TRUMP 2020!

[Meliva]

Easily one of my biggest complaints about it is the fact that it wouldn't be viable. That fact alone instantly makes the bill not worth passing.

Now it's says it aims to get net zero greenhouse gas emissions, as well as create tons of good jobs. Millions of them. Sounds good sure. Know what else sounds good?

I will propose a bill that will make everyone get their own star trek replicator. Food and other resources will be unlimited. How will I do this you ask? Let's work out the details later, just pass my bill.

Life isn't a fairy tale. Just because you say you plan to do X, doesn't mean you can actually do X. The fact that they think they could somehow get rid of SO many alternative energy sources that aren't green, and also create millions of jobs? Those two things would conflict. Get rid of fossil fuel and other various dirty energy? Yeah welp you just cost millions of people jobs. So now, even if you do create millions of new jobs, that's no gain or loss. Assuming you actually create and replace all the jobs you just destoryed.

We have already reached damn well near the pinnacle of clean energy tech. There is only so much energy you can squeeze out of the sun, wind and water. Certainly not enough to power the whole US. Look at bloody California- They have the closest laws and regulations to the GND and many of their citizens go without power for periods of time thanks to blackouts that happen because they got rid of quite a bit of dirty energy, and their clean energy can't power the whole grid.

But hey, if you ever find a genie who can grant impossible wishes, then sure, let's give it a try. Just use your third wish to let him/her free, slavery is bad after all

[Lachlan]

But Mitch McConnell has been using that power just to make it so that America is just how he wants it. A veto by the president is non-withstanding, and can be countered by a re-vote. No one person should be allowed to decide whether or not a bill passes, besides maybe the president.

Question: What do you find so awful about the green new deal? Could you quote a piece of it and then tell me why that's bad?

yeah Mustache getting zero greenhouse emissions is almost impossible for most countries in a short timespan of say 20 years or less. The US and heck any country does not have the capacity to go completely renewable especially rapidly growing countries like China who need power plants to be built quick and fast because they need so much energy

[Lachlan]

Easily one of my biggest complaints about it is the fact that it wouldn't be viable. That fact alone instantly makes the bill not worth passing.

Now it's says it aims to get net zero greenhouse gas emissions, as well as create tons of good jobs. Millions of them. Sounds good sure. Know what else sounds good?

I will propose a bill that will make everyone get their own star trek replicator. Food and other resources will be unlimited. How will I do this you ask? Let's work out the details later, just pass my bill.

Life isn't a fairy tale. Just because you say you plan to do X, doesn't mean you can actually do X. The fact that they think they could somehow get rid of SO many alternative energy sources that aren't green, and also create millions of jobs? Those two things would conflict. Get rid of fossil fuel and other various dirty energy? Yeah welp you just cost millions of people jobs. So now, even if you do create millions of new jobs, that's no gain or loss. Assuming you actually create and replace all the jobs you just destoryed.

We have already reached damn well near the pinnacle of clean energy tech. There is only so much energy you can squeeze out of the sun, wind and water. Certainly not enough to power the whole US. Look at bloody California- They have the closest laws and regulations to the GND and many of their citizens go without power for periods of time thanks to blackouts that happen because they got rid of quite a bit of dirty energy, and their clean energy can't power the whole grid.

But hey, if you ever find a genie who can grant impossible wishes, then sure, let's give it a try. Just use your third wish to let him/her free, slavery is bad after all

Some countries can go completely renewable without going bankrupt and loosing many jobs though. Not in the US or China though. Australia could go completely renewable in a relatively short time like 20-30 years because we have a big desert where we can just put solar panels in. Also we are going to build a very large solar power grid. I agree with what you say except couldn't more households put solar panels on their house and that would somewhat fix the power shortage problem?
https://www.rechargenews.com/transition ... 2-1-849688

[Meliva]

The sad truth is that no modern nation, with maybe a few exceptions could be entirely powered by just solar, wind and water energy. Now personally, I think nuclear is the best option long term. If the globe could just agree on one spot to be the world wide dump zone of any waste produced, and proper safety is taken I feel that would be the best option. Now personally, I would suggest the Antarctic. Hardly any living thing is there, just build a large facility to safely house any waste produced. I also used to fancy the possibility of sending it in rockets to space. As a young lass I would think just send it to the sun-add fuel to the fire . Now I realize that would be far riskier and more expensive, though far more interesting.

