I have no dog in this fight. The post you're replying to even contains the information that I'm not American. Some people really do have a hard time understanding that concept.

You're right that we shouldn't take the poll at face value without more information on the polling methods (how they ensured a representative sampling, for example), but that's a world away from the website you posted a link to.

BTW: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-nation/

Quote:

Typically, The Nation utilizes credible sources such as the Associated Press and The Chronicle of Higher Education, however they also source through large quotes as well.

A factual search reveals The Nation has not failed a fact check and in general produces well written journalism that is factual and well sourced.

Overall, we rate The Nation Left Biased due to story choices and wording that favor the left and factually high based on proper sourcing. (5/15/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 7/16/2018)

[Zambo]

Originally Posted by Wayward son

Where I brought up child labor was for batteries - that would need to be mass produced on an absurd scale to make solar and wind reliable. Cobalt (for which there is 8 times more of it that lithium in lithium batteries) and lead (of which 85% of global production are used in batteries) are both predominantly mined in the Congo - using child labor.



No - it is zero percent likely. The construction and decommissioning both require enormous amounts of skill and no part of either will ever consist of child labor or low paid jobs.



The only way to keep the prices of batteries down is for the mined components to be mined using child labor and or poverty wages and in the worst conditions possible. This whole green utopia is about allowing rich-world yuppies to feel great and smug about themselves as the poorest of the poor live in complete misery to enable it. I am glad that you consider that a distraction.

The reason i think that child labor is a distraction is not because i hate children or have some need to feel great or smug. My point is that child labor can be addresssed without
giving up on solar power or electric vehicles. For example:

1. Developing battery types that use less, or no, cobalt
2. Mining cobalt in more controlled environments than the Congo.
3. Applying pressure to large corporations who are controlling mining and also onto the companies buying the cobalt.

You mention lead. Lead is used for radiation shielding including in some constructions as lead shot to make dense concrete.

As far as the highly skilled work during the construction of nuclear power plants is concerned yes i have a high level of respect for all construction workers in all countries. But nuclear construction includes a lot of concrete works and steel work with workers both on site and offsite. It would be naive to think that the use of child labor is not going to be an issue at all. Perhaps the confusion is that I am posting about renewable energy worldwide and the solution to replacement of CFPP everywhere including rapidly growing, developing countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh not just Canada and USA.

[dudalb]

Is it true that the GND is going to get rid of all intenal combustion driven vehicals in Ten Years?
That is point blank ridiculous.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by ahhell

Even better, ban coach and have everyone stand instead of sit. That way we can pack in twice as many people per plane!

That would make Toronto-Tokyo quite... interesting.

[Red Baron Farms]

I believe many are missing the most important point. I take full responsibility for this, because I failed to emphasize and communicate it.

A carbon market with verified carbon offsets specifically takes advantage of the best known economic motivator known to mankind, the capitalist free markets.

If you want somebody to do something, pay them to do it, and they will!

Right now the farm bill pays farmers to produce a glut of corn and soy in a way that causes AGW, being somewhere in the range of 10-20 % of emissions.

Sadly we are paying farmers to be a significant source of AGW and they are doing it! Society is getting what we paid for.

So right off the bat as soon as we stop paying farmers to over produce corn and soy by means of unsustainable methods causing AGW, they will stop doing it. That reduces emissions at least by 10% alone, using the conservative low end.

Then of course they still need to make a living. So this carbon market with verified carbon offsets will instead pay them to do their farming in a way that sequesters carbon in the soil.

That means restoring the tallgrass prairie ecosystems would now be more profitable than raising corn and soy! And what would any farmer with a lick of sense do? He would stop raising a glut of corn and soy, and instead replant degraded crop fields with prairie grasses. Instead of raising corn and soy to feed animals and gasoline tanks, we can raise animals on the prairie and restore the most productive terrestrial biome on the planet. One that indeed does sequester carbon in the soil at the rate of at least 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr. [1]

That means instead of socialist basic income paying people to sit on their arse, and trying to eliminate fossil fuel powered transportation 100% in 10 years, and all the other unworkable parts of the New Green Deal, we instead pay hard working farmers to balance the carbon cycle for us!

