Green New Deal

[Ray From Cleveland]

That’s the answer to your question. Most people are going to stay home or stay local.

They are still heating their homes and they still get out. They may be going to different places (traffic happens when masses of people go to the same place at the same time)

A four day week is basically a wash as far as energy goes. If that appeals to you, go for it.

There are many businesses that do that (primarily in the summer...ya know when it's nicer to get out and drive)

In your defense I looked it up and Saturday is the busiest day on the roads.

I’m going to do more research. I still think we drive more miles on weekdays.

I used to drive 2 hours a day Monday through Friday. If I took fridays off that would be huge savings but now I’m 7 minutes from work so now when I’m off I drive MORE

The idea of a four-day workweek is not new.

The main thing is, it should be mandated by law.

Why? Why not each business decide for itself? Should restaurants only be open 4 days? how about grocery stores and gas stations?

Well most of those places are already open six to seven days a week. They are not and should not be impacted.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Flopper]

which humans were burning fossil fuels 2 to 14 millions years ago? you just defeated your entire argument and don't even realize it. LOL.

Wait...you mean you actually think there can only be one cause of CO2 increase ever?

You're that fucking stupid?

you lefties blame humans for it. So, let me rephrase the question, What human activity caused climate change 2 to 14 million years ago?

OR, are you saying that you have no idea what causes CO2 changes, or that you don't know that CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere and has been at that same level since we have been able to measure it, and based on ice core and fossil data it was at that same level millions of years ago.

OR, are you saying that you don't know that CO2 is a trace gas that is necessary for all live and that it is not a pollutant?

OR, are you just fricken stupid?

No one claims that man is the only cause of climate change and changes in levels of greenhouse gases. We all know climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years without man. However, simply because climate and greenhouses have changed without man is not evidence that man has no effect on them.

Existence of greenhouse gases is a natural phenomenon. What is not natural is the increase levels of CO2 which have been seen over the last 50 years, nor the increase levels of CO2 trapped in sea ice that parallels the increased use of fossil fuels.

Your claim of a constant level in atmosphere is refuted with measurements at Mauna Loa, Barrow, Samoa, and the South Pole.

 

[jc456]

which humans were burning fossil fuels 2 to 14 millions years ago? you just defeated your entire argument and don't even realize it. LOL.

Wait...you mean you actually think there can only be one cause of CO2 increase ever?

You're that fucking stupid?

you lefties blame humans for it. So, let me rephrase the question, What human activity caused climate change 2 to 14 million years ago?

OR, are you saying that you have no idea what causes CO2 changes, or that you don't know that CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere and has been at that same level since we have been able to measure it, and based on ice core and fossil data it was at that same level millions of years ago.

OR, are you saying that you don't know that CO2 is a trace gas that is necessary for all live and that it is not a pollutant?

OR, are you just fricken stupid?

No one claims that man is the only cause of climate change and changes in levels of greenhouse gases. We all know climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years without man. However, simply because climate and greenhouses have changed without man is not evidence that man has no effect on them.

Existence of greenhouse gases is a natural phenomenon. What is not natural is the increase levels of CO2 which have been seen over the last 50 years, nor the increase levels of CO2 trapped in sea ice that parallels the increased use of fossil fuels.

Your claim of a constant level in atmosphere is refuted with measurements at Mauna Loa, Barrow, Samoa, and the South Pole.

well first you need to prove CO2 changes climate. how are you going to do that?

 

[danielpalos]

Read the new green deal, needs a lot of work, 2 items pie in the sky, whole thing cut down to about six points, maybe then people could understand where its going.

simply upgrading infrastructure can do a lot to help green our economy.

 

[Clementine]

 

[Flopper]

which humans were burning fossil fuels 2 to 14 millions years ago? you just defeated your entire argument and don't even realize it. LOL.

Wait...you mean you actually think there can only be one cause of CO2 increase ever?

You're that fucking stupid?

you lefties blame humans for it. So, let me rephrase the question, What human activity caused climate change 2 to 14 million years ago?

OR, are you saying that you have no idea what causes CO2 changes, or that you don't know that CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere and has been at that same level since we have been able to measure it, and based on ice core and fossil data it was at that same level millions of years ago.

OR, are you saying that you don't know that CO2 is a trace gas that is necessary for all live and that it is not a pollutant?

OR, are you just fricken stupid?

