now I need a drink, that hurt my brian
I read through some of this and the list of contributors is impressive. Wonder who the crowd sourced funders are? Sounds like the U.N. and congress people like Cortez have a great plan to prevent total cataclysmic climate change and help all of the world’s people become “equal.”
Emotional appeals are so persuasive. Unless you are someone who, you know, prefers facts and logic.I read through some of this and the list of contributors is impressive. Wonder who the crowd sourced funders are? Sounds like the U.N. and congress people like Cortez have a great plan to prevent total cataclysmic climate change and help all of the world’s people become “equal.”
Open borders, high density housing and mass transit all tracked on 5G networks. You get x many carbon credits a month. Disagree with any government sponsored group think and you lose your credits. Facial recognition and phone tracking keep us all in line or else. Sounds utopian right?
Cortez isn't in the refuted article. Who is Cortez?I read through some of this and the list of contributors is impressive. Wonder who the crowd sourced funders are? Sounds like the U.N. and congress people like Cortez have a great plan to prevent total cataclysmic climate change and help all of the world’s people become “equal.”
Open borders, high density housing and mass transit all tracked on 5G networks. You get x many carbon credits a month. Disagree with any government sponsored group think and you lose your credits. Facial recognition and phone tracking keep us all in line or else. Sounds utopian right?
At the very least, in this weather, it will make you a tasty crispy brown.My tinfoil hat will protect me from climate change.
The grand Illuminati bilderberg wizard.Cortez isn't in the refuted article. Who is Cortez?
I’m surprised you are letting the leftist new world order track your communications on the internet. Pretty bold move.I read through some of this and the list of contributors is impressive. Wonder who the crowd sourced funders are? Sounds like the U.N. and congress people like Cortez have a great plan to prevent total cataclysmic climate change and help all of the world’s people become “equal.”
Open borders, high density housing and mass transit all tracked on 5G networks. You get x many carbon credits a month. Disagree with any government sponsored group think and you lose your credits. Facial recognition and phone tracking keep us all in line or else. Sounds utopian right?
Please don't. This was instantly reported. We've asked people not use nicknames like this.Huh? Have you not heard Ocommunist Cortez speak? She said we need a Marshall plan for climate change. Sounds pretty one world government and U.N. Agenda 21 to me.
I can see why people call this place an echo chamber. Someone called me a dying breed on this board because I disagreed with the preferred narrative. No admonishment for an implied threat to said poster but if I criticize communist viewpoints and calling them out on it is hate speech or ban worthy? Sad state of affairs for the first amendment and huge double standards on this board.Please don't. This was instantly reported. We've asked people not use nicknames like this.
That isnt a threat or even an implied one.I can see why people call this place an echo chamber. Someone called me a dying breed on this board because I disagreed with the preferred narrative. No admonishment for an implied threat to said poster but if I criticize communist viewpoints and calling them out on it is hate speech or ban worthy? Sad state of affairs for the first amendment and huge double standards on this board.
Sorry, before we go further I'd like some link for Sanders saying that he was a member of the CPUSA.Bernie Sanders is a card carrying communist. ... He said so himself. ...
Its objectionable because its just flat out false.Bernie Sanders is a card carrying communist. Is that also objectionable around here? He said so himself. Is that considered a nickname too? Or are we not allowed to criticize the government in here?
Or apparently the difference between expressing one’s opinion and calling someone a name.Do you really not know the difference between communism and socialism?
Thanks but no. Report what you see that's over the line. Thanks.I can see why people call this place an echo chamber. Someone called me a dying breed on this board because I disagreed with the preferred narrative. No admonishment for an implied threat to said poster but if I criticize communist viewpoints and calling them out on it is hate speech or ban worthy? Sad state of affairs for the first amendment and huge double standards on this board.
I didn't post that, not sure who did, but that's a folksy saying, not a threat.I can see why people call this place an echo chamber. Someone called me a dying breed on this board because I disagreed with the preferred narrative. No admonishment for an implied threat to said poster but if I criticize communist viewpoints and calling them out on it is hate speech or ban worthy? Sad state of affairs for the first amendment and huge double standards on this board.
Under Trump, 26% of Climate Change References Have Vanished From .Gov Sites
A new report documents two years of science being scrubbed from government websites.
The other day I noticed a funny little banner at the top of the EPA's website:
Hopefully it can be found from Jan 21, 2021 alsoThe other day I noticed a funny little banner at the top of the EPA's website:
"We've made some changes to EPA.gov. If the information you are looking for is not here, you may be able to find it on the EPA web archive or the January 19, 2017 Web Snapshot."
The Deep State is alive and well!
Isn't nuclear clean? IIRC, they have been shutting down primarily because shale gas is so cheap.
is the waste clean?Isn't nuclear clean? IIRC, they have been shutting down primarily because shale gas is so cheap.
FirstEnergy Solutions (spin off of FirstEnergy but contains only failing/bankrupt plants) will collect $197.6 million from new fees on Ohioans' electric bills.Ohio just passed the worst energy bill of the 21st century
In short, Ohio agreed to bail out some aging, expensive coal and nuclear plants while gutting renewable energy and efficiency standards. As you might imagine, the politicians who pushed this bill had received major campaign contributions from the utilities being bailed out. Trump makes an appearance here as well - his Ohio campaign manager was a force behind the bailout, citing the need to keep Ohio coal jobs viable heading into 2020.
I believe you are correct, especially regarding OH. When cheaper fossil fuels are readily available, as is the case in Ohio, nuclear becomes more expensive.Isn't nuclear clean? IIRC, they have been shutting down primarily because shale gas is so cheap.
