The Green New Deal

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Yes, there would need to be batteries, but there is no way that they would weigh anywhere the fuel weight.

Only if you don't plan to carry nearly as much usable stored energy, which means a serious drop in range. Batteries just don't have the energy density of a fossil fuel. That's what's been making range such a problem for electric cars all this time.

For example, I'll compare the plain-engine and hybrid versions of the Mitsubishi Outlander (SEL option package) based on the specifications at Mitsubishi's website. The plain version has a 16.6-gallon tank, which, at 27 miles per gallon and 5.91 pounds per gallon, gives it a 448.2-mile range on 98.1 pounds of fuel. The PHEV's tank is only 11.3 gallons (66.8 pounds), but its curb weight is also 827 pounds higher than the plain version's curb weight because of the weight of the battery system, and that gets it a range of 310 miles. A miles-per-pound-of-energy-storage-stuff comparison can't be done from this alone because the PHEV has a smaller engine (meaning the electrical side of the system is more than 827 pounds alone) and some of the extra electrical gear is other parts, not just the batteries, but still, overall, at least a few hundred pounds of that's got to be batteries, and adding all that just cut the range by 138.2 miles. Adding hundreds of pounds of fuel instead would have multiplied the range.

[PhantomWolf]

ETA: I see you edited this out of your comment, but...

Originally Posted by Delvo

And aircraft are less forgiving on this kind of thing than ground vehicles, because they need to hold all those pounds up, not just roll them forward.

This isn't actually quite true. An aircraft's engines don't keep it airborne directly (with perhaps the exception of a Harrier during vertical take off and landing.)

The wings provide the lift and the "hold[ing] all those pounds up". The engines provide the go forward to counter the drag backwards. This is why modern day jet engines are becoming really efficient. The fuel is for the most part being used to run the compressor blades to compress the air which is used to give the thrust. The new engines get about 90% of their thrust from compressing air and then releasing it out the back of the engine, with just 10% of the thrust coming from the expansion of the exhaust gases.

However should that thrust stop, a modern plane is pretty good at not just falling out of the sky. A modern airliner has a glide ration of 15:1 up to 20:1. A 777 can make it 210 km from a loss of both engines at 40,000 ft.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

Retrofitting every ******* structure in the Untited States.

60 million families in the US so 60 million structures for their private homes would be the dominant factor. 10K per building? 600 Billion dollars. Divert 1 year of military budget and it's done in a year. Spread it over a decade and it's less money that Trump has added to the military budget in his two years.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

60 million families in the US so 60 million structures for their private homes would be the dominant factor. 10K per building? 600 Billion dollars. Divert 1 year of military budget and it's done in a year. Spread it over a decade and it's less money that Trump has added to the military budget in his two years.

Thing is that it's probably not even that. It's not like the demand is for every home to be a class 8 eco-house. Most modern homes have good insulation, heat pumps for HVAC, a lack of draughts, mostly will have energy efficient appliances, and probably either LED or CFT bulbs. They aren't likely to need a lot of money spent on them.

Likewise, due to the climate in the US, a lot of homes are already set up to retain their heat, and stay cool in summer.

Making sure that their insulation is up to code, changing out older inefficient HVAC systems to more modern efficient ones, adding draught stoppers, switching lighting, perhaps adding solar hot water systems as well.

There is a new tech coming out that looks like a solar panel but uses space as a heat sink for its radiator and can currently add an extra 15% efficiency to AC units.

All of these would dramatically drop the US's electricity usage for hardly any work at all. The problem isn't that it's hard to do, it's convincing people that they need to get off their arses and do it.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Of course we can STOP global warming. If we go pie in the sky, we can stop all emissions immediately, and it'll stop the warming.

I'm not interested in hypotheticals which have zero chance of being realized. Even if you could wave a magic wand and make the US's emissions go to zero, China's won't.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

There is no "maybe" about it.

In Sweden, electric cars will be 65% of the market by 2025 this is only six years away)

Someone projects that it will be 65% by 2025, based on what appears to be an exponential curve fit to current data which stops at 6.1%. You think that's even remotely reliable? It isn't. That's guesswork.

