• If you're having issues logging in, please email me at doczaius69@gmail.com

⚡ACHTUNG!⚡ environmental thread

It’s always been difficult to demonstrate. Clearly the models were wildly inaccurate and overstated an issue.

I’m fine admitting burning fossil fuels has an impact; the idea that the benefits of reliable energy outweighs the very minor threat is absurd and suicidal
 
Bingo to both. Climate alarmists love to scream that it only stopped because of the Montreal accords, but I've seen experts shoot that all to hell. Primarily because the ozone healed itself before the Montreal would have even started to have a hint of an impact. It's all an illusion, a big grift.
 
Evil gator said:
It’s always been difficult to demonstrate. Clearly the models were wildly inaccurate and overstated an issue.

I’m fine admitting burning fossil fuels has an impact; the idea that the benefits of reliable energy outweighs the very minor threat is absurd and suicidal
Click to expand...
In one of the ways I disagree with Elon, we sure as shit don't need more people. Fewer people, the longer our fossil fuels can be stretched. I'd be willing to bet at least 1 billion of the people on the planet contribute absolutely nothing to society in any way. A complete waste of resources.
 

SpaceX's First Amendment Claim Against California Coastal Commission​

Eugene Volokh | 10.16.2024 11:29 AM

The California Coastal Commission recently decided to block SpaceX's increase in annual launches at Vandenberg Space Force Base from 36 to 50. SpaceX has just sued, claiming the decision was preempted by federal authority, violated state law, and also violated the First Amendment. I can't speak to the preemption arguments and the statutory arguments, but I wanted to pass along some thoughts about the First Amendment question.

SpaceX is arguing that the Commission's 6-4 decision was influenced by the Commissioners' disapproval of Elon Musk's politics and speech:

The Commission also made clear that its objection was rooted in animosity toward SpaceX and the political beliefs of its owner Elon Musk, not concern for the coastal zone. After talking at length about concerns with changes in Department of Defense leadership following the November 2024 election, Commission Chair Hart said explicitly: "The concern is with SpaceX increasing its launches, not with the other companies increasing their launches." She explained, "we're dealing with a company … the head of which has aggressively injected himself into the Presidential race and made it clear what his point of view is."

Other Commissioners similarly made clear their decision was based on political disagreements with Mr. Musk. Commissioner Newsom, for instance, said that "Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and
attacking FEMA while claiming his desire to help the hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet." Commissioners Aguirre and Escalante voiced similar concerns regarding the political uses of Starlink. As these statements show, the impact of the proposed launch cadence increase on the coastal region was the last topic on the Commissioners' minds at the October 2024 meeting.
Click to expand...
At the same time, there have also been other arguments given for the decision, related to the potential environmental effects of the launches.

reason.com

SpaceX's First Amendment Claim Against California Coastal Commission

The California Coastal Commission recently decided to block SpaceX's increase in annual launches at Vandenberg Space Force Base from 36 to 50. SpaceX has
reason.com reason.com
 
Most people don’t know, but governmentcan stop you from doing just about anything on your own land like digging a hole to building a rocket on environmental grounds, though cali is the worst
 
Evil gator said:
Most people don’t know, but governmentcan stop you from doing just about anything on your own land like digging a hole to building a rocket on environmental grounds, though cali is the worst
Click to expand...
As well as take it any time they want. Loki was correct, "Freedom is life's great lie". We have more freedom and protections than the rest of the world, but there is no real freedom. In the end, it always comes down to what freedom you can take by force. If the land you purchase is taxed under theft of seizure, you're not free.

You can look up MUNICODE, every city has one, and see plenty of rules you can't do in the city limits. Like me having the fire department called on me and being forced to put out a small fire in my backyard inside a fire ring (no drought, no burn ban, just city law of no open fires).
 
Elon is 💯 correct here.



Friend of mine needed to rebuild his company’s dock in puget sound that had deteriorated. They rebuilt with the exact same footprint as before but to get a permit they had to have someone monitor the area looking for whales when it’s foggy ALL THE TIME. They installed a camera and someone just stared through hours of fog to appease Bureaucrats
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top