The Democrats have been awful at fighting climate change. They don’t prioritize it enough, they use it to play political games and when they get the chance to make things better they often flub it up. All true; I can’t deny any of it.I gotta apologize. I totally forgot when Dems had the planet rescued via holding both chambers of Congress and the Presidency in Obama's first two years. They used that time to get all of those Earth-saving measures passed and we had this problem licked. Get outta here with this it's all one side's fault. Keep expecting Dems to do the work for humanity and see how far that gets you. They can't even bother to use mass transit or ground their private jets.
That’s fine. My position is I don’t see how one can support ANY Republicans, particularly those who run for federal office, so long as they refuse to address this issue.So it’s well documented I didn’t vote for Trump and it’s also well documented I likely won’t be voting for Trump in 2020.
Also, I live in California...my vote doesn’t matter.
I try to vote pro-environment. Always have. Even voted for Gore over Bush.That’s fine. My position is I don’t see how one can support ANY Republicans, particularly those who run for federal office, so long as they refuse to address this issue.
I didn’t. Back then I didn’t recognize the priority of this issue.I try to vote pro-environment. Always have. Even voted for Gore over Bush.
Republicans have been awful addressing the destruction of the planet. Democrats have been awful addressing the destruction of the planet. One side is using it as an issue to get elected and then continuing to be awful at addressing it. The other denies it's even a problem. I'm really not sure one is any better than the other. Lie to your face or call you stupid for worrying to your face. No flipping way I'm counting on politicians to solve the problem. I do my best to leave no negative footprint myself and call on scientists, engineers, and the wealthy to spark the turnaround. Keep giving individuals better ways to make a compound difference. And other nations need to step it up big time as well. When I can retire, I'd love to help spread better practices around the world. That's what it will take, individuals building off individuals.The Democrats have been awful at fighting climate change. They don’t prioritize it enough, they use it to play political games and when they get the chance to make things better they often flub it up. All true; I can’t deny any of it.
And yet they’re the only ones even willing to have the conversation. If the Republicans said, “yeah climate change is a serious problem, we just don’t like the Democrats’ solution, here is OUR solution,” then I’d have no complaints whatsoever. But they’re not willing to do that; they’re not willing to do ANYTHING. So what choice do I have but to support the Democrats? At least they recognize the problem.
and you honestly give credit to the UN?Really? Yes there have been skirmishes, but a war to annihilate the planet?
No
And do you truly think Tim that a "big government effort" will come with the next Dem president? I'm just asking it in this way since everything seems to come back to Trump with you (and this thread seems to be devolving back to "point the finger exclusively at the GOP").I don’t have an SUV and I don’t eat hamburgers (I love them but I’m trying hard to lose weight). But again you’re missing the point. This has to be a big government effort.
I kind of liked Gore until after the 2000 election. His decision to contest the election at a scorched-earth level greatly lowered my opinion of him.And I’ve never liked Gore.
My answer is no, but only because the next Democratic President will be hampered by Congress. Unless and until Republicans change their position, you need filibuster proof majorities in all 3 houses. That’s the problem.And do you truly think Tim that a "big government effort" will come with the next Dem president? I'm just asking it in this way since everything seems to come back to Trump with you (and this thread seems to be devolving back to "point the finger exclusively at the GOP").
This is a very reasonable point.If we are going to be worried about human footprint and eliminating habitats for wildlife, shouldn't the fact that "solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants, and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells, to produce the same amount of energy". The problem is one initiative is often counterproductive to others.
That ignores all the colonies it helped negotiate independence for, the civil wars it helped come to an end, helped eradicate smallpox, etc. All large human entities have corruption and the UN is no different but you are missing out on many of the positive things the UN has done.and you honestly give credit to the UN?
I can totally understand how an organization that wields that much power could keep everyone in check. Especially Israel.
You actually believe that the mighty UN could do anything to stop the US, China, or Russia from going at each other?
Wake up. The UN is nothing more than a money sucking mega-bureaucracy that serves no purpose except to push an NWO agenda.
Take for instance the honey bee. Losing those rascals would be problematic. Of course I am no science teacher so what do I know?I recommend you watch "Our Planet" on Netflix to understand the impact the loss of just one or two types of animal can have.
We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep.”Back in my acting days I did Shakespeare’s The Tempest. The actor playing Sebastian was.... shiny. Not so sharp. One of his lines was “What if he had said Widower Aeneas too?!”
