Green New Deal

[mspohr]

I think that would be a horrible idea. Some of those loans are the result of people paying stupid amounts of money to go to expensive private colleges (I live in an area that benefits from that, but I still think it's stupid) or adding unnecessary expense by going out of state.

Standard path should be community college and then state colleges offering bachelors. You don't subsidize beyond that.

But there are other things that need to be done structurally to lower cost.

We tell our children to get a good education but don't help them avoid predatory schools so they end up deep in debt. Betsy Devos is complicit here although it's been going on for years.
I think we need to bail out our children. We did it for the banks when they made bad decisions.... Also auto industry, etc.

 

[juliusa]

So far China is the leader in green energy policies - solar/wind and electrification of transport.

That is good, since they produce more GHG emissions than the US and EU combined.

 

[Merrill]

I have a different take on going to college, my parents were unable to help pay for my education. I went to a state college full time and worked part time and commuted. It was not easy but I really have much more of an appreciation for my education than my wife, her parents said go anywhere you want we will pay for it. I think if you have to work your butt off and finally accomplish something you are much more appreciative.

 

[nwdiver]

I think a UBI would be a good idea to provide a basic level of assistance without a lot of bureaucracy. It would also be a boon to the economy. However, some people have a very deep seated aversion to the concept in spite of the fact that we already have a cumbersome patchwork of similar programs (food stamps, housing assistance, AFDC, Social security, etc.)

Eventually we'll have to make 1 of 3 choices...

• A structurally broken economy growing at a small fraction of its potential or shrinking
• A UBI or something similar
• Mandating employment 'rights' to people over machines

So it'll be a matter of what people have the least deep seated aversion to...

 

[Brando]

That is good, since they produce more GHG emissions than the US and EU combined.

and they have what? twice as many people?

 

[Brando]

We tell our children to get a good education but don't help them avoid predatory schools so they end up deep in debt. Betsy Devos is complicit here although it's been going on for years.
I think we need to bail out our children. We did it for the banks when they made bad decisions.... Also auto industry, etc.

ALL student debt $1.5 trillion
Student Loan Debt Statistics In 2018: A $1.5 Trillion Crisis
Last tax cut for the wealthy OR we could have paid off ALL US student loans. Go back to the good old days of college for anyone that could qualify. Yes, I'm that old. State University only charged a student fee of $35 per quarter for student activities - dances, movies, sports ... Students also had to buy their own text books.

Now we have continuous wars and tax cuts for the wealthy and make over $100,000 and you stop paying social security taxes as well. Our empire failing and people wonder why?

 

[Darren F]

Now if we can get the overall cost of geothermal down, I'd be able to switch off of heating oil and save an additional 3000 gallons of oil per year and almost double my impact.

I was in the same boat, really wanting geothermal, but a funny thing happened in the past few years. Air sourced heat pumps saw significant gains in efficiency, going head to head with geothermal at a fraction of the acquisition cost. I now have mini splits installed with SEER ratings of 32. My oil heat hasn't come on in two winters now. Even with the temps getting just below zero, they have been able to keep up with no issue.

 

[Yinn]

I was in the same boat, really wanting geothermal, but a funny thing happened in the past few years. Air sourced heat pumps saw significant gains in efficiency, going head to head with geothermal at a fraction of the acquisition cost. I now have mini splits installed with SEER ratings of 32. My oil heat hasn't come on in two winters now. Even with the temps getting just below zero, they have been able to keep up with no issue.

What did you end up with?

The installers in my area were within 10% of a GSHP system so I didn’t make the jump one way or another. But I completely agree, the last two years have seen a tremendous amount of development for ASHPs. Not so much in cost reduction of the low temp super high efficiency systems- but the mid to high end products have really come down in price. If things hold, that may be the way I go.

 

[mspohr]

What did you end up with?

The installers in my area were within 10% of a GSHP system so I didn’t make the jump one way or another. But I completely agree, the last two years have seen a tremendous amount of development for ASHPs. Not so much in cost reduction of the low temp super high efficiency systems- but the mid to high end products have really come down in price. If things hold, that may be the way I go.

I installed one of these
Small Air Cooled Heat Pump Chiller Air Conditioners | Modular Mini-Split Ductless Home & Server Room Chillers | Chiltrix Inc.
High efficiency and reasonable cost.

 

[juliusa]

and they have what? twice as many people?

China occupies about the same amount of the globe as the US.
Population is a major contributor to GHG emissions and global warming.
Worse, China is a net exporter of people to other parts of the globe. The US is a net importer - the largest net importer.