That way instead of trying to destroy the best parts of capitalism to fix AGW, we instead use this powerful aspect of capitalism to fix it!

Such a huge difference between conservative conservationists and liberal environmentalists.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Wayward son

Originally Posted by Zambo

<snip>

I was just replying that it was as likely that child labor would be used in the construction or decommissioning of nuclear energy plants.

No - it is zero percent likely. The construction and decommissioning both require enormous amounts of skill and no part of either will ever consist of child labor or low paid jobs.

<snip>

Speaking from firsthand experience, I can assure you that there is no shortage of unskilled and semi-skilled labor to be performed on a nuclear power plant construction site. Even most of the skilled positions are the same as on any other large commercial/industrial facility.

For the most part they are just large construction jobs. Not much of the work involves skills that are rare or exotic.

If the plant is being built somewhere that child labor was used for grunt work on any other large building project then it would be silly to assume that such a plant would be any different.

I've never been involved in a decommissioning, so I can't speak from firsthand. But having said that, I don't know about the actual radioactively contaminated parts, but most of such facilities aside from that are just industrial buildings. Not any different from any other.

If that gets dismantled as well there will be an abundance of unskilled labor involved. That's just the nature of demolition work.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

That means instead of socialist basic income paying people to sit on their arse,

Just FYI, the universal basic income thing was withdrawn out of the GND and it's FAQ pretty much immediately. Not as part of some sort of coverup/ploy, but because there's genuine widespread disagreement on the left about if one is even possible without causing inflation.

https://www.timesunion.com/technolog...a-13603728.php

Quote:

Later on Thursday, the talking points were deleted off of Ocasio-Cortez's site.

Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff, said the document was "bad copy" that was mistakenly published on the website

[The Shrike]

My tone might be a bit sharper than I intend. I actually love it when conservatives roll up their sleeves to help work on environmental and climate solutions. Overall, I love this idea too. Yes, let's use the resources we have to find ways to sequester more carbon!

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

Right now the farm bill pays farmers to produce a glut of corn and soy in a way that causes AGW, being somewhere in the range of 10-20 % of emissions.

Correct, the Farm Bill is a socialist endeavor.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

So right off the bat as soon as we stop paying farmers to over produce corn and soy by means of unsustainable methods causing AGW, they will stop doing it. That reduces emissions at least by 10% alone, using the conservative low end.

Sounds good. I'm in!

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

[b]Then of course they still need to make a living.

Well, they wouldn't need to make a living under UBI, but most farmers/ranchers I know just enjoy working the land and if we've already bought them a lot of expensive equipment we might as well give them something to do.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

So this carbon market with verified carbon offsets will instead pay them to do their farming in a way that sequesters carbon in the soil.

I can dig it. But where does the money actually come from again? Is it polluters paying into funds based on their emissions?

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

That means restoring the tallgrass prairie ecosystems . . . the most productive terrestrial biome on the planet.

Maybe in some environments we could even flood these fields to make/restore peatlands and sequester even more!

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

That means instead of socialist basic income paying people to sit on their arse,

Farm Bill is socialist income to pay some people to sit on their arses in air-conditioned mega-tractors that traverse the fields using GPS navigation. (I'm fine with that, btw. Big fan of the Farm Bill!) There are plenty of "hard working farmers" and I love those folks, but there's also a helluva lot of lazy, ignoramus farmers, too. You might also find that there are hard-working city-folk. Some of them are even women, gay, black, etc. and working harder than any farmer you or I will ever know. Point being, the good country folk that we picture as "farmers" is as much a trope as the shiftless bums in the cities who don't know the meaning of an honest day's work.

I don't know that UBI is the answer or even an answer or why it's featured in the Green New Deal. But here are a couple of things I do know.

First technology will increasingly drive automation that accelerates the obviation of working humans. How long will it be before self-driving farming becomes the norm? I can easily envision a not-too-distant future in which one computer-controlled command center uses automation to produce what 100 human farmers are doing today. At some point, the markets will dictate that it's just not efficient to have humans sitting in those tractor seats when we can do it faster, better, and cheaper with robots.

