NationStates

United States of Americanas wrote:

Jebslund wrote:
Ban personal cars that get less than 40mpg? Reasonable*.

Ban gasoline engines in all vehicles? Not so much. At least not until we can safely and cheaply put nuclear reactors into motor vehicles or make solar panels efficient enough that we can get a significant (in terms of charging a car battery) amount of power out of what would fit on a car's roof. The problem with banning gasoline engines is large vehicles (semis, tanks, construction equipment, mining equipment, etc) that need to be able to draw a lot of power from a comparatively small source. Tanks and semis need the space for crew/ammo and cargo, respectively. Construction equipment and mining equipment are built as large as they need to be for the jobs they do, and the amount of batteries needed to supply power tot he latter especially would nearly double the size, and charging those batteries with solar energy would mean quite a lot more space than we have room for. Hydrogen cells are nice, but still on the expensive side, and then there's the fact that we still need to find green ways of making and recycling the batteries for any non-gasoline vehicle in the first place. 2030 is a bit... ambitious. The issues that are within the realm of physically possible will take much longer to solve.

*Once they're cheap enough to be a viable replacement for equivalent gas-powered cars, that is.

Let me edit that 2030 electric vehicle requirement.

By 2030 all personal vehicles shall be electric and commercial / heavy vehicles shall use the highest efficiency engines available on the market. No commercial vehicle that does not meet (insert a strict but realistic emissions standard here) shall be deemed roadworthy after the 2035 grace period expires. 15 years is more than enough for the commercial industry to buy newer and more efficient engines.

General Electric makes diesel electric hybrid systems which I am sure could be scaled down for a 18 wheeler.

What about the vintage car community? Loads of automobile history could be LOST because of liberalism!

Plus, Electric Cars need batteries. Batteries are expensive, more so than gasoline. This is MUCH easier said than done, especially because Electric cars are obsolete (they haven't been popular since the invention of Gas) and Gas Cars might end up on the black market where they can be made dangerous. Drugs are banned, yet they still get sold anyways. CFCs are banned, but somebody likely sells them on the Darknet. What makes you think that Gas cars will be any different?!

Umm, wildfires are a common thing. You know, like tornadoes and shit. You can't point to an individual wildfire and go, "derp. Climate change," because that isn't how any of this works.

Tornado Queendom wrote:What about the vintage car community? Loads of automobile history could be LOST because of liberalism!

Plus, Electric Cars need batteries. Batteries are expensive, more so than gasoline. This is MUCH easier said than done, especially because Electric cars are obsolete (they haven't been popular since the invention of Gas) and Gas Cars might end up on the black market where they can be made dangerous. Drugs are banned, yet they still get sold anyways. CFCs are banned, but somebody likely sells them on the Darknet. What makes you think that Gas cars will be any different?!

CFCs are not sold on the black market, as there's no profit in them. The entire reason they were in use is because they were cheap and did the job, therefore making the products they were used in cheaper to produce. They would be neither on the black market, especially since you never know what you're getting on the black market and companies need to know what they're getting so they know what they're making.

Gasoline-powered cars, likewise, would not be profitable, as the infrastructure required to build and maintain them is not exactly subtle, and the same goes for gasoline. Drugs, on the other hand, can be literally walked into the country, stored in a hidden compartment or room of a house, and snuck in easily and safely so many ways it's not even funny, and there are literally countries that either have no laws against growing/producing them, or are de facto run by the cartels and therefore may as well have no laws against growing/producing them (or, in the case of meth, can be cooked up in your own fucking kitchen with ingredients that are perfectly legal to buy). You can't exactly walk up to a street corner with 10 gallons of unleaded without it being really obvious, and trying to transport enough in to run people's cars will be a headache, not to mention those cars can't be driven anywhere because it's pathetically obvious when a car is being powered by an internal combustion engine as opposed to an electric one.

Scomagia wrote:Umm, wildfires are a common thing. You know, like tornadoes and shit. You can't point to an individual wildfire and go, "derp. Climate change," because that isn't how any of this works.

A common thing becoming far more common, with prevailing conditions making them far more severe. Big picture, Sco.

