iNow

What variables can you think of all by yourself that may hinder a persons ability to pickup their entire life and move somewhere else?

The container, malleability, and fill percentage of the bag in which the air is placed matters far more than composition of the air itself.

No, I’m not. You could stay home. No reason to subject yourself to “the risk of being run over.” It’s your decision to go out and walk in the street that makes you part of the problem. Your points across threads are so consistently absurd that I believe you’re either very young, very stupid, trolling, or not human.

Just curious. Does ANYONE watch these countless videos that kept getting posted?

It depends entirely on whom you ask. Ask 5 different people what “sports” means and you’ll get 5 different answers

Lol. Expenses can be shared through subsidies and tax rebates even if the power storage itself isn’t centralized.

If we focus on this posters INtent more than their CONtent, the posts suddenly become much more clear

He also didn’t bother to consider that tarps aren’t enough when there’s a minus 20 windchill outside

The Musk team at Tesla designed a high capacity storage option called PowerWall for individual homes. The thinking was that significant decentralized energy storage at each house is more achievable and effective than one massive centralized bank of charged batteries trying to cover entire cities or towns.

What if I disagree with you and just don’t want to? Why should the government impose your restrictions on to me instead imposing my freedoms on to us all?

Who would grow your food?

No, because those things only work in more densely populated areas and cannot even come close to meeting the need (at least not at scale and without unreasonably high front end costs) for rural and remote residents.

Toyota recently announced plans to release cars soon using a solid state battery to replace lithium ion. These types of advances surely help. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Toyota-s-game-changing-solid-state-battery-en-route-for-2021-debut

Is this supposed to be a blog? There no discussion here

Define what you mean by “significantly increased rate” then do the math based on likelihood of genetic mutations

It’s hard answering hypothetical questions. It sort of depends on how they achieved those zero emissions. Where are the carbon and related pollutants going? Into the ground near food crops? Into the water system in Flint, Michigan? Into the tuna surprise served in the caterer is at a local elementary school? The details of this “zero emission scheme” clearly matter, but no. I wouldn’t reject it outright nor for ideological reasons (at least not consciously or with awareness that’s what I was doing). Since in our current reality today we’re nowhere even remotely in the vicinity of zero emissions, yes. I do think the onus is on the government to make fossil fuels less attractive and to reward folks who use clean energy sources. It’s the only way to address this problem at the scale required. Absent that, most solutions reliant on individual choice are akin to pissing in the ocean.

I commented on the massive investment made to speed development and address the need on a timeline the free market could not. My comment was accurate. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/08/08/feds-spending-more-than-9-billion-covid-19-vaccine-candidates/5575206002/ One can be opposed to this for ideological reasons, but we know it works, we know it helps, and we know it could also benefit humanity overall in context of climate cancer solution development and deployment. I don’t have to imagine it. It’s already happening right now as I post this, and this process is just a larger example of the free market principles you appear to advocate. The government is the customer, so according to you the richest countries really should get all of the vaccines at the expense of making them unavailable to residents of less wealthy nations. I don’t mean to drag us off-topic on to vaccine distribution. It was meant only as a comparison to suggest our principles about markets seem malleable and context dependent. We should sometimes consider adjusting them based on the scale of the problem. Climate change dwarfs all other problems in terms of scale.

So, government has subsidized fossil fuels for decades. They continue subsiding them today, but you’re suggesting that in order for green energy to take hold moving forward and help humanity ward off the rapidly growing problem of global climate disaster that NOW is the time to stand firm on the principle free markets and small government? Sounds rather like our chats on reparations and overcoming centuries of systemic white privilege, but that’s off-topic.

Summarized: The government needs to subsidize green energy for the same reason it subsidized covid vaccine developments. Not a perfect analogy, the the overlap is significant (even though on a different time scale).

In my mind. I’ve already addressed this with comments on public health. How much say the government has is where the conversation can be interesting, but suggesting it’s a binary yes/no all-or-nothing doesn’t allow progress.

I’m reminded of the outcry about how the economy would be damaged by replacing horse drawn carriages with cars

Our problem on this issue in the US isn’t so much with the president. It’s with the Congress. But it is what happens in the US which has subsidized fossil fuels for decades, and still does so today. I appreciate your central point regarding limited government intervention in the markets, but believe this particular issue of climate cancer / voluntary increases in drought, flooding, famine / avoidable extinction events, etc. is much better framed under the umbrella of public health, a remit very much within the appropriate control of legislation and enforcement.

What’s funny is that neither of our last 2 posts are

Not this time, no If Americans wanted “nice,” then surely 74 million votes wouldn’t have gone to give Trump a 2nd term