Next, we are at a crossroads of human history in which our collective action or failure to do so will potentially doom or save the next 2 or 3 generations of humans. To be quibbling over "socialism" as some kind of boogeyman reflects to me a failure to understand the gravity of this moment. We need solutions, and I don't care if they're capitalist, socialist, communist, or Robbie Rist – I just want to pursue things that will work.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

My tone might be a bit sharper than I intend. I actually love it when conservatives roll up their sleeves to help work on environmental and climate solutions. Overall, I love this idea too. Yes, let's use the resources we have to find ways to sequester more carbon!
...

Hey don't worry about tone. At least you are discussing this seriously. You had a few questions like where is the money coming from.

2 places actually. One is the scaled down farm bill we already have. The other is a carbon fee and dividend as already explained here: The bipartisan Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (EICDA)

The EICDA fees collected on carbon emissions will be allocated to all Americans to spend any way they choose. This is currently a bill already in congress. But we conservatives can do better!

Instead of the revenue neutral dividend that is paid equally to everyone regardless of their efforts at balancing the carbon cycle, I propose the dividends be paid only for actual verified Carbon sequestered in the soil. BCCS. Verified by this protocol as an example: Carbon Sequestration Certification Program

Each state would have it's own version. This just happens to be my State's version. All it awaits is funding and it's off to the races.

But part of the needed dynamic is to gradually scale down the emissions side of agriculture, that means changes in the buffer stock schemes on commodity grains, an overhaul of the whole biofuels program, and redefining GAP (good agricultural practices) to those that are at minimum carbon neutral or better. That redefining of GAP would have a cascading effect that permeates through the entire system since it is required for subsidized loans,
Subsidized crop insurance, starting farmer grants, even commercial buyers like SYSCO, most school lunch programs, wic, etc.... The total savings on these programs would amount to at least 10s of billions annually... up to almost 100 billion a year in savings.

So by redirecting that savings and also redirecting the carbon fee and dividend to actual projects that repair the carbon cycle, we can actually either lower taxes overall or pay down the debt some. (Yeah I know the debt is stupid high and 100 billion a year is a drop in the bucket but hey it at least doesn't add to that.)

Now for FAQ.

1. CO2 output is super easy. It is just a math problem and the records for fossil fuel use and their resulting CO2 footprint are robust. We know how much oil gas and coal is used and we know how much CO2 those fossil fuels emit when burned.
2. CO2 absorption is not needed to be measured at all. Most biomass eventually rots or burns anyway, leaving a net zero sum. Rather we need only to measure sequestered stable carbon deep in the soil profile. A very standard soil sample protocol is all it takes to verify rising soil carbon levels over time. Farmers are already very much used to taking soil samples. Average rates using these new breakthroughs are 5–20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr. verified by annual soil samples taken over 10 years +.
3. Output verification to create the fee is easy. The amount of CO2 produced from fossil fuels is well known. And yes Farmers would need to pay for soil samples to be taken themselves to verify sequestration. They usually do this anyway. And it would of course be required before they could receive any offset money. If they didn’t want to participate though, it shouldn’t be required, they simply pass on receiving a check.
4. We don’t avoid the fees being harsh on carbon emissions. We want this. Market forces will drive the price for carbon sequestration. In the beginning probably the first few farmers in on it will make a whole lot, and this will help pay for the new infrastructure required. Later farmers will drive the price back down by competition, but they still do ok because they don’t need to build the new infrastructure. CO2 sources can also avoid high priced carbon markets by converting to renewable energy like solar wind and hydroelectric. Even some nuclear is possible where appropriate by major utilities. Eventually once the balance is restored, the carbon markets will settle at some relatively stable point reflecting true costs including those formerly hidden costs that the market will abstractly account. This concept is referred to as Environmental full-cost accounting, we are simply using a carbon market as a proxy, since all life is carbon based.
5. In the beginning we need this domestic. But later we could use it internationally to help balance trade and get us out of this destructive trade war. There are provisions in the bill for accounting all that already.

[BadBoy]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Next, we are at a crossroads of human history in which our collective action or failure to do so will potentially doom or save the next 2 or 3 generations of humans. To be quibbling over "socialism" as some kind of boogeyman reflects to me a failure to understand the gravity of this moment. We need solutions, and I don't care if they're capitalist, socialist, communist, or Robbie Rist – I just want to pursue things that will work.