The man pronounced it as “widower an##” for the entire rehearsal period and the full run of the show.
“I’ll dig thee pig nuts.” - CalibanWe are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep.”
You didn’t even need to make this argument. The moment that Opie wrote “NWO” he invalidated any point he had to make.That ignores all the colonies it helped negotiate independence for, the civil wars it helped come to an end, helped eradicate smallpox, etc. All large human entities have corruption and the UN is no different but you are missing out on many of the positive things the UN has done.
Seems unnecessarily harsh on Hollywood Hogan.You didn’t even need to make this argument. The moment that Opie wrote “NWO” he invalidated any point he had to make.
I met him at Scott LeDoux's place back in the 80's. Scott was a competitive heavyweight fighter for a time. Nice fella. Did lots of things after fighting. Owned a bar for a time. got into local politics later, as I recall. I was in one night shooting the breeze when Terry walked in. Even knowing he was only big in comparison to Stallone, and that Stallone is a shrimp, I was disappointed in how pedestrian was his size. He was barely bigger than I am and he was smaller than my brother. Also he was sort of a jerk that night though Scott told me that he was having a bad night and to not judge him on that encounter alone. Since that turned out to be my only encounter that advice sort of missed the mark, but maybe not entirely.Seems unnecessarily harsh on Hollywood Hogan.
I'm a pro-nuclear energy liberal. This issue here has been a problem with branding and education. Too many people with outdated information about nuclear power.This is a very reasonable point.
Given the existential threat of climate change, the unbending liberal opposition to even consider nuclear energy seems irrational to me.
this really isn't a coherent sentence. "shouldn' the fact that …..this...….what?". there's no what.If we are going to be worried about human footprint and eliminating habitats for wildlife, shouldn't the fact that "solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants, and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells, to produce the same amount of energy". The problem is one initiative is often counterproductive to others.
Nice attempt to sensationalize the issue. Last I checked actual facts, when solar PV panels are put on roof tops the footprint already exists.If we are going to be worried about human footprint and eliminating habitats for wildlife, shouldn't the fact that "solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants, and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells, to produce the same amount of energy". The problem is one initiative is often counterproductive to others.
I get your point you're trying to make that this is everyone's problem and we're all in this together. But from a political perspective you couldn't be more wrong. It's simply not objective to believe otherwise.Republicans have been awful addressing the destruction of the planet. Democrats have been awful addressing the destruction of the planet. One side is using it as an issue to get elected and then continuing to be awful at addressing it. The other denies it's even a problem. I'm really not sure one is any better than the other. Lie to your face or call you stupid for worrying to your face. No flipping way I'm counting on politicians to solve the problem. I do my best to leave no negative footprint myself and call on scientists, engineers, and the wealthy to spark the turnaround. Keep giving individuals better ways to make a compound difference. And other nations need to step it up big time as well. When I can retire, I'd love to help spread better practices around the world. That's what it will take, individuals building off individuals.
Ah, the Fighting Frenchman.I met him at Scott LeDoux's place back in the 80's. Scott was a competitive heavyweight fighter for a time. Nice fella. Did lots of things after fighting. Owned a bar for a time. got into local politics later, as I recall. I was in one night shooting the breeze when Terry walked in. Even knowing he was only big in comparison to Stallone, and that Stallone is a shrimp, I was disappointed in how pedestrian was his size. He was barely bigger than I am and he was smaller than my brother. Also he was sort of a jerk that night though Scott told me that he was having a bad night and to not judge him on that encounter alone. Since that turned out to be my only encounter that advice sort of missed the mark, but maybe not entirely.
3 houses?My answer is no, but only because the next Democratic President will be hampered by Congress. Unless and until Republicans change their position, you need filibuster proof majorities in all 3 houses. That’s the problem.
Also I don’t particularly blame Trump. He’s been quite terrible, but on this issue he’s representative of a political party that has refused to take this problem seriously ever since it emerged.
It's just completely unrealistic. How many nuke plants do we need to power just the USA? 300? 500? 1000? (I don't really know). Even if we started today. Completely had the process down to a tee. Nuke Regulations were laxed; NIMBYs on board; Plants built to the exact same design; and A plan to manage all the waste. We would still need to educate and train a sophisticated workforce to build and operate the plants. In the BEST CASE scenario - starting today with everyone on board - we're looking at decades to build this out. Then push the out to the rest of the world. Zero percent chance of nuke being the answer in time.I'm a pro-nuclear energy liberal. This issue here has been a problem with branding and education. Too many people with outdated information about nuclear power.
