Democrats Follow Crazy 15 Year Old

[2dimes]

Same thing here except we only have about 80 fighter jets left so we can't pour the hate on anyone unless we are tagging along with the neighbours. Our fearful leader does have expensive tastes and a big shoe polish budget though...

[nietzsche]

Also as much as I would like to drive one, shutting down the fossil fuel industry would cause an economic catastrophe. The resulting upheaval would certainly be more likely to wipe us out than most of North America flooding again.

it honestly was kind of sad reading that. imagining how many more people think like that, or fear that.

where are your 2balls?

[mrswdk]

If 2dimes was born in the 19th century he'd have been one of the Luddites smashing up factory machinery in order to protect cottage industry.

[saxitoxin]

They're solutions (doubling the gas price)

Getting people to use public transport instead of cars (and therefore consume less gas) would cause gas prices to go up?

No, a 100% tax on petrol would cause the price of petrol to double which pushes people onto public transport, the principal method proposed in North America to get "people to use public transport."

[saxitoxin]

American fuel tax revenues aren't ring-fenced for building roads and bridges. They're just chucked into the overall public budget, at which point the dollars raised from fuel tax become the same as the dollars raised from income tax, sales tax or any other tax. They could be spent on roads, they could be spent on food stamps, they could be spent on invading the Middle East, etc.

Well, in my state only 1/3 of the fuel tax is a federal tax, the rest is a state tax and the state tax is ring-fenced for building roads and bridges. Tax revenue from the fuel tax is deposited into the Transportation Commission account and can only be spent by the commission on infrastructure construction and maintenance. So we can't use it to invade Bahrain either by ourselves or with the other 49 states.

[mrswdk]

They're solutions (doubling the gas price)

Getting people to use public transport instead of cars (and therefore consume less gas) would cause gas prices to go up?

No, a 100% tax on petrol would cause the price of petrol to double which pushes people onto public transport, the principal method proposed in North America to get "people to use public transport."

Oh I see. Misread your post.

Increasing the fuel tax in order to incentivise people to use public transport only hurts people if those people refuse to switch and instead just pays more to keep on driving their cars.

Why would a 'poor person' be driving a car instead of taking public transport anyway? Is public transport more expensive than a private car in the US?

[2dimes]

I don't fear it. Build a solar car that I can drive that is practical and affordable and I'll buy it. You're an ignoramous if you think the money is not holding things back. Even more so if you think it would not make Americans flip out while their country went broke.

You think you don't like Saxi now wait until he is laughing because Mexico starts building that border wall to keep hungry people on the North side.

If the elites thought they could benefit by making fossil fuel too expensive and shutting down the industry would not get them killed they'd do it right away.

[2dimes]

Obviously in order to shut down the fossil fuel industry they would need to find another way to take poor folks money first.

[tzor]

She has turned into the epitome of the shrill and unhinged activist, but then again it's not like the Americans who hate her listen when the message is conveyed calmly and rationally either.

What message? That we need World Communism now or we all die?

To quote the great Beatles, "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow."

[tzor]

I don't fear it. Build a solar car that I can drive that is practical and affordable and I'll buy it.

That's easy. The only problem is you can only drive it at night.

show

[saxitoxin]

They're solutions (doubling the gas price)

Getting people to use public transport instead of cars (and therefore consume less gas) would cause gas prices to go up?

No, a 100% tax on petrol would cause the price of petrol to double which pushes people onto public transport, the principal method proposed in North America to get "people to use public transport."

Oh I see. Misread your post.

Increasing the fuel tax in order to incentivise people to use public transport only hurts people if those people refuse to switch and instead just pays more to keep on driving their cars.

Why would a 'poor person' be driving a car instead of taking public transport anyway? Is public transport more expensive than a private car in the US?

Public transit is not a viable transportation option in the US for several reasons. (Where public transit is a viable option [i.e. New York City] it's already in-place and widely used.)

First, 99%+ of the country is not within walking distance of a public transit stop and with only 84 people per square mile it's not realistic to mirror transit options in a place like the UK which has 650 people per square mile. Ergo, by demanding all but the wealthy surrender personal vehicles [which is the implicit demand with a 100% petrol tax] you are effectively corralling the population into 1% of the land area and ghettoizing 99 out of 100 people.

Second, U.S. streets outside of New England and city cores aren't patterned in a way that's designed for total reliance on transit. To tear down every settlement outside New England and rebuild it from scratch along a grid pattern would create an environmental calamity that would make car driving look like littering in the park.

[2dimes]

I don't fear it. Build a solar car that I can drive that is practical and affordable and I'll buy it.

That's easy. The only problem is you can only drive it at night.

show

I was going to build a battery powered car. It's on my to do list. Once I find a tesla that is affordable I might buy one.

I meant I want a truly functional pure solar car. If I could, I'd build one. I would probably not tell people anymore unless I could ensure my reputation as someone too crazy to be right.

Obviously as you wrote, many might want a way to store extra power for low light/night missions.

The current (pun?) problem with solar and wind generation is it costs more to install and service the equipment than to use other sources. Most people are not willing to pay more just because a teenager tells them the sky is falling.

[saxitoxin]

In any case, I'm a vegetarian so I can be as judgmental as I want of everyone except vegans. I can drive a HUMVEE aimlessly around the block for 5 hours per day and I'm still doing less environmental damage than the most eco-conscious person who eats meat. And I'm definitely doing less damage than Bernie Sanders in his Lincoln Towcar.

[2dimes]

You are probably gassier than any bovines. Bison used to cover this land providing not only delicious pemmican and jerky but also fuel for fires, until guys like you wiped out one of the species leaving only cross bread specimens. So sure, let's pretend eating meat is bad for the environment.

