Yes, it's mostly a matter of engineering (i.e taking theory to practice) rather than ‘hard’ science (actually developing the theory).
But first you'll have to deal with legal/economical alchemy and other arcane arts that make it cheaper to manufacture parts in, say, China, ship them across a few oceans consuming ultimately finite amounts of petroleum-based fuels for assembly, then to another for packaging then to the final destination for sale and soon disposal (e.g. manufacturing teddy bears) for a profit that leaves enough to grease the palms of a few legislators here and there who make it legal while holding back the electric car and making Steve Guttenberg a star.
This is why I'm unironically in favor of sailing ships with computerized sail control for more efficiency and smaller crews. No emissions in use, and they can equal the clip of most slow-steaming, bunker-fuel-guzzling, smoke-belching freighters today. May need to tax emissions heavily to give them a level playing field.
Or we could seize freighters at sea, sell the cargo, ransom the crew, and sell the ships for scrap. But modern navies are somewhat apprehensive about this practice.
Someone on another forum derided the green deal as impossible because airplanes can't run on nuclear/solar/wind power. Because, okay, aviation is the obvious target of a green energy campaign.
I'm aware of both of both but neither is practical nor will they be in my lifetime (some slim chance that electric engines might be, but physics dictate otherwise for nuclear)
Acting as if their posts hadn't happened is what I tend to do when the people I'd call hate-filled shills by name if it wasn't considered an offence by the moderators start spouting nonsense. It saves time.
This is why I'm unironically in favor of sailing ships with computerized sail control for more efficiency and smaller crews. No emissions in use, and they can equal the clip of most slow-steaming, bunker-fuel-guzzling, smoke-belching freighters today. May need to tax emissions heavily to give them a level playing field.
I'm aware of both of both but neither is practical nor will they be in my lifetime (some slim chance that electric engines might be, but physics dictate otherwise for nuclear)
You can really act like an idiot sometimes. First I claimed nothing I just responded to your claims. Second if people were not signed up prior because they didn't care to be and then would show up in the ER and just never pay their bill then forcing them to sign up was a huge win. Finally aviation and cargo hauling doesn't have to be solved to start the green deal, this is a non sequitur.
Moderator Action: Please do not call other people idiots. It's flaming. Thank you. --LM
You can really act like an idiot sometimes. First I claimed nothing I just responded to your claims. Second if people were not signed up prior because they didn't care to be and then would show up in the ER and just never pay their bill then forcing them to sign up was a huge win. Finally aviation and cargo hauling doesn't have to be solved to start the green deal, this is a non sequitur.
Moderator Action: Please do not call other people idiots. It's flaming. Thank you. --LM
Since showing up in ER and not paying the bills was also the rule before ACA, that's everything. Thank you for conceding the point.
Cargo hauling is the first hurdle that must be solved before you start the green deal. It's a matter of life and death, quite literally. If you cannot get food and supplies to the point of need you have created a disaster.
Since showing up in ER and not paying the bills was also the rule before ACA, that's everything. Thank you for conceding the point.
Cargo hauling is the first hurdle that must be solved before you start the green deal. It's a matter of life and death, quite literally. If you cannot get food and supplies to the point of need you have created a disaster.
What? I don't even understand what ytou tried to say here about ER visits. If someone previously just showed up and wracked up thousands of dollars in ER bills then everyone loses, the patient, the providers, and the hospital. If they have at least medicaid first they are less likely to end up in the ER and secondly there is some compensation going around plus the patient isn't mired in impossible debt. Everything you say is wrong.
JNo one is going to stop cargo hauling for the green deal without a solution in place well beforehand. Your non sequitur is knocked aside for the childishness it is.
No one is going to stop cargo hauling for the green deal without a solution in place well beforehand. Your non sequitur is knocked aside for the childishness it is.
I understand the difference between the goal of the document and the phrase technologically feasible used throughout the document. Also net-zero includes both sides of the ledger. The idea of using the phrase "net-zero" indicates accounting for some GHG emissions.
I understand the difference between the goal of the document and the phrase technologically feasible used throughout the document. Also net-zero includes both sides of the ledger. The idea of using the phrase "net-zero" indicates accounting for some GHG emissions.
I know, I'm one puny human surrounded by a system that rewards obstinacy and a people who refuse to acknowledge basic science. I feel compelled to do something about it but while I'm raising kids and super busy 5am-9pm I'm limited to venting on forums. I'm just very concerned for my children and especially their children.
I understand the difference between the goal of the document and the phrase technologically feasible used throughout the document. Also net-zero includes both sides of the ledger. The idea of using the phrase "net-zero" indicates accounting for some GHG emissions.
That's progress. Are you ready to roll back some of the statements you made concerning feasibility? No matter how you look at it closely, it falls apart.
That's progress. Are you ready to roll back some of the statements you made concerning feasibility? No matter how you look at it closely, it falls apart.
Um, I think you misunderstand the document which of course is intentional in its nature. You don't want to concede to any part of it it seems to me. Its all physically possible now. Tesla already has short haul trucks that can freight massive amounts of cargo, trains can do more. You've really only have boats that require combustion and since the document calls for what is feasible now I'm not sure its required for me to address that.
Obviously you are letting perfect be the enemy of good. It is always amazing to me how this works for the right. You do this in regards to programs that help humanity and the impoverished almost constantly but when it comes to tax cuts or slashing social services you take whatever and call it good. So "it falls apart" is just you trying to call it nonsense which clearly it is not.
It is a sad statement for American capitalism that I whole-heartedly support this statement. I think back fifteen years ago and imagine trying to support some of these policies I'd probably guffaw. Now? I hope to get to vote for one of these two for president.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Swing and miss. You claimed new coverage, not signing up for existing coverage. This one was covered a week ago.
Thank you for conceding the point.