Quote:

... and Volvo are going all-electric. They are ceasing the manufacture of internal combustion powered cars this year.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...tric-from-2019

You need to read beyond the headline, because that's absolutely not what they are doing.
"The Gothenburg-based company will continue to produce pure combustion-engine Volvos from models launched before that date, but said it would introduce cars across its model line-up that ranged from fully electric cars to plug-in hybrids. "

They are not going all-electric, not even close. And they're counting hybrids as "electric" even though they use gasoline. And that's a decision that they can easily reverse at any time.

Quote:

Other manufactures will follow, or die.

Oh, I'm sure other manufacturers will expand their hybrid and electric offerings. But the internal combustion engine has a lot of life left in it.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Even if you could wave a magic wand and make the US's emissions go to zero, China's won't.

That is true, but you know what, From 2013 to 2016 China was decreasing its emisions, true nowhere near the level that the US and EU were, but they had flattened out and started on a downwards trend. Since 2016 and the US pulling out of the Paris Accord, Chinese levels have started to rise again, the most seen in 7 years.

The US is seen as a leader, where they go, others follow. If they turn towards a Green Economy and decreasing Greenhouse gases, then others, including China will follow them, we have already seen that before.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Even so, if the amount of fuel-jet flying can be reduced so that only long-haul international flights, with highly fuel efficient airliners use jet engines, and shorter commuter flights are almost exclusively electric powered, that will go a long, long way towards reducing the airline industry's contribution to emissions.

You seem to be ignorant about how big the United States is. New York to Los Angeles is 2,451 miles. There are a lot of domestic flights longer than 300 miles.

If they can make it work, that would be great. But that's a big if, and even if it does work, it's not magic. And it's not something this Green New Deal can make work either.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

That is true, but you know what, From 2013 to 2016 China was decreasing its emisions, true nowhere near the level that the US and EU were, but they had flattened out and started on a downwards trend. Since 2016 and the US pulling out of the Paris Accord, Chinese levels have started to rise again, the most seen in 7 years.

The US is seen as a leader, where they go, others follow. If they turn towards a Green Economy and decreasing Greenhouse gases, then others, including China will follow them, we have already seen that before.

Let's suppose that the US signed the Paris Accord, and that everyone actually hits their emissions targets. Would that stop global warming?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Let's suppose that the US signed the Paris Accord, and that everyone actually hits their emissions targets. Would that stop global warming?

Do you think that the Paris Accord was supposed to be a magic bullet to stop climate change?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Do you think that the Paris Accord was supposed to be a magic bullet to stop climate change?

That’s... not an answer. Hell, it’s not even a very good question. What something will do is far more important than what it’s supposed to do.

[Brainster]

What they need is a good speechwriter to turn out slogans like this:

The first thing we do, let's kill all the cows.

From each according to his ability or willingness, to each according to his needs.

A chicken in every pot, and two bicycles in every garage.

Ask not what your country can do for you, other than retrofit your home.

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by Brainster

AOC rolled out her Green New Deal today:



Sounds wonderful, but the devil is in the details. For starters, the GND hand-waves away any questions about funding:



And in case that isn't specific enough:



The document is not all smoke and mirrors; only 90%. Getting down to specifics, they envision ending all air travel in 10 years. No, I'm not kidding:



And no nukes:



Oh, and there's this little proposal:



The plan claims support from 92% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans, including Democratic presidential contenders Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Kirsten Gillibrand among others.

And not a single mention of reducing the environmental impact of humans by reducing the number of humans. We can build all the solar panels and windmills we want but if we don't force the developing nations to stop destroying the rainforests and put a brake on their out of control breeding, there's no point in "going green." Population control is necessary and sufficient to solve all our environmental problems.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

And not a single mention of reducing the environmental impact of humans by reducing the number of humans. We can build all the solar panels and windmills we want but if we don't force the developing nations to stop destroying the rainforests and put a brake on their out of control breeding, there's no point in "going green." Population control is necessary and sufficient to solve all our environmental problems.

