A REC is a Renewable Energy Certificate. It's basically an instrument to account for your production of renewable energy, added back to the grid. It depends on your electric company, but the gist of it is, when install solar on your house, your bill is reduced by the amount of excess energy you produce. In other words, your bill is cost shifted onto other customers, or the tax payers. However, this does not actually reduce carbon emissions, it just reduces the cost of your bill. Someday, if storage technology is invented(highly unlikely), then those panels will actually save GHGs. Until then, the increase in GHGs is due to the manufacturing of the panels.

If you want to reduce your carbon foot print, installing high efficiency appliances is a much better way.

It's no secret that just about every utility company has done everything they can to slow the progress of solar, especially in sun belt states like FL, NV, and AZ. Just read up on Florida's anti-solar laws passed by a governor who was a utility lobbyist or Nevada's utility-company-lawyer-turned-governor running Sunrun, the largest residential solar installer, out of NV.

My point was that if climate change really needs to be addressed, to the point Congress tells lobbyists to eff off, then an actual way forward that's not as ridiculous as AOC's Green New Deal and uses tech we currently have, would be to ensure that rooftop solar is as standard a piece of equipment for every building as HVAC, meet the rest of the power need with nuclear, and replace local commuter traffic with electric cars.

Yes.

IMO utilities should not be for-profit companies either. I'm no fan of big government but some key infrastructure items really belong in the public realm. Like roads, a government owner/manger could subcontract certain things out to control costs (routine Mx, plant operations, etc).

The same governor who banned state employees from using the term "climate change?"

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/sta...e13576691.html

What happens if grounding all aircraft becomes part of the climate solution. Are you okay about walking away, or do you wish for the airlines to lobby the government to prevent that.

The problem in recognizing climate change is going to have a profound effect, and require major sacrifices that no one wants to make personally. You can't just say, everyone in the oil and gas industry should lose their job, so I can keep mine.

As someone posted in a previous graph, most airliners have better MPG/passenger than cars.

Start tackling factory farming and a meat-based diets. That would have a greater impact.

More to the point of my post: Ordering your employees, including state scientists, not to use the term is Orwellian.

Wrong, there always needs to be competition. That's how efficiency happens and progress is made.

Unless of course you're big enough that you can sue or just straight up buy out and park their product so that you don't have to compete.

Yes, but if you believe the scientists, it is full stop on ALL carbon emissions within the next decade.

There is an actual phrase for this in economics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Not all scientists agree that climate change is caused by man. Many don't.

Generally true, but for some critical functions in society it's better to give up some competitive efficiency in favor of regulated stability/reliability. Law enforcement and defense are prime examples of things you REALLY don't want privatized. Also the NRC and FAA.

You can (and should) have a hybrid system wherever possible. In the case of the power grid management and oversight by the government, with commercial contracts for new equipment, MX, and operation of most equipment. You don't need a vast bloated government bureaucracy for ever aspect of that.

only way that works is if you assume 1 person per car but every seat on an airliner is full. airliners getting 80 MPG per seat sounds great compared to a 28 MPG SUV but the SUV has 5 seats giving it a 140MPG/seat full or 112MPG for a family of 4

Even if full (they're often not), that SUV isn't carrying any useful payload other than its occupants so MPG is only part of the equation in that scenario. Apples to oranges comparison. Fuel consumption per pound of payload carried would be a much more useful metric IMO in terms of utility. Of course rail dominates here, but only for things that can wait a while.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

This is a correct rough approximation.

It does not however account for cargo carriage, which is significant on larger jets (non-RJs).

It also does not account for indirect environmental and societal costs of driving for days on longer trips. Also does not account for the difficulty involved in driving across oceans, or desolate wastelands.

no doubt there are many other factors and overall air travel generates many efficiencies lost on surface transportation. but just a blanket ststment saying planes have better MPG than cars by using per seat on a plane vs per vehicle on a car can be a flawed logic; assuming you are traveling with your family and not alone

I agree with law enforcement and defense but the FAA should be privatized, it isn't even Constitutional. Canada has a private ATC system and it seems to be working well for them.


No, that's the worst case scenario because you then have mass corruption / corporatism also known as crony capitalism.

ATC, sure. It's a commodity, easy to define requirements and performance metrics, and supervise compliance of the service provider.

FAA, no. They are a regulator, not a service provider. Look at what happened with the Max when they "outsourced" some regulatory authority...


The constitution says government must do some things, and it says it must not do certain other things. Anything not specifically called out is fair game either way.

The constitution does NOT prescribe how the government runs, it just sets some boundaries. I'm not a softy on the constitution by any means, I actually took an oath on that. But it has to be taken fairly literally, otherwise anyone can rationalize anything and then you have to take up arms to settle the issue.

As opposed to corporations with no oversight?

Obviously elected officials have to watch the the overseers, and the voters have to watch the elected officials. If not, then your crooked types will naturally gravitate to unsupervised public money.