[Dukasaur]

These are all solutions proposed by the mega-rich you hate so much (every headlining billionaire in the world today is calling for fighting climate change and calling for doing it through these methods). They're solutions (doubling the gas price) that will never impact the lifestyle of the mega-rich but will limit the freedom and mobility of the working class.

I don't know if you think I'll be shocked or frightened to hear that the working man will get fucked over. That is a given: whether you look behind Door #1, or Door #2, or Door #3, the deal is that the working man will get a big rubber dick up the ass while the parasites at Head Office will walk away with all the cookies in the jar. Saving the environment or not saving the environment doesn't change the fundamentals.

You also aren't thinking clearly if you think doubling the price of gas is a "solution". It's just a drop in the bucket. Multiplying the price of gas by 20 might be closer, but ultimately we need to get to the point where the automobile is something you go to see in a museum. The automobile is the #1 enemy of the environment, bar none.

The "freedom and mobility" brought by the automobile is a lie. Just another illusion to make people buy shit. A guy buys a car dreaming of zooming along open country roads; instead 99% of the time he spends in his car is spent in stop-and-go traffic going to work and back. He's not just destroying the environment but destroying himself: the stress of traffic and the pollution both contribute to heart attacks, and for this "benefit" he pays an average of $8700/year or well over $700/month.

In the civilized world -- whether you're talking Prague or Zurich or Dortmund -- a man walks out of his building, hops on a streetcar that goes by every few minutes, and goes pretty much anywhere he wants to go. He's not working himself into a heart attack dealing with traffic; he can read a book while he rolls along. He doesn't have to fight for a parking space or worry about scraping the ice when it snows. The citizen of Dortmund pays 44 Euros or less that $100 for that power. Even if you triple it for how much his taxes subsidize the service, it's still less than half of what someone in North America pays for the monstrous mechanical albatross tied around his neck.

In any case, I'm a vegetarian so I can be as judgmental as I want of everyone except vegans. I can drive a HUMVEE aimlessly around the block for 5 hours per day and I'm still doing less environmental damage than the most eco-conscious person who eats meat.

Wrong.

On the list of crimes against the environment, there's a clear heirarchy. Cars are enemy #1, Deforestation #2, and raising of bovines is #3. Vegetarianism does help, but not nearly as much as parking the car.

[Dukasaur]

Second, U.S. streets outside of New England and city cores aren't patterned in a way that's designed for total reliance on transit. To tear down every settlement outside New England and rebuild it from scratch along a grid pattern would create an environmental calamity that would make car driving look like littering in the park.

show: Street map of Prague

show: Street map of zurich

show: street map of dortmund

The reason why public transit is so horrible in North America has nothing to do with grid patterns. It has to do with North American politicians being owned by oil company lobbyists and deliberately subsidizing road construction while not subsidizing public transit.

[saxitoxin]

In the civilized world -- whether you're talking Prague or Zurich or Dortmund -- a man walks out of his building, hops on a streetcar that goes by every few minutes, and goes pretty much anywhere he wants to go.

By this standard, so can a hampster ...



The Dortmunder has the freedom to travel along a predetermined course in a small circle to places and areas it's been identified by the state he may go. Europe has no need for prisons as it's created an entire infrastructure designed to corral, to keep people in controlled geographies for population management. This is why Europe was abandoned by free thinkers in 1630, due to the Papist tendencies that existed even in the nominally Protestant countries.

Wrong.

On the list of crimes against the environment, there's a clear heirarchy. Cars are enemy #1, Deforestation #2, and raising of bovines is #3. Vegetarianism does help, but not nearly as much as parking the car.

That may be the Dukasaur hierarchy but it's not Science's hiearchy (see https://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-worse ... 32136.html and https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... gbooktalk/ and https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... t-on-earth).

Anyone who eats meat and claims to care about climate change is a hypocrite.

I do not claim to care about climate change but I also am a vegetarian, walk to the store, drive a vehicle that gets 30+ MPG, and recycle. I have all my bases covered and am beyond reproach. I'm like a Christian keeping kosher JUST IN CASE.

[mrswdk]

First, 99%+ of the country is not within walking distance of a public transit stop and with only 84 people per square mile it's not realistic to mirror transit options in a place like the UK which has 650 people per square mile.

Maybe the first step in this plan needs to be for Americans to adopt the European definition of 'walking distance'

Second, U.S. streets outside of New England and city cores aren't patterned in a way that's designed for total reliance on transit. To tear down every settlement outside New England and rebuild it from scratch along a grid pattern would create an environmental calamity that would make car driving look like littering in the park.

REVEALED: when saxi visits London he never goes anywhere outside of Canary Wharf

[mrswdk]

drive a vehicle that gets 30+ MPG

This is like boasting about being environmentally friendly because you put your straw in the bin instead of grabbing the turtle and ramming it straight down its nose.

[saxitoxin]

REVEALED: when saxi visits London he never goes anywhere outside of Canary Wharf

Don't need to. London comes to me. Then I come on London.

[KoolBak]

How many miles a year, on average, have you driven in the last, oh...20 years saxi? Assuming you're old enough to make that average....or your brain isn't so clogged with broccoli resin that it can manage it

I can honestly claim less than 3,000 a year. Beat that. And I kill half the meat I eat ;o)

(no, I don't harvest field cattle when I'm drunk)

Oh...I recycle too....blah blah blah....starting to sound like my annoying vegan niece that has to announce at the top of her lungs everywhere at all times her stats like yours...ugh.

[saxitoxin]

WTF I can't win, am getting it from every side. Mrswdk isn't even done going to town on my face when KB gets in from behind.

[2dimes]

What about oat milk?

[KoolBak]

Lol...dude...honestly was just interested in how many miles a year you drive...sorry

[Dukasaur]

Don't worry, he was just describing his favourite fantasy...