I agree, but I don't think that will happen, sadly.

I'd like to see two children per couple at most.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

And not a single mention of reducing the environmental impact of humans by reducing the number of humans. We can build all the solar panels and windmills we want but if we don't force the developing nations to stop destroying the rainforests and put a brake on their out of control breeding, there's no point in "going green." Population control is necessary and sufficient to solve all our environmental problems.

How would you suggest we force people to have fewer children? Mandated abortions? Involuntary sterilization? What do we do with countries that don’t go along with this? Invade them?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

And not a single mention of reducing the environmental impact of humans by reducing the number of humans. We can build all the solar panels and windmills we want but if we don't force the developing nations to stop destroying the rainforests and put a brake on their out of control breeding, there's no point in "going green." Population control is necessary and sufficient to solve all our environmental problems.

Cut down on the number of uneducated mud people aye?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

How would you suggest we force people to have fewer children? Mandated abortions? Involuntary sterilization? What do we do with countries that don’t go along with this? Invade them?

Well, the easiest way would be to come up with some sort of airborne virus that only affects women of child-bearing age and either kills them or makes them infertile. I can't imagine the environmentalists having any problem with that proposal if they're willing to kill all the cows.

#cowslivesmatter

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Brainster

And no nukes:

From the article:

Quote:

Chiefly, the resolution calls for relying on “clean, renewable, zero-emission sources" — language that allows possible room for nuclear power and is a departure from Ocasio-Cortez’s initial call for 100 percent renewable sources such as wind and solar. The change reflects concerns from labor groups, including those that have members who work in the nuclear energy industry.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Someone projects that it will be 65% by 2025, based on what appears to be an exponential curve fit to current data which stops at 6.1%. You think that's even remotely reliable? It isn't. That's guesswork.

Its a target. Sweden and Swedish companies are veeerrry good at meeting targets.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You need to read beyond the headline, because that's absolutely not what they are doing.
"The Gothenburg-based company will continue to produce pure combustion-engine Volvos from models launched before that date, but said it would introduce cars across its model line-up that ranged from fully electric cars to plug-in hybrids. "

Read my words.... ALL new models will be electric

https://autovistagroup.com/news-and-...ne-development

"Essentially, every new car introduced by Volvo from 2019 onwards will have an electric motor, either in the form of a pure electric car, a plug-in or a mild hybrid. Specifically, the plan is to bring five pure electric cars to market between 2019 and 2021 - three Volvo models and two high-performance electric vehicles which will be launched under Volvo’s new standalone performance sub-brand Polestar."

"Since Volvo announced that it will cease the development of diesel engines, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) has become the latest manufacturer to suggest it will drop diesel engines from its line-up as the market continues to suffer. This follows similar plans announced by Porsche, PSA Group and Nissan recently and this lack of ICE product will ultimately accelerate the demise of diesel."

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

They are not going all-electric, not even close. And they're counting hybrids as "electric" even though they use gasoline. And that's a decision that they can easily reverse at any time.

No. Once a factory retools to build something else, going back and making it again becomes untenable

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Oh, I'm sure other manufacturers will expand their hybrid and electric offerings. But the internal combustion engine has a lot of life left in it.

https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/...from-2019.html

"A Volvo Cars spokesman said the company would continue to manufacture existing petrol or diesel-only models launched before 2019, but they will gradually be replaced by hybrid and fully electric cars."

Now how's that for "reading past the headlines"?


I suggest you talk to someone who owns and drives a hybrid, like my oldest daughter. She has owned an Audi A3 E-tron for about 18 months (had Nissan Leaf before that), and has only run it on petrol twice; both times on a 440km return trip to Christchurch last year.

Hybrids still reduce the amount of fuel emissions dramatically because most owners run them on electric the vast majority of the time... and why wouldn't they; hybrids are much cheaper to run on electric.

[novaphile]

That's pretty much my use case.

