Trump pulled the plug on Biden’s funds for Appalachia, and the same MAGA towns he gutted are freaking out: “This is f*cked up”

Your blinding naivety is causing you to not know the difference between right wing propaganda and reality.
Reality is that "Green" shit, whatever it is, is almost always more expensive and has little or no ROI on it.



While there is consensus about several benefits associated with the green building, its initial construction cost in comparison to a conventional counterpart is still debated. Several market surveys concluded that green building practitioners believe that the construction cost of the green building is significantly higher than that of its conventional counterpart

Green costs more to build, and most or all of the return on investment is always couched in amorphous terms rather than hard numbers.


As that article argues, one way to make green projects more palatable is to find alternate ways to make them cost effective like imposing carbon credits on non-green alternatives. This is economic sleight of hand. It is using regulations and force of government to make the green version competitive.


This article is more of this amorphous sleight of hand. Buried in it is a project in Lancaster PA. "Improved traffic and pedestrian safety... implemented significant green infrastructure..."

What bullshit! It gave the Lancaster Brewing Company a patio area to serve guests. For an unspecified but over $1 million in cost the city of Lancaster "fixed" an intersection that was fine before and gave a local business a boost on the taxpayer's dime. "Traffic and pedestrian safety..." What a crock! The speed limit on that street is 25 mph (Google maps is your friend), and it's a semi-residential street.

It's just bullshit to cover throwing money away by government on feel good projects.
 
Reality is that "Green" shit, whatever it is, is almost always more expensive and has little or no ROI on it.



While there is consensus about several benefits associated with the green building, its initial construction cost in comparison to a conventional counterpart is still debated. Several market surveys concluded that green building practitioners believe that the construction cost of the green building is significantly higher than that of its conventional counterpart

Green costs more to build, and most or all of the return on investment is always couched in amorphous terms rather than hard numbers.


As that article argues, one way to make green projects more palatable is to find alternate ways to make them cost effective like imposing carbon credits on non-green alternatives. This is economic sleight of hand. It is using regulations and force of government to make the green version competitive.


This article is more of this amorphous sleight of hand. Buried in it is a project in Lancaster PA. "Improved traffic and pedestrian safety... implemented significant green infrastructure..."

What bullshit! It gave the Lancaster Brewing Company a patio area to serve guests. For an unspecified but over $1 million in cost the city of Lancaster "fixed" an intersection that was fine before and gave a local business a boost on the taxpayer's dime. "Traffic and pedestrian safety..." What a crock! The speed limit on that street is 25 mph (Google maps is your friend), and it's a semi-residential street.

It's just bullshit to cover throwing money away by government on feel good projects.

Did you read these articles before using them as your reference????​

Conclusion​


Green infrastructure is a valuable investment for communities and organizations seeking to mitigate the impacts of urbanization and climate change. While the initial investment costs can be significant, the long-term benefits and cost savings can be substantial. By understanding the various costs associated with green infrastructure, decision-makers can make informed choices that balance economic, social, and environmental considerations.

 

Did you read these articles before using them as your reference????​

Conclusion​


Green infrastructure is a valuable investment for communities and organizations seeking to mitigate the impacts of urbanization and climate change. While the initial investment costs can be significant, the long-term benefits and cost savings can be substantial. By understanding the various costs associated with green infrastructure, decision-makers can make informed choices that balance economic, social, and environmental considerations.

Yes, I did. The quote you give above is nothing but empty rhetoric. It takes the best-case scenario as the outcome while ignoring an actual, provable, ROI.

Unless you can measure the "impacts of urbanization and climate change" as they apply to an actual project, those are just empty words.
 
Yes, I did. The quote you give above is nothing but empty rhetoric. It takes the best-case scenario as the outcome while ignoring an actual, provable, ROI.

Unless you can measure the "impacts of urbanization and climate change" as they apply to an actual project, those are just empty words.
You poor lost soul
 

Did you read these articles before using them as your reference????​

Conclusion​


Green infrastructure is a valuable investment for communities and organizations
It is not a community. The organization is socialist DEMOCRATS, looking to implement fascism or communism again.
seeking to mitigate the impacts of urbanization and climate change.
Climate cannot change. Go learn English.
While the initial investment costs can be significant, the long-term benefits and cost savings can be substantial.
Welfare is not a savings program.
By understanding the various costs associated with green infrastructure, decision-makers can make informed choices that balance economic, social, and environmental considerations.
Fascism isn't balance. Communism isn't balance. Forcing people to buy products they don't want is just tyranny.
You don't give a damn about the environment. It's just a pawn to you. You hate farmers and ranchers, who really DO care about the environment (the live in it!). You hate efficient cars, demanding that everyone drive EVs, that use almost twice as much energy per mile. You hate infrastructure, blocking the construction of bridges and roads. You block the roads. You fly in bizjets to Climate Conferences in the middle of a jungle where you have to level a large swath of trees to get access to it. You want to tear down dams that control rivers and allow those rivers to destroy landscape again. You don't collect sufficient water to put out fires in L.A.; destroying many homes and businesses. You don't allow them to rebuild. You allow homeless to settle on private property and obtain title to the adverse claim.

You idiots riot, loot, burn, support organized crime, support homelessness, support the drug trade, and support terrorist activity.

Fuck you. You don't care about the environment at all.
Go stuff your propaganda sheets up your butt.
 

Did you read these articles before using them as your reference????​

Conclusion​


Green infrastructure is a valuable investment for communities and organizations seeking to mitigate the impacts of urbanization and climate change. While the initial investment costs can be significant, the long-term benefits and cost savings can be substantial. By understanding the various costs associated with green infrastructure, decision-makers can make informed choices that balance economic, social, and environmental considerations.

Intermittent energy generation has the consistent problems of short lifespans and high disposal costs....both of which are not factored in yet....there is no cheap.

A lot of it is not even green when you factor in the rape of the planet via mining and the massive filth of rare earth processing.
 
Back
Top