First, a simple math problem about population, no calculator required.A square mile is 640 acres. A nice, Utah-style suburban sprawl puts 4 houses
on each acre, so that's about 2500 houses per square mile. Put 4 people in
each house and you get about 10,000 people per square mile, a little less than
the population density of Washington, DC. Divide the planet's population by
10,000 and you get 700,000 square miles. The intermountain states are about
100,000 square miles each, so that fits in seven or eight states (theoretically,
not practically). So you'll need to work really hard to convince me that
the planet is overpopulated.Now, a harder problem requiring
statistical calculation. You'll have to either do the work or find a
peer-reviewed paper that has done it (good luck with that).Does
rising atmospheric carbon dioxide cause global warming? You tell me the
coefficient of correlation between the change in atmospheric CO2 and global
temperature and I'll tell you whether I believe in anthropogenic global
Who gave the law to marry? Who gave the law to multiply and replenish the
earth? Who condemns abortion and sex outside of the marriage between a man and
a woman? Let's put first things first and stop blaming those who obey God
for the earth's ills.Surely, among the 60,000,000 aborted
unborn babies were scientists, statesmen, educators, artists and inventors.
They were denied life, partially because there are those who claim that the
earth cannot handle more people.Those who tell us that large
families are the problem have put their greed ahead of the good of the people.
The earth can sustain all who are living here and many more IF those who think
they have the right to deny life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to others
come to their senses and realize that the love that Christ talked about requires
change of attitudes and changes of behavior.Put first things first.
Then, everything else will fall into its proper place.
"When you have no actual solutions...turn to primitive works of fiction for
direction"I know he has all the personality of an old tree, but
algore and his useless works of writings aren't all that primitive.
To "Frozen Fractals" but you should be concerned with what AOC released
on the FAQ. She was one of the authors of the Green New Deal. Her release shows
us what the intentions are of the bill that was submitted.Just
looking at the GND you can see that it would cost a lot of money to implement.
Just the item "upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and
building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency,
safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through
electrification;" will cost Trillions of dollars. You see, it doesn't
say upgrade government buildings or just certain select buildings. It says ALL
existing buildings. So, if that was to be implemented don't you think it
would cost a lot.Even Liberal economists have put the price tag on
the GND at being too high. One Liberal economist put the cost at $6.6 Trillion
per year for the first 10 years.Some of the items in the GND
don't even apply to climate change, such as living wages will also increase
the cost.So why support an idea that isn't feasible and has an
agenda behind it that the sponsors don't want let out?
@RedshirtI'd rather use the Green New Deal itself rather than
whatever the disorganized freshman legislator had going on with her team. It's all rather irrelevant though because passing the Green New
Deal does absolute nothing. It's just a resolution urging prioritization of
these goals. The bill costs 0 because it puts into place 0 of those things.
There will never be a bill that attempts to do all of it. Green New Deal
legislation would come as one piece of it at a time which can be debated,
amended, scored by the CBO rather than people who say it pays for itself or
costs 93 trillion, and voted on individually.
To "Frozen Fractals" so lets to to the FAQ that AOC put up on her web
site to explain the Green New Deal. They have the question "Why 100% clean
and renewable and not just 100% renewable? Are you saying we won’t
transition off fossil fuels?" the answer to that was "We set a goal to
get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t
sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes
that fast..."Then you have the issue "National mobilization
our economy through 14 infrastructure and industrial projects." where they
stated "Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric
vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out highspeed
rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary..."So
that is twice in a single FAQ where they state that they want to get rid of air
travel.So, using the documents that the Democrats created for the
Green New Deal, we see that they in fact do want to get rid of air travel.
There is no global warming. and the world will not end in 12 years.
"Then again, the local Religious factor is claiming the end is near....
again, so why try and be good stewards when a God is going to destroy it all
soon anyway."We're already working to help God save Himself
a lot of work. And it looks like we're doing a pretty good job of it.
In my opinion:People are power. Probably every organized group of
people seeking more power to do the group's job, favors the life style that
produces the most people for the group. Airplanes may become as
obsolete as the horse and buggy when they are replaced by huge vacume tubes, on
and under the surface of the earth. Safer, faster and weather proof, and
powered by air pressure, electro magnents or something new.
@Redshirt[but the line "overhauling transportation systems in the
United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the
transportation sector " sure would get rid of airplanes since there
isn't any sort of viable electric option out there.]Why did you
stop reading there? The text of the GND says:(H) overhauling
transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse
gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically
feasible, including through investment in—(i) zero-emission vehicle
infrastructure and manufacturing;(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible
public transit; and(iii) high-speed rail;As much as is
technologically feasible doesn't mean 100% and doesn't mean getting
rid of planes. It doesn't mean getting rid of anything without there being
a substitute available.There are multiple factors in education,
money is one of them. I'd suggest lack of money is why we are in the middle
and not towards the top.
To "Frozen Fractals " that line doesn't, but the line
"overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector " sure
would get rid of airplanes since there isn't any sort of viable electric
option out there.If money was the determining factor in educational
system success, then we should be close to last, but the fact that we are in the
middle to leading (it depends on how you measure success) shows that money is
not the factor.