Scomagia wrote:Umm, wildfires are a common thing. You know, like tornadoes and shit. You can't point to an individual wildfire and go, "derp. Climate change," because that isn't how any of this works.

But how come it always happens in Canada or California or some other liberal area even though they are near the coast or frozen dead and not say in Utah or some other nice god fearing region?

Purpelia wrote:

Scomagia wrote:Umm, wildfires are a common thing. You know, like tornadoes and shit. You can't point to an individual wildfire and go, "derp. Climate change," because that isn't how any of this works.

But how come it always happens in Canada or California or some other liberal area even though they are near the coast or frozen dead and not say in Utah or some other nice god fearing region?

Because half of California is a fucking desert whose people insist on keeping green lawns and otherwise wasting water, and the other half is ridiculous forests, and Canada has more trees than people in some areas. Wildfires also happen in Utah, they just don't get as big because the forests aren't as dense and the air and vegetation aren't as dry.

Jebslund wrote:

Purpelia wrote:But how come it always happens in Canada or California or some other liberal area even though they are near the coast or frozen dead and not say in Utah or some other nice god fearing region?

Because half of California is a fucking desert whose people insist on keeping green lawns and otherwise wasting water, and the other half is ridiculous forests, and Canada has more trees than people in some areas. Wildfires also happen in Utah, they just don't get as big because the forests aren't as dense and the air and vegetation aren't as dry.

So what you are saying is that California literally spends so much water that the land is so wet it catches fire? Yea... I am not sure I can follow that.

Jebslund wrote:

Tornado Queendom wrote:What about the vintage car community? Loads of automobile history could be LOST because of liberalism!

Plus, Electric Cars need batteries. Batteries are expensive, more so than gasoline. This is MUCH easier said than done, especially because Electric cars are obsolete (they haven't been popular since the invention of Gas) and Gas Cars might end up on the black market where they can be made dangerous. Drugs are banned, yet they still get sold anyways. CFCs are banned, but somebody likely sells them on the Darknet. What makes you think that Gas cars will be any different?!

CFCs are not sold on the black market, as there's no profit in them. The entire reason they were in use is because they were cheap and did the job, therefore making the products they were used in cheaper to produce. They would be neither on the black market, especially since you never know what you're getting on the black market and companies need to know what they're getting so they know what they're making.

Gasoline-powered cars, likewise, would not be profitable, as the infrastructure required to build and maintain them is not exactly subtle, and the same goes for gasoline. Drugs, on the other hand, can be literally walked into the country, stored in a hidden compartment or room of a house, and snuck in easily and safely so many ways it's not even funny, and there are literally countries that either have no laws against growing/producing them, or are de facto run by the cartels and therefore may as well have no laws against growing/producing them (or, in the case of meth, can be cooked up in your own fucking kitchen with ingredients that are perfectly legal to buy). You can't exactly walk up to a street corner with 10 gallons of unleaded without it being really obvious, and trying to transport enough in to run people's cars will be a headache, not to mention those cars can't be driven anywhere because it's pathetically obvious when a car is being powered by an internal combustion engine as opposed to an electric one.

Scomagia wrote:Umm, wildfires are a common thing. You know, like tornadoes and shit. You can't point to an individual wildfire and go, "derp. Climate change," because that isn't how any of this works.

A common thing becoming far more common, with prevailing conditions making them far more severe. Big picture, Sco.

I know. That's why I was mocking those who point to individual wildfires and say "climate change" because that isn't how things work. Of course, it makes sense to look at wildfires in aggregate and point to climate change.

Maybe they should actually try controlled burns instead of attempting to keep all their forests from ever catching fire?

I mean, forest fires are part of the natural cycle, so much that pinecones actually depend on them to spread seeds. They just need to do controlled burns.

Nuclear Wastelands wrote:Maybe they should actually try controlled burns instead of attempting to keep all their forests from ever catching fire?

I mean, forest fires are part of the natural cycle, so much that pinecones actually depend on them to spread seeds. They just need to do controlled burns.

I'm sure they already do.

Purpelia wrote:

Jebslund wrote:Because half of California is a fucking desert whose people insist on keeping green lawns and otherwise wasting water, and the other half is ridiculous forests, and Canada has more trees than people in some areas. Wildfires also happen in Utah, they just don't get as big because the forests aren't as dense and the air and vegetation aren't as dry.

