Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
timschochet

We’ve got until 2030 to get climate change under control. After that it’s too late.

243 posts in this topic

41 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

According to Guardian, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions. That’s both crazy and a sign of how easily we could reduce emissions. 

Except we're actively deregulating for the biggest polluters.   

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s no different then smoking now. We all know what’s going on and why it’s bad. The energy companies knew a long time ago and have spent a lot of money to try hide it or bury it or distort it. Just like big tobacco did decades ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, irishidiot said:

Not up on this subject at all.  I know I was concerned with some pretty important studies that were proven to be fixed in that they inflated the numbers, but realize that recognizing our environment & improving it is a grand thing.  This from American Thinker-wondering whether he has any decent points & if anyone here can look at it objectively?

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/4_reasons_why_climate_change_is_a_flatout_hoax.html

Do you find his arguments convincing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, -fish- said:

Except we're actively deregulating for the biggest polluters.   

We know the current GOP and especially Trump won’t do anything to help the situation. They are actually saying since things are so bad, what does it even matter? Like the guy with lung cancer who won’t quit smoking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, butcher boy said:

It's not a hoax.  It's happening on some level.  But I believe there is no need to be as alarmist about it as the fake news media is.   

...because your credentials are the galaxy's premier climatologist?

Edited by JIslander
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, timschochet said:

I’m repeating what the scientists are saying. I have no idea what we need to do or how to do it. I don’t even know how we would start. And even if we did, I don’t know how much the United States could accomplish on our own without China and a few other nations that are also complicit. 

I don’t have any answers. But the article concerns me greatly and I think we have to do something pretty quick here. Got any ideas? 

Fire up the economy to pay for changes.   A broke ### economy cant pay for whatever needs to be done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, quickhands said:

Fire up the economy to pay for changes.   A broke ### economy cant pay for whatever needs to be done

How would you fire up the economy? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, -fish- said:

San Onofre's last near-accident transferring waste was a month ago.  I live near the largest contaminated site in the US, which consisted of nine reactors closed from 1968-1987.   We just had a release of radioactive contaminants nine months ago as part of the cleanup--and that has nothing to do with the buried waste that has seeped into the water table.  

The safety of nuclear energy has always been touted right up until the next failure or environmental disaster.

There was an episode of Mork and Mindy where Mork freaks out that humans have nuclear plants but no Nuke Away to deal with the waste. Not sure why that's still lodged in my brain. 

Edited by Sheriff Bart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

How would you fire up the economy? 

 

Have the govt stop helping the economy so much.

But you are a smart guy.  Smarter than me.    You are far more grounded in problem solving.   If you wanna fix the problem it will only happen if it can be profitable. 

What are your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, quickhands said:

 

Have the govt stop helping the economy so much.

But you are a smart guy.  Smarter than me.    You are far more grounded in problem solving.   If you wanna fix the problem it will only happen if it can be profitable. 

What are your thoughts?

I’m not claiming to be smarter than you. 

But- I disagree with your premise. It seems to me that we need to start solving this problem ASAP and if we need to go into further debt to do it, so be it. One of the main reasons that I wasn’t for the tax cut was because I saw major necessary spending ahead. Too late now. We can’t wait. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

I’m not claiming to be smarter than you. 

But- I disagree with your premise. It seems to me that we need to start solving this problem ASAP and if we need to go into further debt to do it, so be it. One of the main reasons that I wasn’t for the tax cut was because I saw major necessary spending ahead. Too late now. We can’t wait. 

I said it you didnt.

Isnt this like the 3rd or 4th  10 year or else.    If the world isnt gone at 2030 im sure we can start another 10 year end of the world count down.

This is could get as bad as the end times prophecy predictions.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, quickhands said:

I said it you didnt.

Isnt this like the 3rd or 4th  10 year or else.    If the world isnt gone at 2030 im sure we can start another 10 year end of the world count down.

This is could get as bad as the end times prophecy predictions.   

Except that the effects can be seen and quantified.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, the rover said:

Except when they aren’t.   And even then we have to deal with the waste somehow.

