Biden to eliminate oil and gas by 2035

[Into the Night]

The Biden-Harris Administration will support measures to build clean, equitable, Buy Clean standards to incentivize production of low-carbon building and construction materials, like steel, cement, and timber, here in the United States.

As our new president, Joe Biden will apply a carbon adjustment fee at the border to products from European countries that fail to live up to their commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement, because we won’t let polluters undermine America's goals.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Steel is an iron-carbon alloy! Cement is made by roasting calcium sulfates. That requires fuel. Timber is wood...a carbohydrate.

Carbon is not pollution, dumbass.

 

[Into the Night]

Low carbon? You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Obviously neither does Biden or any Democrat.

Indeed. The very trees they are hugging are made of carbohydrates...a carbon compound.

 

[Into the Night]

well aren't you the fucking moron........can't tell the difference between a constitutionalist and a leftist...........but maybe that's because you idiot conservatives don't know what the constitution is

I have found this to be a problem with both Republicans and Democrats, but especially Democrats.

Very few people seem to have ever actually read the thing anymore.

 

[Into the Night]

Compelling argument.

"You are a poo poo head."

How convincing.

And so kind and inviting, that's how you win people over.

Good show. Keep up the high brow intellectual points.

Contextomy fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. You completely discarded his argument.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't think you're capable of it calling people names for not agreeing with you seems to be strictly emotional.

You may think you're making good points but all I see is a toddler throwing a temper tantrum.

Based on your level of maturity I don't think you were ever capable of it so I don't think it's possible for you have to have given up on it if you never tried.

All I can say is wallow in your rage. When you're tired of it when you're exhausted and you decide to be an adult we'll be here to talk about it.

Contextomy fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. You completely discarded his argument.

 

[Arks&sparka]

One first has to define 'pollution'. Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring and necessary gas in the atmosphere.

agreed it's completely naturally occurring and necessary in the atmosphere much like nitrogen.

This definition came up when I Google I think it fits the conversation but I'm willing to look at a more precise definition if you have one.

pol·lu·tion
/pəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.

It seems to be defined based on its effect on the environment not whether it occurs naturally. That being said the effect of the effect of this carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is debatable. There are other things in vehicle exhaust and coal burning that do pollute the atmosphere. But there's a trade-off and I think that trade-off is going to exist no matter how we get our energy.

Soot from improperly burning coal (or any other carbon based fuel) is still fuel. It can be burned.
Sulfur dioxide can be easily scrubbed from the air going up the stack. You get sulfur out of it when you do. That's a saleable product. It's valuable.

I would think the biggest environmental impact from using cold to produce electricity would be mining it. Particularly strip mining it. But the same impact is felt when you mind anything.

Even if you tunnel mine. So again it's a trade-off.

I think if we're going to take the impact to the environment we should definitely get the most out of it we can and right now that's fossil fuels.

 

[Arks&sparka]

Contextomy fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. You completely discarded his argument.

Contextomy fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. You completely discarded his argument.

You can bark fallacy at people all day long until you explain what's a fallacy why it's a fallacy it's really rather meaningless.

 

[Into the Night]

...deleted propaganda and fake news...

Aircraft contrails are not capable of warming the Earth. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

.

You already cut and pasted this tripe. No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics.

You can't create energy out of nothing.
You can't trap heat.
You can't trap light.
You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

I don’t think that’s possible, but if he could it would be awesome.

Why? It's not enforceable. It is not possible to measure the atmospheric CO2 produced by any nation. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. CO2 is not a pollutant.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Aircraft contrails are not capable of warming the Earth. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.

They trap heat making it stay in proximity to the surface of the planet longer. That is, sunlight filters through the clouds and infra-red wave lengths are reflected back to the surface. That doesn't violate conservation of energy. If you were to eliminate contrails (something that's been around only since the 1930's and has steadily grown in quantity--far greater quantity than CO2 a less efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor) then there is a very high likelihood that cooling will occur.

The big advantage to doing this is that it can be done quickly, done cheaply or at no cost, and the results would show up in a relatively short period of time. The downside is only for those vested heavily in CO2 as the cause of warming. Everybody else benefits from the elimination of contrails. Wouldn't you want to do something that would shut up the Gorebal Warming crowd and make them go away?

 

[Into the Night]

I don't think anybody denies such things they just misunderstand them.

No, they actively deny them. They don't want to understand them.

 

[Into the Night]

Electric cars have been around longer than internal combustion engine cars they lost favor with the Advent of the internal combustion engine and they never regained their hold since.

The problem is battery life and charging cycles. If they could figure out how to charge it quickly without it catching on fire I mean within a span of five or ten minutes, and it be able to go a thousand miles on a charge then it might come into it someone again but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

One idea I saw is the way around this is the car has a removable battery and there would be charging stations where they remove the depleted battery and put in a charged one. But such an idea would need a vast amount of infrastructure, and such stations would be an enormous fire hazard. And of course we also have the problem of the life cycle of the battery.