Right. Nuclear is clean but in certain parts of the country it’s getting its ### kicked by cheaper natural gas, wind, and solar.Isn't nuclear clean? IIRC, they have been shutting down primarily because shale gas is so cheap.
stemming population growth should be the number one priority if we are serious about climate changeThe best way to combat this is raising the world out of poverty.
That doesn't seem to be a problem in this country. We are already having to rely on immigration to keep pace with those who are dying...new births alone isn't getting it.TripItUp said:stemming population growth should be the number one priority if we are serious about climate change
nopeTripItUp said:stemming population growth should be the number one priority if we are serious about climate change
What does this do if the people inhabiting the planet treat it like a garbage dump?TripItUp said:stemming population growth should be the number one priority if we are serious about climate change
We pretty much have the blueprint for this - give girls in the developing world access to education and family planning. Some climate activists, like Paul Hawken, claim that this is the #1 policy for preventing emissions: This Book Ranks the Top 100 Solutions to Climate Change. The Results are Surprising.TripItUp said:stemming population growth should be the number one priority if we are serious about climate change
The number one solution, in terms of potential impact? A combination of educating girls and family planning, which together could reduce 120 gigatons of CO2-equivalent by 2050 — more than on- and offshore wind power combined (99 GT).
...
David Roberts: One thing that jumps out is how different this list looks from what gets discussed most in the media -- wind, solar, CCS. Did you go in expecting your list to look more like conventional wisdom?
Paul Hawken: We thought at least the top of the list would — solar, wind, wind, solar. Because that’s what you hear from Charles Ferguson, Al Gore, [Jeffrey] Sachs, or Christiana Figueres. They’re all saying the same thing.
It’s understandable — 62 percent of the [greenhouse gas] molecules up there came from fossil fuel combustion, so you just invert it, right? It makes sense. It just doesn’t work out that way. If you take solar, which is eight and 10 [on the list], and wind, which is two and 22, and you combine them, they are definitely near the top. But you can’t model on- and off-shore wind the same, because the economics are vastly different. And you can’t model rooftop and solar farms in the same model. So in some cases we broke things up that people think of as aggregated.
But even then, the number one solution is educating girls and family planning.
You shouldn’t have had to wait nine days for a reasonable response.Cortez isn't in the refuted article. Who is Cortez?
That was like... f###### trippy man. I'm like... in another time.
pretty close to what the Citizens Climate Lobby is proposing, although that is 100% to be given back as a dividend minus administration fees. I like this better if the 30% goes towards infrastructure.Coons and Feinstein recently introduced carbon tax legislation into Senate...
https://home.kpmg/us/en/home/insights/2019/07/tnf-carbon-fee-legislation-introduced.html
- The fee is scheduled to begin at $15 per metric ton of CO2 equivalent and then increase by $15 - $30 per ton each year based upon the overall amount of emissions reduction achieved relative to an established annual target. The targets are designed to achieve a 100% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (compared to 2017 levels) by the year 2050.
- While there is not yet an official estimate, some reports are that the law could collect $2.5 trillion in revenue over the first decade.
- The fund would generally allocated collected fees on a 70/30 basis between tax payments to individuals (<$100K income single filer) and direct spending programs.
- [Unfortunately]...there is no immediate path forward for this, or other carbon tax legislation in the current Congress. A proposal such as this could take years to develop, negotiate, enact, and implement.
It appears infrastructure is part of the 30%...I would assume grid upgrades, resiliency, etc...personally I'd like to see at least a 50/50 split but wouldn't complain a bit if anything close to this got passed.pretty close to what the Citizens Climate Lobby is proposing, although that is 100% to be given back as a dividend minus administration fees. I like this better if the 30% goes towards infrastructure.
Cement and steel are a substantial percentage of CO2 emissions. Why encourage more of that?pretty close to what the Citizens Climate Lobby is proposing, although that is 100% to be given back as a dividend minus administration fees. I like this better if the 30% goes towards infrastructure.
wood probably won’t hold upCement and steel are a substantial percentage of CO2 emissions. Why encourage more of that?
Does the waste from solar panels emit dangerous radiation for tens of thousands of years?Is the waste from solar panels clean?
It was a point that all these technologies have their issues. On the nuclear I agree if we're talking first or second gen. New fourth gen are generally breeder reactors and have much, much less waste than previous. That, and their uncontrolled shutdown process is one where the fuel automatically goes non-critical (the opposite of Chernobyl).Does the waste from solar panels emit dangerous radiation for tens of thousands of years?
Can the waste from solar panels be reused?
that, and some of the Gen4 reactors can actually burn waste as fuel.It was a point that all these technologies have their issues. On the nuclear I agree if we're talking first or second gen. New fourth gen are generally breeder reactors and have much, much less waste than previous. That, and their uncontrolled shutdown process is one where the fuel automatically goes non-critical (the opposite of Chernobyl).
As far as waste from solar panels, the silicon can be reused. The issue is with some of the heavy metals that are used. Those generally enter the water table and are a hazard. It's a big upcoming problem.
I disagree with the bolded. Basically because I frequently see stories on how we can store the energy from reusable sources economically and at the same time reduce baseload need for e.g. heating etc. In most cases, what is required is existing techinoly, used in innovative ways on the basis of an upgraded infrastructure.that, and some of the Gen4 reactors can actually burn waste as fuel.
nuclear has to be part of the solution. renewables as they currently exist can't do the job alone.