I've had mine nearly four years, and only put 20 litres of petrol in it twice per year (because the car requires it to "maintain fuel system").

This gives me a great excuse to visit a friend who lives an hour away.

The plug-in hybrid concept is brilliant, and suits me perfectly.

If there had been an all electric version of my car, I would have bought it, but all the models on the market at the time were too low to the ground for my aching back.

Being a four wheel drive with slightly more ground clearance than a regular car is also nice for getting my kayak to where I want to paddle... (Not to mention launching from boat ramps.)

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by novaphile

That's pretty much my use case.

I've had mine nearly four years, and only put 20 litres of petrol in it twice per year (because the car requires it to "maintain fuel system").

This gives me a great excuse to visit a friend who lives an hour away.

The plug-in hybrid concept is brilliant, and suits me perfectly.

If there had been an all electric version of my car, I would have bought it, but all the models on the market at the time were too low to the ground for my aching back.

Being a four wheel drive with slightly more ground clearance than a regular car is also nice for getting my kayak to where I want to paddle... (Not to mention launching from boat ramps.)

A 2014 Mitsubishi Outlander?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That’s... not an answer. Hell, it’s not even a very good question. What something will do is far more important than what it’s supposed to do.

No it wasn't an answer, it was calling out your begging the question that the Paris Accord where meant to stop Climate Change, they weren't, they were supposed to delay Climate Change and in doing so give us longer to find a solution before we reached a tipping point where any possible solution was going to have to be incredibly drastic to avoid the extinction of our species.

By sitting on your butts moaning about the other guy and refusing to take any steps at all because they don't end climate change instantly or because someone might lose their job in an industry that is presently actively destroying the habitable environment of the planet, then you are being a part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Brainster

What they need is a good speechwriter to turn out slogans like this:

The first thing we do, let's kill all the cows.

You need to keep up with the thread. There is a lot of scientific research going into creating a grass, or modifying the bacterium in the cow's gut, to reduce the amount of methane that they produce. Your going on about killing the cows is just showing your ignorance about both the issue and the solution.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

And not a single mention of reducing the environmental impact of humans by reducing the number of humans. We can build all the solar panels and windmills we want but if we don't force the developing nations to stop destroying the rainforests and put a brake on their out of control breeding, there's no point in "going green." Population control is necessary and sufficient to solve all our environmental problems.

Maybe if the western nations slowed their over-consumerism then third world countries wouldn't feel the need to rip down their forests to supply the west with wood, palm tree oil, beef, and a lot of other things.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

You need to keep up with the thread. There is a lot of scientific research going into creating a grass, or modifying the bacterium in the cow's gut, to reduce the amount of methane that they produce.

And this represents a genuine, scientific effort on our part to do what we can to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Its a rural/agricultural thing... its stuff that townies will never understand as long as their arses point downwards.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Your going on about killing the cows is just showing your ignorance about both the issue and the solution.

Because silly catch-phrases and even sillier talking points is all they have to hide their blissful ignorance.

[Parsman]

I know Scotland is a small country and we have different problems and issues from the USA as well as opportunities but in the last decade we have made major strides in renewable energy (https://www.scottishrenewables.com/f...es-in-numbers/). Of course we had a good head start with Hydro Electricity but wind turbines have been going up everywhere (one of the first off-shore operational wind farms opened last year just of the coast at my home city - bonus it is the one that has annoyed Trump because it spoils the view from his golf course! ) and we have a lot of prospects for tidal energy and even solar will work sometimes. The change is necessary. Our bit may only play a small part but if a small country like Scotland can make this much effort, why can't the USA? There are benefits as well since if we as a species survive renewables will be the oil, gas and coal of the future! You should get involved with it now or risk being left behind. I am sure there are problems with this NGD but at least it has started the conversation and hopefully actions will follow.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Parsman

You should get involved with it now or risk being left behind. I am sure there are problems with this NGD but at least it has started the conversation and hopefully actions will follow.