Doesn't happen in the usa. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

According to Guardian, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions. That’s both crazy and a sign of how easily we could reduce emissions. 

i"d like to see the math.  Are they making oil companies responsible for all auto emissions.  Are the attributing all emissions to electric companies for all the electricity consumed by everyone.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -fish- said:

San Onofre's last near-accident transferring waste was a month ago.  I live near the largest contaminated site in the US, which consisted of nine reactors closed from 1968-1987.   We just had a release of radioactive contaminants nine months ago as part of the cleanup--and that has nothing to do with the buried waste that has seeped into the water table.  

The safety of nuclear energy has always been touted right up until the next failure or environmental disaster.

Yeah, i remember this conversation last time. I honestly has no idea about a power plant reactor in richland/hanford site so yeah you threw me off. Well, thats because there is no muclear power plant there. The Hanford site of which you are speaking houses the reactors for making our oroginal pu stock. That is a far cry from a modern nuclear power plant. I guess youll just roll them together though if it makes you feel more comfortable. Because thats all the fright frok nuclear power is, feeling comfortable. It has nothing to do with objectively measuring risk.

 

But hey, you won. Nuclear power is dying, and in about 10 years there will be scant power plants in the is. Job well done. I dont know why this academic argument needs to exist. You won. Nuclear lost. I hope you have plans, you know....besides keeping dirty coal plants (surprise! They have nuclear waste too PLUS the co2),  and fracking plants which have hardly any regs, so youll get poisoned water tables (olus radioactive waste, did you know that?) PLUS co2 there too. And solar/wind cannot support the energy vacuum nuclear will leave, hydro has massive ecological problems on its own. But hey, mission accomplished. Nuclear will die soon.

 

Lets just go back to burning wood and poop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, butcher boy said:

It's not a hoax.  It's happening on some level.  But I believe there is no need to be as alarmist about it as the fake news media is.   

I think the point is to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. The scientists could be off on their time line either way, so why do the bare minimum and hope they are right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey fish, do you want all our doe labs shut down? Thry handle some hot stuff. Hotter than you can shake a stick at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it always was too late - too many emerging economies who'll be damned if they'll learn from the cautionary tale which continues to be America's ridiculous consumption. doesn't mean we shouldnt act as tho it isn't too late, but it is

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

If you want to discuss seriously, please do. There should definitely be other viewpoints so this doesn't become an echo chamber. But don't just lob stuff for fun. Thanks.

I read all the time on health and nutrition.   Actually mealworms have a high protein content and I am told they can be prepared to taste good. (I have never tried them)

 The other product is blue-green algae that is forming more because of warming. If this continues as it will people will need to adapt and companies will be harvesting this and converting it into a food source. We are so used to roasting pigs and throwing a side of beef into smokers. 

Warming is not going to stop as other nations develop.  So there will come a time in the future that people  eat mealworms and algae products on a regular basis and think roasting a pig is barbaric.

Blue-green algae are used as a source of dietary protein, B-vitamins, and iron. They are also used for weight loss, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), hayfever, diabetes, stress, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and other women’s health issues.

Some people use blue-green algae for treating precancerous growths inside the mouth, boosting the immune system, improving memory, increasing energy and metabolism, lowering cholesterol, preventing heart disease, healing wounds, and improving digestion and bowel health.

Blue-green algae are commonly found in tropical or subtropical waters that have a high-salt content, but some types grow in large fresh water lakes. The natural color of these algae can give bodies of water a dark-green appearance. The altitude, temperature, and sun exposure where the blue-green algae are grown dramatically influence the types and mix of blue-green algae in the water.

Blue-green algae is an excellent source of protein.

 

How does it work?

Blue-green algae is high in protein, iron, and other mineral content which is absorbed when taken orally. Blue-green algae are being researched for their potential effects on the immune system, swelling (inflammation), and viral infections.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

it always was too late - too many emerging economies who'll be damned if they'll learn from the cautionary tale which continues to be America's ridiculous consumption. doesn't mean we shouldnt act as tho it isn't too late, but it is

:goodposting:

Im not an expert, but i doubt india with its 1B people will respond to the preaching with nithing but solar farms after the west built their empires on cheap energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

Hey fish, do you want all our doe labs shut down? Thry handle some hot stuff. Hotter than you can shake a stick at.

