Quote:
Its one of the most important resources on earth: https://genugreen.files.wordpress.co...feedstocks.png |
But pj3000's answer is correct (and the one I'd have given) - since that area of California has pretty green electric already (and that will only continue improving from now on), no reason at all to invest into new natural gas distribution infrastructure for any future developments.
If pollution had an accurate pricetag attached to it, we wouldn't need any regulations and "the market" would naturally always do the greenest a.k.a. cheapest thing in all cases. But we don't, yet, so... that's still a positive step forward. (That the city would stop a dumb developer from developing a soon-to-be-obsolete fossil fuel distribution infrastructure, should one want to fund that by themselves.) |
^^ Seriously, man? Really, just give it up.
|
Quote:
Congratulations you enjoy buying indulgences to make up for your climate and equality sins. Weather you like the reg or not it effectively does nothing of importance other than make life in Berkeley that much more annoying. |
Quote:
|
^ Don't even bother with this guy
|
Quote:
Great link Thanks |
Quote:
So even if everyone in California stopped using electricity made from Oil and LNG you would still use products made with electricity made from Oil and LNG or you would use products made directly from chemical derivatives of Oil and LNG or you would eat food grown with fertilizer and pesticides made form Oil and LNG and shipped into California with Oil. Its a meaningless gesture on the part of the city of Berkeley meant to make a certain aspect of politically motivated people in Berkeley feel good about themselves. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Using it to make a permanent, useful plastic item... is totally different from burning it for heat. The former is fine, the latter is antiquated behavior nowadays. |
Quote:
The regulation is a push towards reducing emissions via electrification. It's not meaningless. It's being supported by one of the largest utilities in the nation, and many other utilities around the country are moving in the same direction, as alternative power sources begin to become more viable on the large scale. Berkeley will be a progressive test case for this... as it often is. |
Quote:
Scenario 1) Guy in California buys X tons of plastic items made with O&G per year and burns Y tons of O&G per year for his heating and cooking needs; Scenario 2) Same Guy in California buys X tons of plastic items made with O&G per year and burns 0 tons of O&G per year for his heating and cooking needs. ??? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Which is why the whole thing is a meaningless gesture that does nothing but make, I guess people like you, feel good for the fact that your existence poisons the earth. If you really want to save the planet you should start by offing yourself as that will prevent far more fossil fuel usage overall than using Tesla or cooking on an electric stove instead of a gas one. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
With your logic, there's no difference between me going somewhere on foot or driving there alone in a 4x4 V8 Chevy Suburban, since at planetary scale it doesn't change anything. I mean, nothing matters anymore with that kind of logic. (Short of a global nuclear war, I guess.) If the people in that area of California can stop burning fossil fuels and instead use clean electricity (which is available there), that's a positive, not negative, step. Therefore, I'm for it. Why are you against it? Quote:
|
Quote:
Similar to how folks say we should stop using oil. WELL... they fail to realize that oil is not just used for gasoline, but for a plethora of uses. Plastics, synthetic material which are used everywhere. Oil based products are also used in the healthcare industry. Petrochemicals and their derivatives. The list of their uses goes on. A lot of modern society, the items we use, would not be possible without oil. Like natural gas, it is also one the cleanest fossil fuels out there. So IDK what these folks want to be honest. They want to ban nuclear power, the want to get rid of petrochemicals and oil... but I guess they will have plenty of time to think about it.... WHEN they are living in a van down by the river! The use of the action of "banning" always seems to be the remedy to a lot of issues. I can understand the use of solar energy, that I get, for homes or businesses, but folks... unless there are advances in something some of you might not know, called "material science", things like oil will remain important, and natural gas will remain a key component in our energy portfolio until advances in tech allow for items or applications to use lower wattage and energy consumption. With that said, I hope that we do realize that natural gas is still a key component in many sectors. Massive economic damage will result if more cities or even states follow suit, and the uses for some of our daily products will be effected. Fortunately, seems to be isolated to pockets of California, but possibly instead of minimal effective solutions, how about tackling the traffic and congestion issue. The housing issue. This is doing nothing but once again, adding more requirements and codes... and are why developers and residents are bailing the state. Its why policy has to be a long term implementation for it to truly be effective, and most importantly, cost effective towards both residents and the business environment. |
Quote:
Analogy... let's say you find many boxes of walnut flooring. It's free, it's yours. You could set it on fire and cook yourself a pizza on it. OR, you could install it in your house or condo, boosting its value permanently. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.