Part of the problem is that people are short-sighted and selfish. The best case scenario is that it's difficult to think of 100 years' time as something that's really going to happen, given that we'll all be dead by then. The worst case scenario is that some people simply don't care if it doesn't affect them directly - like the report that Trump was walked through exactly how devastating his $1.5t tax cut was going to be to the economy, but shouted that he didn't care because the consequences were predicted to hit after he left office.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

There is no "maybe" about it.

In Sweden, electric cars will be 65% of the market by 2025 this is only six years away)

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/02...are-in-sweden/

... and Volvo are going all-electric. They are ceasing the manufacture of internal combustion powered cars this year.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...tric-from-2019

Other manufactures will follow, or die.

Unfortunately, this is going to be a bit more problematic in Canada and Russia, where the winter makes batteries far less reliable. It'll happen, but perhaps a bit later.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

The problem with the 5:1 ratio is that a plane doesn't fly 1 hour and then spend 5 on the ground, it flies a whole bunch of 1-2 hour legs through the day with perhaps an hour between each at most, and the sits on the ground over night, and it does this day in and day out for 18 months, and then goes to maintenance where it is on the ground for several weeks before going back into service to rinse and repeat.

This really doesn't allow for 5 hours of charging to one hour of flight, so you want to be able to have the plane back ready to go afap for its next flight, and the best way to handle that is via the ability to swap in a fully charged pack and the charge the old one up and put it into a different aircraft when it's finished charging. Smaller air ports are likely to have less flights in and out, so it's quite possible that the next plane to visit would be the one you'd be putting the pack in.

If for example we look at the flights to my home town, we basically have one plane that flies from here to wellington at just before 7am, leaves Wellington to return here at 8:40am, then heads back to Wellington at 10am before servicing several other routes in the afternoon, then it returns here at 8:10pm where it stays over night. Flights are about an hour, and it stays on the ground at the airports from half an hour to an hour between flights. Trying to keep it charged all day would be a bit of a nightmare.

How much distance would an electric-powered 777 even be able to do? I doubt I could do Toronto-Tokyo.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I'm not interested in hypotheticals which have zero chance of being realized. Even if you could wave a magic wand and make the US's emissions go to zero, China's won't.

You're still arguing about this as if it's either zero or 100%. 20% is still good.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Let's suppose that the US signed the Paris Accord, and that everyone actually hits their emissions targets. Would that stop global warming?

Doctor: "Ok, sir, that tumor is inoperable right now, but with some chemo, we might be able to at least slow it down."
Ziggurat: "Slow it down? Doctor, can you stop it entirely?"
Doctor: "Not at this time, no. Perhaps in time."
Ziggurat: "Not worth it, then. I'll just keep smoking. In fact, I'll buy an extra pack a day."

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Belz...

You're still arguing about this as if it's either zero or 100%. 20% is still good.

No, Belz, I’m not doing anything of the sort.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Doctor: "Ok, sir, that tumor is inoperable right now, but with some chemo, we might be able to at least slow it down."
Ziggurat: "Slow it down? Doctor, can you stop it entirely?"
Doctor: "Not at this time, no. Perhaps in time."
Ziggurat: "Not worth it, then. I'll just keep smoking. In fact, I'll buy an extra pack a day."

Do you get some sort of pleasure out of making straw men? Because it seems like you’re an addict.

The logic being used to defend this Green New Deal is that we must do something, this is something, so we must do this. No, it doesn’t work that way. Drinking bleach is worse than no treatment for cancer.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Read my words.... ALL new models will be electric

That is not what you wrote before. What you wrote before was wrong:

Originally Posted by smartcooky

... and Volvo are going all-electric. They are ceasing the manufacture of internal combustion powered cars this year.

They are explicitly not ceasing the manufacturing of internal combustion powered cars.

[Parsman]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No, Belz, I’m not doing anything of the sort.



Do you get some sort of pleasure out of making straw men? Because it seems like you’re an addict.

The logic being used to defend this Green New Deal is that we must do something, this is something, so we must do this. No, it doesn’t work that way. Drinking bleach is worse than no treatment for cancer.