This.

But also, I'm not convinced that the things people are calling Socialist are in-fact Socialist.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Next, we are at a crossroads of human history in which our collective action or failure to do so will potentially doom or save the next 2 or 3 generations of humans. To be quibbling over "socialism" as some kind of boogeyman reflects to me a failure to understand the gravity of this moment. We need solutions, and I don't care if they're capitalist, socialist, communist, or Robbie Rist – I just want to pursue things that will work.

Very well said!

The same goes for criticism of capitalism as a boogeyman.

Monetisation of increasing efficiency, productivity and leisure time means more money for everyone's welfare.

Here, I'm seeing more and more free health and wellbeing resources for all sorts of people like farmers, for example.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[The Great Zaganza]

I don't see the Green Deal working without a UBI component: the coming decades will bring massive upheaval in the labor market, and without some form of income security, people won't support the necessary changes.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Is it true that the GND is going to get rid of all intenal combustion driven vehicals in Ten Years?
That is point blank ridiculous.

Why?

BTW, guess who else is getting rid of all internal combustion driven vehicles...

GM’s Path to an All-Electric, Zero Emissions Future

Quote:

We are well on our way to bringing at least 20 new all-electric models to market by 2023 – our next step toward a zero-emissions world... make no mistake, even as we deliver the best-ever fuel economy in the vehicles our customers love to drive today, we continue to make progress toward a future with zero emissions.

Our commitment to an all-electric, zero-emissions future is unwavering

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I don't see the Green Deal working without a UBI component: the coming decades will bring massive upheaval in the labor market, and without some form of income security, people won't support the necessary changes.

I lean towards favoring the "negative income tax" version of a basic income guarantee, but I'm not really so sure the coming changes in the labor market are necessarily as bad as they're expected to be.

Dean Baker makes a compelling case about that, here:
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press...-jobs-industry

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Dean Baker makes a compelling case about that, here:
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press...-jobs-industry

thanks for that, though there are some points on which I disagree.
But addressing them might be viewed as derailing the thread.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

thanks for that, though there are some points on which I disagree.
But addressing them might be viewed as derailing the thread.

If you want to start a spinoff thread, I'd be interested.

[applecorped]

Doa

[Zambo]

Doable

[applecorped]

Not in reality

[Zambo]

Work in progress

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

In 1971 a Ford Pinto cost $1,919. In 2019 dollars that would be $11,926. A Ford Fiesta costs $14,260 - $21,340. Manufacturing advances in the last 48 years have greatly lowered production costs, yet cars are still significantly more expensive. A Ford Pinto made in 1971 with all the safety features expected in a modern vehicle would have priced it way above its intended market. Even today the extra expense of making small cars safe prices them out of reach for many people on lower incomes.

My brother recently bough a new SUV, which he is paying off. However he also wanted a cheap runabout that he could use without worrying it getting dinged or stolen etc. so he was looking at purchasing a used RAV4. Problem is the older models have a poor safety rating, and my brother is worried about what might happen in a crash. But the newer models are too expensive! My brother isn't poor, but right now the vehicle he wants is unaffordable.

Nuclear power plants are not any more 'unaffordable' than modern cars, they just cost more than alternatives that don't irradiate half the country if they blow up. They could be made cheaper and less safe, but understandably people don't want to take the risk. Because it would only take one incident to completely destroy the nuclear power industry here. Similarly, no car manufacturer would produce a Pinto today, because they would (rightly) be sued into bankruptcy by all the people it injured.

The real issue with the Pinto was how Ford handled it: They knew the car was dangerous but they calculated that fixing the problem would cost more than the lawsuit losses, so they just kept selling them. A similar calculation says that the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the expected deaths from radiation poisoning.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Students Love Green New Deal... Until Hearing What's In It

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

This is the political equivalent of Jimmy Kimmel's "Man on the street" segments. Ask enough people until you find some rube, then only present the rube.

One such segment he approached people on the street and asked "Name any book". People struggled to answer. Of course, that's because everyone in the US is illiterate. There is no other explanation.