I also recommend watching this funny and educational video talking about thorium and nuclear energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjM9E6d42-M

also, yes solar panels on a house would provide more energy for homes. Enough to power said homes? Definitely not. It would certainly help alleviate the problem. But unless the home is damn conservative with energy usage, and they have good weather, it won't solve the power problem. It would also be crazy expensive and time consuming to put them on all the homes in California. Now off the top of my head, I believe that California by itself, is more populated then all of Australia. It also doesn't have said massive desert to put tons of panels in.

[Meliva]

Sorry for double posting, but this is a bit too much to add on with a quick edit like I prefer to usually do.

I checked. California is indeed more populated then all of australia. And far smaller in land area.

Australia
2020 estimate
25,671,400
• Total
7,692,024 km2 (2,969,907 sq mi) (6th)


California • Total 39,512,223
163,696 sq mi (423,970 km2)

Roughly 1.5 times more people on about one eighteenth the land. A big problem you have is trying to use Australia as a model. While Your country is nice, it's easily one of the worst countries in the world to use as a model for other countries. I don't mean that as in it's a bad place, it's just so insanely unique. Basically a giant island, no neighboring countries(by land) incredibly unique wild life, etc.

A lot of things that would work well for you guys is absolutely not possible for just about everyone else. Lots of unused land, most European countries don't even have a fraction what you guys got.

Edit-again really want to clarify, think you got a lovely country in wild life, pretty solid government all things considered, but you guys are just too wildly different to just about any other country to be a model to work off of. Probably the most unique country on earth in my opinion. At least that I can think of. Which has it's ups and downs.

[Argo]

MEL >> Now personally, I would suggest the Antarctic. Hardly any living thing is there, just build a large facility to safely house any waste produced.
First off - dump it in your own back yard thankyou!

Secondly...https://expeditionsonline.com/blog/top- ... antarctica

About 1,000 to 5,000 people live through the year at the science stations in Antarctica. Only plants and animals that can live in cold live there.

[Meliva]

Or how about we put it in your head-since clearly there seems to be some vacant space in there based on those points you made and the fact that frankly if you thought about it more thoroughly you would see putting it there would be pretty sensible.

First point. the people and science stations. Now, why you even bothered mentioning that, I don't know. even if we doubled the high end of 5K to a nice solid 10K that is an absolutely tiny amount of people to relocate. Now losing the science bases could be bad, though honestly I doubt we would actually need to even sacrifice them, which I'll explain in my third point.

Second, your point on the very few animals and plants that do only live there. First off, it's a pretty big land mass, and most of that life, lives in the seas around it, or the coasts. Just put the damn waste facilities as deep inland as possible, with lead and other resistant metals to keep it safely contained. Maybe set up devices to scare away any animals.

Third point-it's a big damn landmass. You could probably quite easily keep the science bases along the coasts, along with most of the animals, while safely storing the waste far inland. Now in the very unlikely event that some tragedy like say a meteor hits the waste dump and spreads the waste-the casualties would literally be at the worse case less then 10K, and only a very small amount of wild life would be harmed.

Nuclear energy, is quite honestly the best option to power humanity, that we currently have. If handled properly with a coordinated effort, I honestly think we could probably power all of humanity fairly easily, with far less pollution currently, far more power, and far less waste.

[Dmanwuzhere]

im not going to even discuss the amount of dirty energy needed to create clean energy so instead of continuing that i figured i would drop a few off my playlist so i can imagine the facial effects of everyone who watches.
they are in order of age although the last two are about the same age

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bLgveCi8dM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6FmwBPDT-w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiD39J2WTQc

[Argo]

Or how about we put it in your head-since clearly there seems to be some vacant space in there based on those points you made and the fact that frankly if you thought about it more thoroughly you would see putting it there would be pretty sensible.

