View Single Post
  #117  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 3:15 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
7-hydroxymitragynine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 29,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
I have to disagree with pretty much everything here, other than natural gas not being obsolete soon (no way it will since we've built/retrofitted tons of gas-fired powered plants).

What does "overtime" or "in time" mean when we're talking about reducing carbon? When does it start? This specifically is one municipality taking a concrete step to do that. They had a timeframe for reduction levels that they did not meet. It has been happening over time. This is the next step because other measures in the past havent gotten them to their goals.

Why will rich people benefit but common folk won't?

Being powered by the electrical grid does not mean that rates will go up. That simply does not follow. I'm not even sure what you can possibly mean by this.

This is global, national, state, and local issue. It's such a tired argument that puts forth a false narrative when people say that it won't help anything because all the other countries aren't doing it. Well, guess what, other countries are doing it... and they have been doing it... and I'd like to think that the USA should lead in engineering and technological innovation. BUt you know, hey, I'm no "patriot". Things have to happen at the local level in order for change to occur. That's why cities all over the country and world are taking the lead. If some UN or US federal decree came down about this, people would be going nuts calling it socialism and One World Government and some Chinese conspiracy BS.

1) Energy efficiency: Natural gas appliances use less watts or in some cases kilowaters versus thier electrical varients. Hence why I mentioned advances in material science to make normal day-to-day items run on less electricity.

2) Rich people will benefit from this because they can afford the new developments going on in this building/property market, whereas the common man will have to seek to get exceptions. A stove might be cheap for some, but for others, it can be a big investment. $1000 might not seem like a lot for some, but for a lot of people, it is. The worse thing the state or even the local government can due is "force" conversion of such applications without consideration of family incomes and current financial burden.

3) Why I keep mentioning implementation over time is so that people aren't financially burdened even further. Climate change is just one issue of many, but for a lot of folks, its not the root cause of their daily gripes or challenges. Things like traffic, housing, wages not keeping up with soaring living costs. These are the real issues that effect people.

So its fine and dandy to reduce our carbon footprint (which I am for btw), but WE should also consider the costs that it may incur on residents or the business environment.

Going green is good, but going green to quick can have ill consequences that lead to other issues, primarily economic and cost of living related.

An example to illustrate this would be FORCING everyone to get an electric car in 2020. Well...no... because right now, technology, while improving, has not gotten the costs down where batteries are cheap to make it feasible for the common man/woman. So that's why long term goals and strategies must be devised, so that financial burden is not instilled upon a populous, if it be local or state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
It's painfully obvious to everyone but you that your views don't actually align with the people in California, and specifically, Berkeley. What a relief that you're just some random forumer far, far away that has no power to impose his silly little outdated beliefs on us poor Californians.
Common now, don't get triggered. Where having a conversation/debate here. Spirited conversation if you will. And this is just text, can you imagine the trigger factor with the pick-up truck experiment!

Not sure what distance has to do with discussion on issues. Is distance to a location a pre-requisite for discussion on such a topic? Folks think I'm triggered, I'm not, I'm having a spirited debate and bringing out the truth which people know is true, but won't admit.

"What a relief that you're just some random forumer far, far away that has no power to impose his silly little outdated beliefs on us poor Californians." ... now thats a very triggered thing to say.

Context!
Reply With Quote