Of course not, but I'd hope that they're also working on increasing safety and finding solutions to the nuclear waste disposal issues at the sites researching nuclear energy.   As far as high energy physics and biological and environmental research, I'm all for it.   

My problem has been the repeated failures of multiple sites over time, and particularly the safe disposal of waste.   We've had multiple major disasters in my lifetime, and each time people claim that nuclear energy is clean and safe.  In the meantime, I'm catching radioactive fish from the Fukushima plume, and just this year not far from my house there was another accident relating to the Hanford cleanup that released radioactive contamination into our local population.  The entire Pacific ocean has been contaminated.   

There are 3.6 million pounds of radioactive waste at San Onofre, and the plan is to just bury it next to the beach, just feet over the water table?   Genius.   We haven't learned a damned thing.    They don't even have a federal or state evacuation plan for that disaster in the making.  

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

Lets just go back to burning wood and poop.

or hemp

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dedfin said:

Lots of rightwing Christians don't care about this planet because they get to go to heaven anyway. I wish they'd hurry up and leave the planet to the good people.

Reported

 

😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the post fish. The scientists of the 40s 50s and 60s were beilliant physicists but pretty bad ecologists. Im afraid we will be cleaning up after them for a long time. I dont know how else to comment on sote like hanford, nevada/utah, nm and other early is nuclear sites. I will read about san onofre because im not familiar with their situation. I cannot rhink of a single nuclear failure in the usa. Tmi was not a failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

Yeah, i remember this conversation last time. I honestly has no idea about a power plant reactor in richland/hanford site so yeah you threw me off. Well, thats because there is no muclear power plant there. The Hanford site of which you are speaking houses the reactors for making our oroginal pu stock. That is a far cry from a modern nuclear power plant. I guess youll just roll them together though if it makes you feel more comfortable. Because thats all the fright frok nuclear power is, feeling comfortable. It has nothing to do with objectively measuring risk.

 

But hey, you won. Nuclear power is dying, and in about 10 years there will be scant power plants in the is. Job well done. I dont know why this academic argument needs to exist. You won. Nuclear lost. I hope you have plans, you know....besides keeping dirty coal plants (surprise! They have nuclear waste too PLUS the co2),  and fracking plants which have hardly any regs, so youll get poisoned water tables (olus radioactive waste, did you know that?) PLUS co2 there too. And solar/wind cannot support the energy vacuum nuclear will leave, hydro has massive ecological problems on its own. But hey, mission accomplished. Nuclear will die soon.

 

Lets just go back to burning wood and poop.

I never said it was anything but what it was.   But we still have to deal with the fact that the groundwater is polluted and we keep having problems resulting from the cleanup.  Until the answer to nuclear waste is something better than burying it next to a water table, I'm always going to have a problem with it...because we don't manage to learn from our mistakes.   

Is burying over 3 million pounds of waste onsite at San Onofre really a good idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for my poop spelling. Drunk and phone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quickhands said:

Fire up the economy to pay for changes.   A broke ### economy cant pay for whatever needs to be done

How isn’t the economy fired up now? Our real GDP is an all time high, double what it was 30 years ago. What is the measure for a fired up economy? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, -fish- said:

I never said it was anything but what it was.   But we still have to deal with the fact that the groundwater is polluted and we keep having problems resulting from the cleanup.

Yeah im just saying that we are talking about threats from muclear plants, wbich will die off in our lifetimes. So screw it. I hope the solar people have some answers l.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

How isn’t the economy fired up now? Our real GDP is an all time high, double what it was 30 years ago. What is the measure for a fired up economy? 

Thats negative.   Lets get fired up.    Or we could just kill half the population.

Thanos is on to something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, quickhands said:

Thats negative.   Lets get fired up.    Or we could just kill half the population.

Thanos is on to something

Pardon me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, jiffy said:

:lol:

More fear mongering.

Yeah, screw those future generations!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

According to Guardian, 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions. That’s both crazy and a sign of how easily we could reduce emissions. 

Can you link to that? I'd like to see that list...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dedfin said:

:goodposting:

Im not an expert, but i doubt india with its 1B people will respond to the preaching with nithing but solar farms after the west built their empires on cheap energy.

