That was an Obama administration plan. Those who moved from the city to the suburbs were going to find themselves right back in the city. They wanted to build high rise apartments (tenements) and other city infrastructure in the burbs. The push for mass transit and then the planning and building of high density housing along the tracks of the light rail. They wanted you to give up your vehicles. Your mobility.

(05-05-2023 02:03 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 01:52 PM)banker Wrote:  The goal by the left isn’t EVs, it’s to lower the vehicle ownership rates by making their purchase and maintenance unattainable by the masses. They want you on electric buses. They want you to live clustered in cities. This is social engineering, not about climate.

YOU'RE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!

Or not ...
https://www.15minutecity.com/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-27/t.../102015446

Food for thought ... Why the push for 15 minute cities after we were sold "distancing" due to pandemic? They're saying the next pandemic is coming, so stack people in tighter clusters?

It's all about control. Always has been.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

(05-05-2023 09:25 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 09:06 AM)maximus Wrote:  You should be admitted to the looney bin if you think a country of our size can ever be "carbon neutral"

There is a great book out on this topic that lays it out so simply even morons like Mensa could grasp it. Ill post the title a bit later.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Of course not..and the entire issue is built on a house of climate change cards. I remember well when scientists predicted another ice age. The climate changes. Always has..Always will. Is it in our best interest to have clean air and water?...Sure. We should just stick to that and call it a day.

To the extent that we can realistically impact our environment positively we should. To the extent that we can limit our negative impact on our environment, we should. Both should be tempered to have a minimal impact on the standards of living for all our citizens.

(05-05-2023 01:52 PM)banker Wrote:  Rising temps and CO2 would dramatically help with food security.

Electric vehicles are cool and all, but they solve nothing.

1. We do not have grid capacity to charge them if we all get one. We don’t have capacity if half or a quarter of people get them.

2. The current capacity of the grid is under attack because the same people pushing EVs are fighting what produces 70% of out current grid.

3. If you think of total energy use, that combines generated electric, burning gas, and every other manner, over 90% of total energy use in the United States comes from coal, natural gas and gasoline. If you eliminate gasoline from the numbers, you would either have to increase coal and natural gas use or increase “renewable” energy by over 900%.

4. Building an EV causes 4x the carbon footprint of a gas powered car. If you assume zero emissions from the EV, ignoring the carbon used to charge it, it takes between 60,000 to 80,000 miles for the two vehicles to have an equal lifetime carbon footprint. By the time you see net environmental impact the batteries are shot in your EV. What you have done is accelerated environmental impact by front loading the damage in the manufacturing process.

5. iC cars are nearly 100% recyclable, EVs are not. Every EV will be built with nearly 100% virgin materials. The steel, aluminum, etc. that makes IC cars was, in not an inconsequential amount, mined decades ago, has been melted and reused more than once.

6. The US does not have the mineral (rare earth) to build its own batteries in mass. You can produce all the electricity you want, but if you cant built the storage you have zero energy security.

The goal by the left isn’t EVs, it’s to lower the vehicle ownership rates by making their purchase and maintenance unattainable by the masses. They want you on electric buses. They want you to live clustered in cities. This is social engineering, not about climate.

Absolutely. They have to wipe out the rural middle class, far too much independence and too difficult to control. I could conceivably live to see 2050, it's highly unlikely but not impossible, but I'm pretty sure I won't or wouldn't want any part of it.

(05-05-2023 02:42 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 02:08 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Didn’t AOC say four years ago we were all going to die in 12 years

I have a countdown on my phone, im scared and don't know what to do.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Skyscream.

(05-05-2023 10:59 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 09:25 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-05-2023 09:06 AM)maximus Wrote:  You should be admitted to the looney bin if you think a country of our size can ever be "carbon neutral"

There is a great book out on this topic that lays it out so simply even morons like Mensa could grasp it. Ill post the title a bit later.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Of course not..and the entire issue is built on a house of climate change cards. I remember well when scientists predicted another ice age. The climate changes. Always has..Always will. Is it in our best interest to have clean air and water?...Sure. We should just stick to that and call it a day.

To the extent that we can realistically impact our environment positively we should. To the extent that we can limit our negative impact on our environment, we should. Both should be tempered to have a minimal impact on the standards of living for all our citizens.

Its also a better way to address the issue of our impact on climate change (if it really exists) without drawing lines of battle over it. Everyone wants clean air and water. There is no gang turf to battle over here. Ive maintained long ago if the environmentalist had just stuck to that they would have accomplished much more for their cause.