The US is importing people AND lowering GHG emissions. China is exporting people and increasing GHG emissions. China's GHG emissions are about double the US on a square mile basis.

 

[nwdiver]

China occupies about the same amount of the globe as the US.
Population is a major contributor to GHG emissions and global warming.
Worse, China is a net exporter of people to other parts of the globe. The US is a net importer - the largest net importer.

The US is importing people AND lowering GHG emissions. China is exporting people and increasing GHG emissions. China's GHG emissions are about double the US on a square mile basis.

??? Chinas per capita GHG emissions are <50% those of the US. The fact that China is a dominant exporter and the US is a dominant importer further lowers the overall Chinese GHG per capita since the bulk of China GHG emissions are manufacturing crap for the US. If we added the GHG cost of all the products the US consumes from China the per capita GHG emissions of the average American are easily ~3x that of the average Chinese.

The idea that the US is doing more to lower GHG emissions than China is complete nonsense.

 

[juliusa]

Chinas per capita GHG emissions are <50% those of the US.

Per capita means nothing to the globe. It is per square mile you should be looking at. About double the US GHG emisisons.

US GHG emissions are lowering, while China's are rising. They should stop exporting crap to lower their GHG emissions. And they should stop exporting people too.

 

[mspohr]

Per capita means nothing to the globe. It is per square mile you should be looking at. About double the US GHG emisisons.

Climate change is caused by people. People are damaging the earth. The only thing that matters is human caused emissions. Emissions per square mile are irrelevant.

 

[juliusa]

Consider a revenue-neutral carbon tax, where carbon is taxed but then 100% of the money is returned to the people. In that scenario, I would say there would be 1 credit for a non-dependent individual tax return, 2 credits for a married filing jointly, and 3 credit for married filing jointly with dependents.

No additional credit for more dependents. Sure more dependents produce more GHG emissions through their consumption, but no additional tax credit. The number of children one has is a choice - just like driving a Hummer or a Prius is a choice - that has GHG emission consequences.

Good GHG policy should address population that same as it addresses burning fossil fuels. Both drive climate change.

Climate change is caused by people. People are damaging the earth. The only thing that matters is human caused emissions.

Exactly!

More people, more climate change, more damage.
More fossil fuel burning, more climate change, more damage.

Emissions per square mile are irrelevant.

Nope. That is the only relevant measure. Countries cannot change their land area; they can change their amount of fossil fuel burned and overpopulation of their country.

 

[mspohr]

More people, more climate change, more damage.
More fossil fuel burning, more climate change, more damage.


Nope. That is the only relevant measure. Countries cannot change their land area; they can change their amount of fossil fuel burned and overpopulation of their country.

I seem to be a few synapses short in following the logic of your last paragraph.

 

[nwdiver]

they can change their amount of fossil fuel burned and overpopulation of their country.

...... which..... which is what GHG per capita means.........

...... if you're gonna go by GHG per square mile then Wyoming is more environmentally friendly than San Fransisco. I hope that sounds as absurd reading it as it felt typing it.....

 

[juliusa]

if you're gonna go by GHG per square mile then Wyoming is more environmentally friendly than San Fransisco

Yes, you get it. Net GHG emissions from Wyoming are much less than from San Francisco.

I seem to be a few synapses short in following the logic of your last paragraph.

It is not that complicated. The amount of GHG emissions from the country is what impacts the climate - having more people in a country does not lessen the impact of the GHG emissions from the country.

 

[nwdiver]

Yes, you get it. Net GHG emissions from Wyoming are much less than from San Francisco.

LOL... so to your mind coal powered Wyoming is good and Solar powered SF is bad because Wyoming has more empty space?????

It is not that complicated. The amount of GHG emissions from the country is what impacts the climate - having more square miles in a country does not lessen the impact of the GHG emissions from the country.

 

[mspohr]

Yes, you get it. Net GHG emissions from Wyoming are much less than from San Francisco.


It is not that complicated. The amount of GHG emissions from the country is what impacts the climate - having more people in a country does not lessen the impact of the GHG emissions from the country.

Still doesn't make sense.

 

[juliusa]

Still doesn't make sense.

1 ton of GHG emissions is bad.
2 tons of GHG emissions is more bad.

Do you understand that?

The impact on the climate is no different if the emissions came from 2 people or 4 people.

Do you understand that?

Therefore we need to focus on GHG emissions if we want to help the environment.