So what you are saying is that California literally spends so much water that the land is so wet it catches fire? Yea... I am not sure I can follow that.

... No, I'm saying the people in California use so much water that droughts are far more common than they should be, which in turn creates conditions that are ripe for wildfires. Do try to keep up. There isn't enough rain to keep pace with water usage in California. They have to literally have water transported in from elsewhere, they use so much.

Or did you think they water the forests and the desert as well as their lawns? Because the fires aren't usually burning the areas with nice, green grass, as those areas tend to be in suburbs and cities with wide, open spaces that aren't generally good for spreading wildfires.

Lmao.

That's what happens when environmentalists don't let people cut down overgrowth.

Nova Cyberia wrote:Lmao.

That's what happens when environmentalists don't let people cut down overgrowth.

[Citation needed.]

Jebslund wrote:... No, I'm saying the people in California use so much water that droughts are far more common than they should be, which in turn creates conditions that are ripe for wildfires. Do try to keep up. There isn't enough rain to keep pace with water usage in California. They have to literally have water transported in from elsewhere, they use so much.

Or did you think they water the forests and the desert as well as their lawns? Because the fires aren't usually burning the areas with nice, green grass, as those areas tend to be in suburbs and cities with wide, open spaces that aren't generally good for spreading wildfires.

You do realize that water evaporates and than falls down right? As in any water that goes on the law eventually ends up in the forest or sea or your head. And they obviously have more than enough of a water supply else they wouldn't be using that much. You can't really print water out of thin air like you do with money.

I am not particularly surprised or shocked at such a regular turn of events.

Purpelia wrote:

Jebslund wrote:... No, I'm saying the people in California use so much water that droughts are far more common than they should be, which in turn creates conditions that are ripe for wildfires. Do try to keep up. There isn't enough rain to keep pace with water usage in California. They have to literally have water transported in from elsewhere, they use so much.

Or did you think they water the forests and the desert as well as their lawns? Because the fires aren't usually burning the areas with nice, green grass, as those areas tend to be in suburbs and cities with wide, open spaces that aren't generally good for spreading wildfires.

You do realize that water evaporates and than falls down right? As in any water that goes on the law eventually ends up in the forest or sea or your head. And they obviously have more than enough of a water supply else they wouldn't be using that much. You can't really print water out of thin air like you do with money.

No, dude. While water does evaporate there is always loss when it does.

Jebslund wrote:

Tornado Queendom wrote:What about the vintage car community? Loads of automobile history could be LOST because of liberalism!

Plus, Electric Cars need batteries. Batteries are expensive, more so than gasoline. This is MUCH easier said than done, especially because Electric cars are obsolete (they haven't been popular since the invention of Gas) and Gas Cars might end up on the black market where they can be made dangerous. Drugs are banned, yet they still get sold anyways. CFCs are banned, but somebody likely sells them on the Darknet. What makes you think that Gas cars will be any different?!

CFCs are not sold on the black market, as there's no profit in them. The entire reason they were in use is because they were cheap and did the job, therefore making the products they were used in cheaper to produce. They would be neither on the black market, especially since you never know what you're getting on the black market and companies need to know what they're getting so they know what they're making.

Gasoline-powered cars, likewise, would not be profitable, as the infrastructure required to build and maintain them is not exactly subtle, and the same goes for gasoline. Drugs, on the other hand, can be literally walked into the country, stored in a hidden compartment or room of a house, and snuck in easily and safely so many ways it's not even funny, and there are literally countries that either have no laws against growing/producing them, or are de facto run by the cartels and therefore may as well have no laws against growing/producing them (or, in the case of meth, can be cooked up in your own fucking kitchen with ingredients that are perfectly legal to buy). You can't exactly walk up to a street corner with 10 gallons of unleaded without it being really obvious, and trying to transport enough in to run people's cars will be a headache, not to mention those cars can't be driven anywhere because it's pathetically obvious when a car is being powered by an internal combustion engine as opposed to an electric one.