Yes, I agree. But it's close enough to a wash, since most planes carry cargo, and most drivers don't take a family of five.

I think on average driving is probably a little more efficient but not by a large margin. Not enough to justify a three-day road trip over a three hour flight (unless you're on vacation and want to see the scenery).

Have you ever read the 9th and 10th Amendments? :confused: :rolleyes:

Thank God you are here to point out how the government has been violating the Constitution for the last 2 centuries. I'm sure there aren't any Supreme Court rulings related to it. Guess you better get your buddies together and overthrow the government.

Have YOU ever heard of the Air Commerce Act and the Necessary and Proper Clause? Might want to give McCulloch vs. Maryland a read which gives the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the clause.

Further there is case law of which the name deceives me at the moment (United States vs. Cosby, maybe?), that establishes that land owners do not own the airspace above their property “to the heavens” (making it Federal airspace to be overseen by a federal regulatory body). To be fair, the case law further stated that the government could not seize to ground level without compensation.

Sure. I paraphrased them a few posts back.

The ELECTED government is generally considered to be expressing the will of the people when it does stuff not specified in the constitution. As long as it's not in violation of said constitution.

Privatized ATC? lol, worst idea ever. This thread has officially jumped the shark.

This thread could be renamed, "What to expect when you fly with that captain".

Doesn't matter what SCOTUS rules if they rule in violation to the Constitution. They are not infallible.

I don't think you have read McCulloch v Maryland. I have no problem with the holding (other than the fact that it supported the central bank at the time... a central bank is unconstitutional)


I disagree with that, and I also disagree with the idea that you don't own the dirt beneath your property either. Both are absurd and an abomination to property rights.

Except that the 9th and 10th Amendments specifically say that unless a specific action is enumerated in the Constitution, then the federal government isn't allowed to do it.

So if it isn't one of the powers granted to the federal governments by the state governments listed in Art I, Sec 8, then it is by default unconstitutional.

But it says those rights belong to the people... who can (and do) delegate them to their elected reps (state or federal).

[MOD INPUT]

We can talk about climate, energy, industry, policy, even government but please steer clear or red/blue partisan politics.

Yes, specifically listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the federal Constitution. If it isn't listed there, then the feds aren't allowed to do it barring a Constitutional amendment.

Except when the Supreme Court says it's Constitutional, that's it. Aside from a new Amendment or an armed insurrection, you just gotta live with the fact that it has been deemed Constitutional.

Uh no, the SCOTUS cannot rule contrary to the Constitution.

He’s right. Nowhere in the Constitution is there an enumerated right to things like privacy or abortion, however Supreme Court cases such as Griswold and Roe interpreted both into law. Once they rule, future cases use those decisions as precedent and further strengthen the interpretation. Short of amending the Constitution and making the previous rulings void, society has little chance of overturning such a decision in the courts. The same thing is going on now with the pro/anti gun crowd. There are just too many cases upholding various legal interpretations. Not saying that the rulings of these examples are morally right or wrong, red/blue, etc. They are just examples of things that are not enumerated anywhere being interpreted into the Constitution and therefore becoming law.

They can’t rule contrary to the Constitution, but their job is to interpret what it says. Why do you think that the confirmation process gets so ugly? Politicians try to pick people for the Court who they feel will interpret the Constitution to their liking because they either don’t have the votes or the political spine to change the law in the legislature. It is politically easier to attempt to stack the Court in your favor than to follow the Constitution and have the legislative branch pass or change our laws. Just look at the headlines today. It is all about each side either demanding or worried that the Court will overturn Roe or invalidate the 2nd Amendment.

The one thing about climate change is that all data fits the hypothesis, thus climate change is a scientific law, same as gravity. Denying it is a waste of time, because, by design it can't be proven wrong. Anyways, I haven't seen anything coming from the scientific community that believes climate change is not manmade. You can argue the severity of the effects, however.

The 1.5 degree rise target they have set, requires a complete elimination of all green house gas emissions. If you go down the road of major climate policy activism, aircraft will absolutely be eliminated first, as people will sacrifice flying, long before they give up the basic necessities of life.

Their job isn't to "interpret" what the Constitution says. Where in the Constitution (Art III) is SCOTUS given that power? :confused:

You must get your news from CNN... :rolleyes:

Answer these questions:

- why is the climate changing on Mars?

- why did the climate change on Earth millions of years before the Industrial Revolution?

- does the sun maintain a constant intensity/output?

- is the orbit of the Earth around the sun a constant distance, or does it ever change?


When you think about the answers to those questions then get back to us.

These can't be serious questions. MARS?! You are really reaching now, aren't you. Haha. What a joke

You're peaching to the choir buddy. You didn't read my post, all data fits their hypothesis, you can't prove the climate isn't changing, so why try. Of course, man has some effect no matter what, how could they not? It's a scam, top to bottom. You have to completely avoid arguing whether it exists or not. Admit it exists, and keep grilling them on nuclear power, which they hate, so they don't stick us with renewable garbage that ends in energy rationing.