Same goes for the family with three kids.
Indoor temperatures going down by a degree or two really is not a big deal.
Same goes for the family with three kids.
Indoor temperatures going down by a degree or two really is not a big deal.
Netherlands is planning to get rid off gas for a while. I've attended a presentation by the city. They planned to spend 12.500 EUR per house to switch to an local heating plan. Basically a source of hot water will enter the home. This pipe is way bigger than a gas pipe, this is why 12.500 EUR is needed per home.
They mentioned that likely you'll pay the same for heating as before.
I find it bonkers. With 12.500, why not insulate and maybe prepare it for a air/water heat pump. The radiators on really old homes will need to be replaced with ones that work with a low temperature. Walls need to be insulated, windows and window frames likely need replacing. Still, it's way better to be more energy efficient than to spend 12.500 EUR per house (of which 11.500 will be "subsidized") than asking people to change things without actually improving their homes.
The problem doesn't seem to be the money. The problem is that idiotic solutions are suggested. Plus that whatever is subsidized goes up in price. E.g. a air/water heat pump costs way too much.
Not only: many industrial process need heat, they might probably switch to electricity but not "today" and even doing so the price of the output will be veeeery higher than today not counting the fact that actually we do not know how to satisfy such eventual hyper-big electricity demand. If tomorrow all cars became e.v. in a snap we simply can't recharge them. Not only: we can't make metals for the green revolutions without fossils. etc etc etc.
Long story short: I'm a LEFT-wing environmentalist and I see the Green New Deal as green as "dollar green" or "stereotypical toxic waste green", certainly not environment natural grass green. Oh, and do consider a thing: so far skyrocketed prices from gas, oil etc is NOT due to the Russians who keep selling as usual (and sanctions avoid touching those aspects) BUT due to future market speculations witch is a western and neoliberal thing, as "green" as the nazi, the same nazi they have armed and trained in Ukraine actually, not much differently on the original nazi in Germany, created and financed by the big & powerful of their time, locals AND from other countries included USA and UK wealthy and gov. (remember IBM and Standard Oil just to name two well known?)...
Smelling rodent for myself I've choose to live a big city for a mounting area (a bit remote, BUT well served for various aspects, from internet connections to food and services) building a modern insulated house, with a small p.v. systems etc at that time was not cheap but now start to pay back not much by nature but by artificially skyrocket price of anything. And that's not good ALSO for me because yes, these days I'm well served by such investments but that's for artificial reasons. I'm still be "less wealthy" than what I could due to the new deal. Only very few keep profiting toward 2030 agenda where "no one [but neoliberals élite] will own nothing"...
The Netherlands has an enormous oversupply of poop. It's been exporting it for years, to whoever will take it.
> the Green New Deal want to push a meat-less diet not because of pollution but because doing so means that food production is a big industrial business, not something little player can run and compete
I'm afraid you entirely lost me here. This (meat can be done profitably at a smaller scale than plant production) is quite simply a fabrication.
I'm talking about animal manure, not human's one... That last can't be used in agriculture because too many meds and diseases can pass along... The NL btw have a population density that can't really nourish it's resident without importing significant amount of foods. That's a classic problem, but in an age of scarcity it count much more than in an age of abundance...
> meat can be done profitably at a smaller scale than plant production) is quite simply a fabrication
Meat can be done at small scale, no matter the profit. You can easy raise chickens in your own backyard, nourishing them with some insects and various food waste if you can't have a bit of grains. They reproduce autonomously for almost the entire year and in 4-5-6 month you can slaughter them at home. That means you can at a hyper-small scale source proteins to keep yourself alive if needed. At a slightly bigger scale a S.E. can easily live selling eggs and meat. At a slightly bigger scale you can have goats and sheep, from a region of the earth to another it's just change the size of land needed to nourish a flock, goats and sheep live normally in rural central Asia, in place almost desertic for a hyper-large part of the year, they also live in Scandinavia and similarly in various part of Africa. At a slightly bigger scale came pigs and cows.
On contrary to nourish people with crackers made from grains and dried insects as the Green New Deal want you need factories. You need automated systems to dry insects (alive, of course) grind them into flour, cut this flour with the corn flour, add flavor enhancers and various other synthetic chemical compounds, package everything etc. That can't be done at a small scale. That's why Green New Deal want them: living on such "food" demand living on industry, without you perish, while living on classic fosterage can be done as we have done in the early age of humanity, surely it's not much living then surviving doing as such BUT it's still possible, so anyone can potentially do just owning land in almost any part of the world, it's just a matter of how much land is needed per human being. That's is...
To preserve meat you just need salt (yes saltpetre help, but it's not mandatory) and salt can be easily sourced from the see and in some lands without any specific tech. Making salami, hams etc demand nothing more (the casings are obtained from the animal).
I hope I have clarified now :-)
This is a hilarious conspiracy theory. (((They))) want to stop people from being able to live without industry because … there is such a huge population willing to do that? Right.
Essentially all such publishing depict a society when individuals own nothing and depend of very few hyper-giant conglomerate/zaibatsu/chaebol -alike private companies.
A conspiracy is something done in the dark, definitively not publishing plan for anyone who want to read...
Oh, BTW you can see trends everywhere to confirm those publications: start from the IT, how many do use someone else computers instead of their own iron? How many do have their emails locally, using them locally and relay on third parties just for IMAP and SMTP? How many leave their files on cloud "drives"? Keep going with cars: how many connected cars are on the market where the formal owner can't even repair hes/shes own vehicle? How many choose leasing instead of buying? How many rent a house and how are the trends of real estate market?
In the past was normal in most countries owning a house, was normal owning a car that can be repaired by anyone, was normal have personal archives on personal archival systems first on paper and than with desktop computers and so on.
Now take a look at your own life: how much you depend on third parties services and how few such parties are respect of your own great-grandparents?
My great-grandparents were very well off for their time, but I’d rather be a poor person (in Europe) today than swap places with them.
You will not. You're describing city heating, which was easily 4-5 times as expensive as equivalent gas. That was before the > 2x price hike recently.
It's good practice to use sources which back up your claim, rather than just vaguely talk about the same topic.
Some people suffering from debilitating conditions may freeze to death in their homes, but those people weren’t capable of safely living by themselves in the first place.
I’ve lived through the winter in an old building that would barely heat above 17C, it wasn’t great, but I certainly wasn’t freezing all day long.