The ideas proposed in the NGD may or may not work out. I see it as a starting point for doing something. The reason the current government of the USA is not in favour of climate change action seems to be based on one of two reasons. Neither of them are because of a reasoned argument or based on scientific evidence. One is Trump made promises about coal and heavy industries like steel production. The other is Christian fundamentalists who think because their god flashed a rainbow across the sky 4500 years ago then everything will be hunky dory. Given those positions I have no problem with a beginning statement from environmentalists even if there are some problems with some of the plan.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Parsman

The ideas proposed in the NGD may or may not work out.

There's no "may or may not" about it. They won't.

Quote:

I see it as a starting point for doing something.

Pick a better starting point. It's not hard.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No, Belz, I’m not doing anything of the sort.

So why is China's participation in any way relevant to the US'?

Quote:

Do you get some sort of pleasure out of making straw men? Because it seems like you’re an addict.

Well, given that what you quoted isn't a strawman, I'd say you have no idea what a strawman is, to be honest.

Quote:

The logic being used to defend this Green New Deal is that we must do something, this is something, so we must do this.

Literally no one here has argued that. So this is, actually, a strawman.

Quote:

Drinking bleach is worse than no treatment for cancer.

Interesting that you bring this up after responding to my scenario involving chemotherapy. Do you get some sort of pleasure out of making straw men? Because it seems like you’re an addict.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

ETA: I see you edited this out of your comment, but...

No problem with that; I didn't even mean to delete it! It was just there when I was editing something else.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

The wings provide the lift and the "hold[ing] all those pounds up". The engines provide the go forward to counter the drag backwards.

Lift is drag. It's pushing the air that comes at your face downward instead of letting it slide by.

But there's also a second reason why the low-energy-density issue is worse for aircraft than ground vehicles: on the ground, if you don't have enough range, you refuel/recharge/replace on the way. With flight, if you don't have enough range, you just can't go.

I didn't even realize that that plane in the picture had a range estimate already. At 300 miles, I'd take a train anyway.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Belz...

So why is China's participation in any way relevant to the US'?

Because it constrains what's even possible for us to accomplish.

Quote:

Well, given that what you quoted isn't a strawman, I'd say you have no idea what a strawman is, to be honest.

You're not being honest at all. You know that I know what a straw man is. What you're really trying to argue is that your representation of my argument is accurate. But it isn't. In fact, I've already explicitly told you that there are other options besides the Green New Deal and the status quo. So not only is this a straw man, you actually know that it's a straw man, or at least you would if you paid attention.

You are, as always, everything you accuse me of being.

Quote:

Interesting that you bring this up after responding to my scenario involving chemotherapy. Do you get some sort of pleasure out of making straw men? Because it seems like you’re an addict.

The reason that isn't a straw man is because I'm not claiming YOU said bleach. I'm saying that's a more apt metaphor for my position.

When you try to mirror an argument back at me, it helps to actually understand the argument.

You really need to stop this habit of yours of trying to make disagreements personal. Because you are the one who first made it personal, and it didn't have to be.

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Your going on about killing the cows is just showing your ignorance about both the issue and the solution.

Uh, maybe it's my agricultural background talking, but folks realize that "killing the cows" is what we raise them for in the first place, right?

If we (or markets) decided that reducing the density of ruminant livestock was a desirable societal endeavor, not one more cow would be killed in the effort than is brought to life now to be killed anyway. In fact, that process would begin with simply breeding fewer and fewer each year until today's breeds exist only in living museum collections of what would become heritage animals to illustrate how farming was done back in the olden days. If you really care about animal welfare – and you had a clue what you were talking about – you would be very much in favor of the GND.

[Parsman]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

There's no "may or may not" about it. They won't.



Pick a better starting point. It's not hard.

May I ask then what actions you would propose to start the USA to taking some sort of positive action on climate change? So far your responses in this thread seem to have been naysaying. It won't work so don't try. Genuinely I would be interested in hearing some positive ideas from you rather than negative comments.