Scomagia wrote:Umm, wildfires are a common thing. You know, like tornadoes and shit. You can't point to an individual wildfire and go, "derp. Climate change," because that isn't how any of this works.

A common thing becoming far more common, with prevailing conditions making them far more severe. Big picture, Sco.

You know what?
I'M gonna start making CFCs! I'm gonna find the CFCs, even if I have to make them myself. Then, I'll sell them for a few bucks.

Tornado Queendom wrote:

Jebslund wrote:CFCs are not sold on the black market, as there's no profit in them. The entire reason they were in use is because they were cheap and did the job, therefore making the products they were used in cheaper to produce. They would be neither on the black market, especially since you never know what you're getting on the black market and companies need to know what they're getting so they know what they're making.

Gasoline-powered cars, likewise, would not be profitable, as the infrastructure required to build and maintain them is not exactly subtle, and the same goes for gasoline. Drugs, on the other hand, can be literally walked into the country, stored in a hidden compartment or room of a house, and snuck in easily and safely so many ways it's not even funny, and there are literally countries that either have no laws against growing/producing them, or are de facto run by the cartels and therefore may as well have no laws against growing/producing them (or, in the case of meth, can be cooked up in your own fucking kitchen with ingredients that are perfectly legal to buy). You can't exactly walk up to a street corner with 10 gallons of unleaded without it being really obvious, and trying to transport enough in to run people's cars will be a headache, not to mention those cars can't be driven anywhere because it's pathetically obvious when a car is being powered by an internal combustion engine as opposed to an electric one.


A common thing becoming far more common, with prevailing conditions making them far more severe. Big picture, Sco.

You know what?
I'M gonna start making CFCs! I'm gonna find the CFCs, even if I have to make them myself. Then, I'll sell them for a few bucks.

Do you even know how?

Kowani wrote:

Tornado Queendom wrote:You know what?
I'M gonna start making CFCs! I'm gonna find the CFCs, even if I have to make them myself. Then, I'll sell them for a few bucks.

Do you even know how?

I'm gonna find out the hard way: Trial and Error

Tornado Queendom wrote:

Kowani wrote:Do you even know how?

I'm gonna find out the hard way: Trial and Error

You’re gonna either bankrupt yourself, blow yourself up, or get yourself arrested.

Scomagia wrote:Umm, wildfires are a common thing. You know, like tornadoes and shit. You can't point to an individual wildfire and go, "derp. Climate change," because that isn't how any of this works.

Ok. Only if you tell those going "derp. climate change not real. derp" to stop.

As to the op? Another fire in California? Next thing you know there will be another tornado in tornado ally; a typhoon in the East.....

State was designed to burn. Sucks when it happens. People usually know that when they move to these areas......well they should......yea....

Scomagia wrote:

Purpelia wrote:You do realize that water evaporates and than falls down right? As in any water that goes on the law eventually ends up in the forest or sea or your head. And they obviously have more than enough of a water supply else they wouldn't be using that much. You can't really print water out of thin air like you do with money.

No, dude. While water does evaporate there is always loss when it does.

Yes, some absorbs into the earth or is collected by people or animals or plants and stuff. But it does not just vanish. It does not chemically decompose or anything. Plus like this is Canada. Canada is frozen stiff and yet it's on fire. I am telling you, something is at work here.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:https://globalnews.ca/news/5746603/eagle-bluff-wildfire-friday/

Does this sort of shit happen every year or something? If people keep having to evacuate, why keep coming back? Why not move elsewhere and build a giant canister of water over the whole damn west coast so we can use the inevitable fire for energy instead of fighting the pointless uphill battle against west coast fires?

>builds civilisation in environment that requires fire to reproduce
>wonders why fire happens

Looks like they're gonna need more wildland firefighters. That's a profession that's always been hiring in the past fifteen years.

I've heard California doesn't have prescribed burnings, is that true?

I guess the valley elite can't handle some smoke.

Blanjiland wrote:While I’m not surprised, I’m seriously concerned about the news of yet another wildfire, less than a year apart from the last major one. If they keep increasing in strength and occurrence, soon enough

... they've have undone all the damage they did trying to prevent forest fires and we can go back to having frequent, but manageable fires..