What?

First point. the people and science stations. Now, why you even bothered mentioning that, I don't know. even if we doubled the high end of 5K to a nice solid 10K that is an absolutely tiny amount of people to relocate. Now losing the science bases could be bad, though honestly I doubt we would actually need to even sacrifice them, which I'll explain in my third point.

>>>Do you know what studies and research are done in Antarctica and why Antarctica is the only place on earth from which these studies can be done?
https://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/ho ... tarctica/#

Second, your point on the very few animals and plants that do only live there. First off, it's a pretty big land mass, and most of that life, lives in the seas around it, or the coasts.
>>>Orcas are noted to be the only animal to breed in the Antarctic during winter. Do you know much about eco-systems?
https://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/ec ... cosystems/

Just put the damn waste facilities as deep inland as possible, with lead and other resistant metals to keep it safely contained. Maybe set up devices to scare away any animals.

>> So you not only want to put nuclear waste in the Antarctic but you think filling it with lead is a good idea too?
https://emerging-researchers.org/projec ... n%20adults.

Third point-it's a big damn landmass.
>>As far as I know the USA have the right to claim Antarctic Territory but to date haven't made a claim.
https://www.scar.org/


You could probably quite easily keep the science bases along the coasts, along with most of the animals, while safely storing the waste far inland. Now in the very unlikely event that some tragedy like say a meteor hits the waste dump and spreads the waste-the casualties would literally be at the worse case less then 10K, and only a very small amount of wild life would be harmed.

.. I don't have a response to this.

Nuclear energy, is quite honestly the best option to power humanity, that we currently have. If handled properly with a coordinated effort, I honestly think we could probably power all of humanity fairly easily, with far less pollution currently, far more power, and far less waste.

[Zephore]

Or how about we put it in your head-since clearly there seems to be some vacant space in there based on those points you made and the fact that frankly if you thought about it more thoroughly you would see putting it there would be pretty sensible.

First point. the people and science stations. Now, why you even bothered mentioning that, I don't know. even if we doubled the high end of 5K to a nice solid 10K that is an absolutely tiny amount of people to relocate. Now losing the science bases could be bad, though honestly I doubt we would actually need to even sacrifice them, which I'll explain in my third point.

Second, your point on the very few animals and plants that do only live there. First off, it's a pretty big land mass, and most of that life, lives in the seas around it, or the coasts. Just put the damn waste facilities as deep inland as possible, with lead and other resistant metals to keep it safely contained. Maybe set up devices to scare away any animals.

Third point-it's a big damn landmass. You could probably quite easily keep the science bases along the coasts, along with most of the animals, while safely storing the waste far inland. Now in the very unlikely event that some tragedy like say a meteor hits the waste dump and spreads the waste-the casualties would literally be at the worse case less then 10K, and only a very small amount of wild life would be harmed.

Nuclear energy, is quite honestly the best option to power humanity, that we currently have. If handled properly with a coordinated effort, I honestly think we could probably power all of humanity fairly easily, with far less pollution currently, far more power, and far less waste.

And in Denmark we talked about throwing it into salt domes. Quite sure there's more people and animals here.
Why? Because it's containing quite well.

Denmark has scandinavias only ''salt factory'' producing a shy amount of 70 tonnes of salt an hour - and they estimate that the salt dome they're currently working, will last another few thousand years - now, let's per say, they pick one salt dome. They're big. Imagine how much we could fit in there? - and just work on other salt domes, in the meantime? Is this better? - we don't even produce that much nuclear waste, as it's only a small test facility regarding nuclear tests on plants in a very small scale, to alter the genes and make the plant ''better''.

You can do lots with nuclear waste. Which option is the better?

*Edit Finland and sweden
Finland plans to store it in the bedrock, 230km from Helsinki.
Sweden, as far as I recall, have a huge facility underground, of which they store the waste in tunnels, and fills it out with clay.