From Wiki

Quote

India is running one of the largest and most ambitious renewable capacity expansion programs in the world. Newer renewable electricity sources are projected to grow massively by nearer term 2022 targets, including a more than doubling of India's large wind power capacity and an almost 15 fold increase in solar power from April 2016 levels. Such ambitious targets would place India among the world leaders in renewable energy use and place India at the centre of its "Sunshine Countries" International Solar Alliance project promoting the growth and development of solar power internationally to over 120 countries. India set a target of achieving 40% of its total electricity generation from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030, as stated in its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions statement in the Paris Agreement.[4][5] A blueprint draft published by Central Electricity Authority projects that 57% of the total electricity capacity will be from renewable sources by 2027.[6] In the 2027 forecasts, India aims to have a renewable energy installed capacity of 275 GW, in addition to 72 GW of hydro-energy, 15 GW of nuclear energy and nearly 100 GW from “other zero emission” sources.[6]

But they should do (even) more to phase out coal, that's correct

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, -fish- said:

I never said it was anything but what it was.   But we still have to deal with the fact that the groundwater is polluted and we keep having problems resulting from the cleanup.  Until the answer to nuclear waste is something better than burying it next to a water table, I'm always going to have a problem with it...because we don't manage to learn from our mistakes.   

Is burying over 3 million pounds of waste onsite at San Onofre really a good idea?

But hey, according to Trump's EPA a little radiation is good for you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, msommer said:

Can you link to that? I'd like to see that list...

@jon_mx

I found the link, haven’t read it yet. Just saw the headline before. I’ll you guys make heads or tails of it.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From BBC: Five things we've learned from the IPCC report

Quote

There is a lot of faith put in technology that it can solve many of our environmental problems, especially climate change.

This report says that the world doesn't have to come up with some magic machines to curb climate change - we've already got all the tech we need.

The report says that carbon will have to be sucked out of the air by machines and stored underground, and that these devices exist already.

Billions of trees will have to be planted - and people may have to make hard choices between using land for food or using it for energy crops.

But really wacky ideas, such as blocking out the Sun, or adding iron to the oceans have been dismissed by this IPCC report.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

@jon_mx

I found the link, haven’t read it yet. Just saw the headline before. I’ll you guys make heads or tails of it.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change

Thanks.

As I expected it backtracks to the oil companies (with some merit). However, saying that we should just shut down extraction is not particularly realistic the way the world works right now, particularly when it comes to the various types of transport. We have no alternative to oil for sea transport (IIRC carrying two thirds of the worlds internationally traded goods), or air transport or indeed roadtransport of goods - I believe we've only seen prototypes of trucks burning hydrogen (which lacks infrastructure and cheap, clean storage and extraction) or being powered by electricity (more over a lot of the electricity is generated by fossil fuels).

This bit is interesting though (the formatting and sequencing is mine)

Quote

Investors should move out of fossil fuels, says Michael Brune, executive director of US environmental organisation the Sierra Club. “Not only is it morally risky, it’s economically risky. The world is moving away from fossil fuels towards clean energy and is doing so at an accelerated pace. Those left holding investments in fossil fuel companies will find their investments becoming more and more risky over time.”

...

A Carbon Tracker study in 2015 found that fossil fuel companies risked wasting more than $2tn over the coming decade by pursuing coal, oil and gas projects that could be worthless in the face of international action on climate change and advances in renewables – in turn posing substantial threats to investor returns.

...

A research paper published last year by Paul Stevens, an academic at think tank Chatham House, said international oil companies were no longer fit for purpose and warned these multinationals that they faced a “nasty, brutish and short” end within the next 10 years if they did not completely change their business models.

Not sure I see it going that fast.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to come up with a good cheap efficient way to take salt out of water. Then we could do it on a mass scale, and as the ocean levels rise we simply use it for consumption and commercial use. Or make crops that are salt resistant? Well, I’m out of ideas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Do you find his arguments convincing?

i really don't know enough about it to comment either way.  It's just not a subject that interests me although I read the comments in here & most of those on the side of global warming are so politically charged they turn me off.   i really do see both sides on this & have not been inclined to draw a line in the sand either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.