@Redshirt"You should read the Green New Deal"Maybe you
should read the Green New Deal because having a 100% renewable energy electric
grid doesn't require ending use of planes.
@Redshirt"Yes we pay less per student, but we also have have a better
education system than other states that spend a lot more."Utah's demographics (lower poverty, higher rates of two parent
households) suggest we should be competing with states like Massachusetts, not
floating around the middle of rankings.
"Then again, the local Religious factor is claiming the end is near...."
No that is AOC and the Dem presidential candidates.But
then again, you were really making a religiously bigoted comment.
"Do we really want to live in a world where we will be asking those same
children one day soon to address the stark reality of the global warming that we
ourselves have neglected?"What children, the progressives
won't allow them to exist. 60 million abortions in the United States since
Roe-Wade. China one child rule. EU, Japan with birth rates promoted by
progressives, that do not replace their current populations. The US has 12.5
births/1,000 population (2016) · Ranked 159th in the world.Yes
eventually progressives won't be asking those same children because there
will not be any children. Progressives seek extinction of the human race, just
To "patrioticAMERICAN" that is how all rational people view the Green
New Deal. It is a joke, and doesn't actually solve anything.If
you disagree, then please, prove him wrong. Tell us, how do you get to Hawaii if
you no longer have carbon based fuels? Do we build a high speed rail line from
California to Hawaii? Or better yet, we build sailing ships to get us there. How
do you get around in Alaska in the winter if you no longer have carbon based
fuels? You should read the Green New Deal and compare it to current
technology, you should also compare it to Socialist/Communist platforms. If you
do, you see that the technology isn't there to implement the Carbon
emission reductions and you see that it is more about implementing
Socialism/Communism than it is about the environment.Much of what
the Climate Change Alarmists say about climate change is also a joke.To "Happy Valley Heretic" that is exactly what the Democrats did when
they created the Green New Deal.
Senator Lee claimed his "presentation" was meant as a joke. App.
that's how he views the current climate change crisis--as a joke. I can
only concur that Lee should not be taken seriously, because anyone who thinks
the best solution to *any* problem is to shuffle it on down the road to our
children & grandchildren--who'll be dealing w/ much more critical
problems, if it continues to be ignored & scoffed at--not only has no
business being a Senator, they aren't being a very responsible parent or
grandparent.Mocking climate science & pretending this problem
doesn't exist, is like a school ignoring a problem w/ bullying, &
failing to protect it's students, & then being surprised when students
go ballistic in retaliation. The devastating storms are only going
to get worse, & we'll spend billions on clean up & recovery.
Imagine if even a fraction of the $120 billion spent on aftermath of Katria had
instead been spent on reinforcing the dikes that the govt knew for years were
vulnerable, but were too cheap to fix. Mike's solution is
rather like the town that voted to spend money on an ambulance to pick up
victims falling off the cliff, rather than on a fence to prevent falling.
To "Thomas Thompson" but more minds will mean more solutions.As for your rants against Utah, lets look at the data. According to recent
scientific studies Altitude is the major contributor to suicide and mental
health problems in Utah. So, unless you can change the altitude that has no
bearing on the issue.Actually we don't have the worst air
quality in the winter. There are 7 metropolitan regions that have worse short
term air quality. The interesting thing is that Utah has about 15 days of bad
air per year. That really isn't a problem when you consider that those days
are due to GEOGRAPHY and not industry.Yes we pay less per student,
but we also have have a better education system than other states that spend a
lot more. The amount of money spent on education has little to do with
success.We get it, you hate Utah. Nobody is forcing you to stay
here, you can move away if it is so bad here.
Overpopulation is a hoax. It’s been around for hundreds of years. In
1843 when Dickens wrote “A Christmas Carol”, the population was
about 1B. In that novelette, Scrooge complained about the “excess
population”. We have over 7B now, and there are still plenty of
resources, if used wisely. The earth is full, there is enough and to spare.Thomas JeffersonI do not know how you view your children –
if you have any – but I do not view mine as cancer cells.
@Thomas Thompson "This is a crisis that threatens our very
existence."Civilization flourished during the Minoan and Roman
and Medieval warming periods. During the latter they were farming in places like
Greenland. Global warming hysteria seems unwarranted.@Thomas
Thompson "We routinely outstrip all of the other states with our high birth
rates."Yes, some cultures see human beings as an asset, and
others as a liability. We have a hopeful future, and so do our children.
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer
Lee was simply proposing the solution because his religious beliefs call for
more children, quantity over quality. If more children are the
solution to pollution, we should be taking lessons from Bangladesh, India, the
Middle East, Central and South America, Africa, and Utah. Those countries all
have a lot of children, therefore, they must be prosperous.By the
same token we should ignore countries like Japan, Scandinavia, Europe, Canada,
Australia, and other countries with low birth rates. I know, some genius is
going to say we need more children to grow the economy. That's incorrect.
That is a Ponzi scheme. It doesn't work.
"If Lee was correct about overpopulation resulting in great new innovations,
we’d surely have none of these problems. We routinely outstrip all of the
other states with our high birth rates."Yep. But, like most
things Mike Lee, he really didn't connect the dots.