The only way to recharge an electric car that rapidly is to use a cable so thick you couldn't lift it, or to use voltages so high it's extremely dangerous to handle.
And that is ignoring the internal resistance of the battery itself.

If you build a 'charging station' that replaces the entire battery pack, you have a few problems to contend with:
First, the battery pack on an electric car is heavy and awkward. It's basically the frame of the car. Accidentally shorting that sucker during an exchange will be spectacular, to say the least!
Second, if you operate such an exchange program, you exchange a pile of charged batteries for a pile of dead ones. You have to charge them as rapidly as they are being exchanged, or you have no charged batteries to exchange. The problem of the time it takes to recharge an electric car has not been eliminated or even affected.

You still have to wait for the charger.

And you are correct about the life cycle of the battery itself. Such a charging stations will get batteries that are nearing the end of their life cycle and will no longer hold a charge. They will have to eat this cost, including the cost of disposal (and probably forced recycling) of the bad batteries, which means they will have to raise their prices for the charged batteries to cover for it.

That also means shipping costs (just can't get rid of those diesel trucks, can ya?) to transport these batteries around.

I agree with you here. The electric car has a LOT of problems. The primary one is the 'out of sight, out of mind' concept that people have. They don't see WHY prices are so high, they just know they are. They will discover that gasoline cars are cheaper, both to purchase and to refuel.

Like any market, people will vote with their wallets.

 

[Into the Night]

agreed it's completely naturally occurring and necessary in the atmosphere much like nitrogen.

At least we agree on that.

This definition came up when I Google I think it fits the conversation but I'm willing to look at a more precise definition if you have one.

pol·lu·tion
/pəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.

Not good enough. Water is harmful and poisonous. See the drowning statistics, and the accident statistics caused by snow and ice on the roadways every winter. Oxygen is harmful and poisonous in certain circumstances. See the Apollo 1 mission and statistics concerning welding accidents caused by oxygen tanks. Trees are harmful and have poisonous effects. See the accident statistics of lumberjacks and the problems of drinking wood alcohol. Grass is harmful. See the accident statistics of lawnmower accidents, composting fires, or deaths and injuries caused by hay falling off of trucks. By this definition, EVERYTHING is a pollutant.

It seems to be defined based on its effect on the environment not whether it occurs naturally. That being said the effect of the effect of this carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is debatable.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. Carbon dioxide is not a Magick Holy Gas that somehow is an exception to this. You can't create energy out of nothing.

There are other things in vehicle exhaust and coal burning that do pollute the atmosphere.

Void argument fallacy. You are going to have to be more specific and define 'pollution' better.

But there's a trade-off and I think that trade-off is going to exist no matter how we get our energy.

What are you trading off? Void argument fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.

I would think the biggest environmental impact from using cold to produce electricity would be mining it. Particularly strip mining it. But the same impact is felt when you mind anything.

I assume you mean 'coal'. Mining coal, like any other activity, has costs associated with it. The cost of the equipment, the personnel, the real estate, etc. Here you fall into another buzzword, 'impact'. You have to define 'impact' and why it is undesirable. Remember, 'undesirable' is a subjective word, with little meaning other than an emotional one. Is moving a mountain undesirable? Is digging a hole undesirable? Is pumping water out of a mine undesirable?

Even if you tunnel mine. So again it's a trade-off.

There's that buzzword again. Void argument fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.

I think if we're going to take the impact to the environment we should definitely get the most out of it we can and right now that's fossil fuels.

Word salad. Define 'environment'. Define 'impact' and why it is undesirable. Define 'getting the most out of it'. There are no fossil fuels. Fossils don't burn.

Your post has a LOT of undefined terms and buzzwords. It fails to define 'pollution' in any kind of sensible way, and thus 'pollution' remains undefined. This is the usual nonsensical rantings of scripture from the Church of Green.

 

[Into the Night]

You can bark fallacy at people all day long until you explain what's a fallacy why it's a fallacy it's really rather meaningless.

I have already explained what a fallacy is. RQAA. A fallacy is an error in logic, just like a math error.

You made a contextomy fallacy (and continued to do so). This fallacy is ignoring or changing the context of a conversation and treating it as if the context never changed.
You made a bulverism fallacy. This fallacy is discarding or accepting an argument based on who is making it, rather than on the argument itself.
You made (and continued to so) the argument of the stone fallacy. This is discarding an argument out of hand without counterargument. In this case, you did it through the use of a contextomy fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

They trap heat making it stay in proximity to the surface of the planet longer.