No one claims that man is the only cause of climate change and changes in levels of greenhouse gases. We all know climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years without man. However, simply because climate and greenhouses have changed without man is not evidence that man has no effect on them.

Existence of greenhouse gases is a natural phenomenon. What is not natural is the increase levels of CO2 which have been seen over the last 50 years, nor the increase levels of CO2 trapped in sea ice that parallels the increased use of fossil fuels.

Your claim of a constant level in atmosphere is refuted with measurements at Mauna Loa, Barrow, Samoa, and the South Pole.

well first you need to prove CO2 changes climate. how are you going to do that?

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That’s the answer to your question. Most people are going to stay home or stay local.

They are still heating their homes and they still get out. They may be going to different places (traffic happens when masses of people go to the same place at the same time)

A four day week is basically a wash as far as energy goes. If that appeals to you, go for it.

There are many businesses that do that (primarily in the summer...ya know when it's nicer to get out and drive)

In your defense I looked it up and Saturday is the busiest day on the roads.

I’m going to do more research. I still think we drive more miles on weekdays.

I used to drive 2 hours a day Monday through Friday. If I took fridays off that would be huge savings but now I’m 7 minutes from work so now when I’m off I drive MORE

The idea of a four-day workweek is not new.

The main thing is, it should be mandated by law.

Not mandated by law but government should lead the charge.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[FA_Q2]

They are still heating their homes and they still get out. They may be going to different places (traffic happens when masses of people go to the same place at the same time)

A four day week is basically a wash as far as energy goes. If that appeals to you, go for it.

There are many businesses that do that (primarily in the summer...ya know when it's nicer to get out and drive)

In your defense I looked it up and Saturday is the busiest day on the roads.

I’m going to do more research. I still think we drive more miles on weekdays.

I used to drive 2 hours a day Monday through Friday. If I took fridays off that would be huge savings but now I’m 7 minutes from work so now when I’m off I drive MORE

The idea of a four-day workweek is not new.

The main thing is, it should be mandated by law.

Why? Why not each business decide for itself? Should restaurants only be open 4 days? how about grocery stores and gas stations?

People aren't qualified to make these decisions without government oversight. Otherwise, they'll do it wrong.

Well, we expect that from you because you are a commie leftist statist Stalinist tyrannical democrat bastard.



/sarcasm
^ you forgot that part, I think most here missed that

 

[jc456]

which humans were burning fossil fuels 2 to 14 millions years ago? you just defeated your entire argument and don't even realize it. LOL.

Wait...you mean you actually think there can only be one cause of CO2 increase ever?

You're that fucking stupid?

you lefties blame humans for it. So, let me rephrase the question, What human activity caused climate change 2 to 14 million years ago?

OR, are you saying that you have no idea what causes CO2 changes, or that you don't know that CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere and has been at that same level since we have been able to measure it, and based on ice core and fossil data it was at that same level millions of years ago.

OR, are you saying that you don't know that CO2 is a trace gas that is necessary for all live and that it is not a pollutant?

OR, are you just fricken stupid?

No one claims that man is the only cause of climate change and changes in levels of greenhouse gases. We all know climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years without man. However, simply because climate and greenhouses have changed without man is not evidence that man has no effect on them.

Existence of greenhouse gases is a natural phenomenon. What is not natural is the increase levels of CO2 which have been seen over the last 50 years, nor the increase levels of CO2 trapped in sea ice that parallels the increased use of fossil fuels.

Your claim of a constant level in atmosphere is refuted with measurements at Mauna Loa, Barrow, Samoa, and the South Pole.

well first you need to prove CO2 changes climate. how are you going to do that?

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia

no observed measured evidence. I'll wait for yours. so far, no one else has been able to post it. Been here six years now. let's go!

 

[Flopper]

That’s the answer to your question. Most people are going to stay home or stay local.

They are still heating their homes and they still get out. They may be going to different places (traffic happens when masses of people go to the same place at the same time)

A four day week is basically a wash as far as energy goes. If that appeals to you, go for it.

There are many businesses that do that (primarily in the summer...ya know when it's nicer to get out and drive)

In your defense I looked it up and Saturday is the busiest day on the roads.

I’m going to do more research. I still think we drive more miles on weekdays.

I used to drive 2 hours a day Monday through Friday. If I took fridays off that would be huge savings but now I’m 7 minutes from work so now when I’m off I drive MORE

The idea of a four-day workweek is not new.