Nope. Not possible. It is not possible to trap heat. Heat has no temperature.
You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You can't trap light. The only way for Earth to lose energy is to space. That can only be done by light. Everything above absolute zero radiates light (in other words, everything). See the Stefan-Boltzmann law: r=C*e*t^4
You can't use a colder gas to heat a warmer surface. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1)>e(t)
You can't create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1)=E(t)-U

That is, sunlight filters through the clouds and infra-red wave lengths are reflected back to the surface.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas or vapor. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

That doesn't violate conservation of energy.

Yes it does. You can't create energy out of nothing. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

If you were to eliminate contrails (something that's been around only since the 1930's and has steadily grown in quantity--far greater quantity than CO2 a less efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor) then there is a very high likelihood that cooling will occur.

Contrails ARE water vapor. They are visible water squeezed out of the air by the engine and by the differing pressures on the wings, particular around the wingtips and engine faring. Water vapor is incapable of warming the Earth. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

The big advantage to doing this is that it can be done quickly, done cheaply or at no cost, and the results would show up in a relatively short period of time.

Shutting down aviation is cheap??? What about all those cars, buses you just put on the road? There's no cost associated with have to use them to get across the country?? There's no cost with not having fighter planes?? There's no cost with not having firefighting aircraft and fire spotting aircraft?? There's no cost with having to ship time sensitive materials and products by ground transportation?? There's no way to ship live lobsters from Maine to Washington like you can with aircraft.

The downside is only for those vested heavily in CO2 as the cause of warming.

CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. You can't get energy out of nothing.

Everybody else benefits from the elimination of contrails.

Word salad. Define 'benefit'.

Wouldn't you want to do something that would shut up the Gorebal Warming crowd and make them go away?

Nothing will make them go away. The Church of Global Warming is an inherently fundamentalist religion. It stems from the Church of Green, which stems from the Church of Karl Marx.

 

[Arks&sparka]

No, they actively deny them. They don't want to understand them.

If you say so.

 

[Arks&sparka]

The only way to recharge an electric car that rapidly is to use a cable so thick you couldn't lift it, or to use voltages so high it's extremely dangerous to handle.
And that is ignoring the internal resistance of the battery itself.

If you build a 'charging station' that replaces the entire battery pack, you have a few problems to contend with:
First, the battery pack on an electric car is heavy and awkward. It's basically the frame of the car. Accidentally shorting that sucker during an exchange will be spectacular, to say the least!
Second, if you operate such an exchange program, you exchange a pile of charged batteries for a pile of dead ones. You have to charge them as rapidly as they are being exchanged, or you have no charged batteries to exchange. The problem of the time it takes to recharge an electric car has not been eliminated or even affected.

Though I think you're criticisms are sound and valid, the lack of infrastructure and demand makes this a pipe dream anyway.

You still have to wait for the charger.

And you are correct about the life cycle of the battery itself. Such a charging stations will get batteries that are nearing the end of their life cycle and will no longer hold a charge. They will have to eat this cost, including the cost of disposal (and probably forced recycling) of the bad batteries, which means they will have to raise their prices for the charged batteries to cover for it.

That also means shipping costs (just can't get rid of those diesel trucks, can ya?) to transport these batteries around.

I agree with you here. The electric car has a LOT of problems. The primary one is the 'out of sight, out of mind' concept that people have. They don't see WHY prices are so high, they just know they are. They will discover that gasoline cars are cheaper, both to purchase and to refuel.

Like any market, people will vote with their wallets.

Indeed. When they make one people want more than a conventional vehicle then there will be a revolution.

 

[Arks&sparka]

I have already explained what a fallacy is. RQAA. A fallacy is an error in logic, just like a math error.

just barking out fallacies without explaining why what I stated was a fallacy is of no value.

You are just avoiding the topic

You made a contextomy fallacy (and continued to do so). This fallacy is ignoring or changing the context of a conversation and treating it as if the context never changed.
You made a bulverism fallacy. This fallacy is discarding or accepting an argument based on who is making it, rather than on the argument itself.
You made (and continued to so) the argument of the stone fallacy. This is discarding an argument out of hand without counterargument. In this case, you did it through the use of a contextomy fallacy.

Just accusing me of making fallacies without pointing out what in the post was a fallacy and why is no value.

If you want a magical conversation you're going to have to be better if you just want to bark fallacy to avoid conversation then I guess well done.

 

[Into the Night]

Though I think you're criticisms are sound and valid, the lack of infrastructure and demand makes this a pipe dream anyway.



Indeed. When they make one people want more than a conventional vehicle then there will be a revolution.

Already happening, to a degree. Electric cars are popular with commuters in high tech companies. The suck at cross country driving, of course, due to their poor refueling capabilities, but they do work for people in high tech as a commuter car, and they don't mind paying the extra costs. Sure, it's snobbery, most of it. The electric car DOES have the advantage in that it's a great snow car (usually), due to the independent computer controlled traction motors on each wheel. It's better than a Subaru in that regard (just a lot more expensive way to do it!).