The main thing is, it should be mandated by law.

Not mandated by law but government should lead the charge.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

If anything is to be accomplish government must be the driving force because it involves the entire world. Regardless of where greenhouse gases originate, the result is the same. Climate does not respect national boundaries.

 

[jc456]

They are still heating their homes and they still get out. They may be going to different places (traffic happens when masses of people go to the same place at the same time)

A four day week is basically a wash as far as energy goes. If that appeals to you, go for it.

There are many businesses that do that (primarily in the summer...ya know when it's nicer to get out and drive)

In your defense I looked it up and Saturday is the busiest day on the roads.

I’m going to do more research. I still think we drive more miles on weekdays.

I used to drive 2 hours a day Monday through Friday. If I took fridays off that would be huge savings but now I’m 7 minutes from work so now when I’m off I drive MORE

The idea of a four-day workweek is not new.

The main thing is, it should be mandated by law.

Not mandated by law but government should lead the charge.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

If anything is to be accomplish government must be the driving force because it involves the entire world. Regardless of where greenhouse gases originate, the result is the same. Climate does not respect national boundaries.

why do some countries get colder than others if the same amount of CO2 is above them?

 

[sealybobo]

That’s the answer to your question. Most people are going to stay home or stay local.

They are still heating their homes and they still get out. They may be going to different places (traffic happens when masses of people go to the same place at the same time)

A four day week is basically a wash as far as energy goes. If that appeals to you, go for it.

There are many businesses that do that (primarily in the summer...ya know when it's nicer to get out and drive)

In your defense I looked it up and Saturday is the busiest day on the roads.

I’m going to do more research. I still think we drive more miles on weekdays.

I used to drive 2 hours a day Monday through Friday. If I took fridays off that would be huge savings but now I’m 7 minutes from work so now when I’m off I drive MORE

The idea of a four-day workweek is not new.

The main thing is, it should be mandated by law.

Not mandated by law but government should lead the charge.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Yea like 4 day school weeks. Think about all the buses that wouldn't be sucking down gas on Friday's if we did that.

They can give kids homework to do on Fridays.

And the post office could be closed on Tuesdays or whatever day they think is best.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They are still heating their homes and they still get out. They may be going to different places (traffic happens when masses of people go to the same place at the same time)

A four day week is basically a wash as far as energy goes. If that appeals to you, go for it.

There are many businesses that do that (primarily in the summer...ya know when it's nicer to get out and drive)

In your defense I looked it up and Saturday is the busiest day on the roads.

I’m going to do more research. I still think we drive more miles on weekdays.

I used to drive 2 hours a day Monday through Friday. If I took fridays off that would be huge savings but now I’m 7 minutes from work so now when I’m off I drive MORE

The idea of a four-day workweek is not new.

The main thing is, it should be mandated by law.

Not mandated by law but government should lead the charge.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Yea like 4 day school weeks. Think about all the buses that wouldn't be sucking down gas on Friday's if we did that.

They can give kids homework to do on Fridays.

And the post office could be closed on Tuesdays or whatever day they think is best.

It would kind of force industry to comply because parents need to be home for their children when they are not in school on Friday or Monday. Government offices and courts would be closed as well.

 

[Lesh]

Four day weeks are the LEAST effective way to curb energy use.

You want that? Fine. Go for it but that's not even CLOSE to what this is about or where the discussion should go

 

[Moonglow]

I prefer a four day workweek..

 

[sealybobo]

In your defense I looked it up and Saturday is the busiest day on the roads.

I’m going to do more research. I still think we drive more miles on weekdays.

I used to drive 2 hours a day Monday through Friday. If I took fridays off that would be huge savings but now I’m 7 minutes from work so now when I’m off I drive MORE

The idea of a four-day workweek is not new.

The main thing is, it should be mandated by law.

Not mandated by law but government should lead the charge.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Yea like 4 day school weeks. Think about all the buses that wouldn't be sucking down gas on Friday's if we did that.

They can give kids homework to do on Fridays.

And the post office could be closed on Tuesdays or whatever day they think is best.

It would kind of force industry to comply because parents need to be home for their children when they are not in school on Friday or Monday. Government offices and courts would be closed as well.

How about free school is delivered online? Why are we spending so much for such a shitty product? So outdated.

I’d love to see what public teachers who complain when they only work 8 months a year, would do if we did away with free public schools. Like newspapers no one buys anymore kids can log in and one teacher can teach hundreds of students by using technology.

Public schools are like prisons. So many who can afford to send their kids to private schools. I don’t even know any kids who go to public schools.

Anyways, we taxpayers could save a fortune if parents paid for their kids education.

Then if a ghetto mom can’t afford to educate her kids, that’s on her for having them.

We don’t need to encourage more people to have more kids. Mother Nature says enough is enough

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The idea of a four-day workweek is not new.

The main thing is, it should be mandated by law.

Not mandated by law but government should lead the charge.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Yea like 4 day school weeks. Think about all the buses that wouldn't be sucking down gas on Friday's if we did that.

They can give kids homework to do on Fridays.

And the post office could be closed on Tuesdays or whatever day they think is best.

It would kind of force industry to comply because parents need to be home for their children when they are not in school on Friday or Monday. Government offices and courts would be closed as well.

How about free school is delivered online? Why are we spending so much for such a shitty product? So outdated.

I’d love to see what public teachers who complain when they only work 8 months a year, would do if we did away with free public schools. Like newspapers no one buys anymore kids can log in and one teacher can teach hundreds of students by using technology.

Public schools are like prisons. So many who can afford to send their kids to private schools. I don’t even know any kids who go to public schools.

Anyways, we taxpayers could save a fortune if parents paid for their kids education.

Then if a ghetto mom can’t afford to educate her kids, that’s on her for having them.

We don’t need to encourage more people to have more kids. Mother Nature says enough is enough

Home schooling seems to have a lot of success. Unfortunately, many families are not in the position to have a single-earner income and still be able to support the family.

I believe the average educational cost is 12K per year per student. So why don't we pay home school parents money instead of giving it to the schools? If a mother wants to educate her own children, why not three or four other kids from the neighborhood? We will pay them 9K per student, and that would at least save taxpayers 3K a year per student, and eventually close the schools down.

It would not only help home school families, but perhaps open up opportunities for others who wish to work at home. If you can't afford to quit your job to teach your children, you might be able to do that by teaching other kids as well. It could also help people with physical disabilities who cannot work at a job.

 

[Flopper]

In your defense I looked it up and Saturday is the busiest day on the roads.

I’m going to do more research. I still think we drive more miles on weekdays.

I used to drive 2 hours a day Monday through Friday. If I took fridays off that would be huge savings but now I’m 7 minutes from work so now when I’m off I drive MORE

The idea of a four-day workweek is not new.

The main thing is, it should be mandated by law.

Not mandated by law but government should lead the charge.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

If anything is to be accomplish government must be the driving force because it involves the entire world. Regardless of where greenhouse gases originate, the result is the same. Climate does not respect national boundaries.

why do some countries get colder than others if the same amount of CO2 is above them?

There are many reasons why some countries are very cold and other are very hot. Probably the most significant is the fact that the earth is round and not flat, the Sun's rays don't fall evenly on the land and oceans. The sun shines more directly near the equator bringing these areas more warmth. In addition, there are winds, storms, and of course greenhouse gases which all effect the climate.

Greenhouse gases often get a bum rap because of climate change. However, greenhouse gases are extremely important to our survival. Although they are only a tiny part of our atmosphere, without them there would be no weather because the lower and upper atmospheric temperatures would be nearly the same. For any point on earth there would little of no variation in temperature. There would essentially no rainfall resulting in mass extinctions of plant and animal life.

Greenhouse gases not only make possible weather but they act as a thermostat to regulate it. The intricate relationship between greenhouse gases and climate is a marvel of creation and one that man should not fuck around with.

 

[basquebromance]

AOC is only the latest in a long line of politicians to use climate change as an excuse for world government and global control of production, distribution and exchange of goods, aka socialism. the global warming scare has been tied to socialism since it was concieved in the late 80s by Maurice Strong.

global warming is not a scientific issue, my friends, it is a political one!

 

[Thinker101]

AOC is only the latest in a long line of politicians to use climate change as an excuse for world government and global control of production, distribution and exchange of goods, aka socialism. the global warming scare has been tied to socialism since it was concieved in the late 80s by Maurice Strong.

global warming is not a scientific issue, my friends, it is a political one!

I am shocked, totally shocked.