It is possible to, but in California for instance which is mandating rapid deployment of solar energy, that is not happening. Only 12 percent are utilizing rooftops type installations. So rooftops are good in theory, but not practical for large-scale rapid deployment of utility power plant like capacity.PhantomJB said:Nice attempt to sensationalize the issue. Last I checked actual facts, when solar PV panels are put on roof tops the footprint already exists.
Even after accounting for limiting factors such as shading, and orientation, U.S. rooftops alone could accommodate more than 600 GW of PV capacity, and additional opportunities exist on sites such as parking structures, awnings, and airports (Denholm and Margolis 2008)
Department of Energy - SunShot Vision Study – February 2012
BTW, 600GW of PV capacity is 10 times the existing deployed amount of 64GW.
European honeybees are domesticated, not wild. This article is pushing against the loss of wild species.Ditkaless Wonders said:Take for instance the honey bee. Losing those rascals would be problematic. Of course I am no science teacher so what do I know?
It is not an either/or proposition. Both are required and they are inherently different types of electricity generation.It is possible to, but in California for instance which is mandating rapid deployment of solar energy, that is not happening. Only 12 percent are utilizing rooftops type installations. So rooftops are good in theory, but not practical for large-scale rapid deployment of utility power plant like capacity.
Nice. I know it's Rush but can't remember which song? Is it from "2112" or "Moving Pictures"?Not gonna stop.
This train has left the station.
Adapt or perish.
Period.
There is no other option.
if you choose not to decide you still have made a choiceNice. I know it's Rush but can't remember which song? Is it from "2112" or "Moving Pictures"?
It's a political loser after Fukushima. Siting and permitting take way too long due to NIMBY and way too capital intensive to get private funding. Focus on low-hanging fruit of building out existing renewable technologies over the next 10-20 years while simultaneously investing in federal research on nuclear waste disposal. Revisit nuclear deployment in 10 years if crisis deepens.timschochet said:This is a very reasonable point.
Given the existential threat of climate change, the unbending liberal opposition to even consider nuclear energy seems irrational to me.
California is banking on the hope that future technology will allow cost effective mass energy storage. Solar is pretty limited without it.It is possible to, but in California for instance which is mandating rapid deployment of solar energy, that is not happening. Only 12 percent are utilizing rooftops type installations. So rooftops are good in theory, but not practical for large-scale rapid deployment of utility power plant like capacity.
The problem with technology is you need investment to spur improvements...California is banking on the hope that future technology will allow cost effective mass energy storage. Solar is pretty limited without it.
There is a ton of research and investment. What you don't want to do is implement without good planning and before the technology is ready. Throwing money at a bunch of half-baked ideas is not effective.The problem with technology is you need investment to spur improvements...
FixedWho exactly is behind this new world order, how did they get into power, what do they want and what does the ction of GDP have to do with it? How did they trick most of science into lying for them? This stuff IS insane honestly.
breitbart isn't your goto on environmental questions?zoonation said:well that settles it. everything is fine.
Just wait, we are 2 years away from Breitbart Universitybreitbart isn't your goto on environmental questions?
Ironically, that's the most accurate description of the linked article in @HellToupee's post.HellToupee said:
When did it become reasonable to post that garbage from breitbart against actual scienceIronically, that's the most accurate description of the linked article in @HellToupee's post.
I dunno, @HellToupee likes to stir things up from time to time, so I don't know that his heart was really in that one. Still sad that others might read that and take it seriously.When did it become reasonable to post that garbage from breitbart against actual science
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/05/09/3-m-lawsuit-pfas-water-contamination-michigan/3291156002/The documents obtained from the Minnesota Attorney General's office outline 3M's own research showing its PFAS compounds were not breaking down in the environment, were having negative health effects in laboratory rats and other animals — and that the blood of employees, and the public, had become contaminated with the compounds.
As these revelations occurred within the company, 3M continued to sell PFAS compounds for use in products worldwide: in ScotchGard stain protection, Teflon coating on cookware and other products, Gore-Tex water resistant shoes and clothing, sandwich wrapping paper and microwave popcorn bags, aqueous firefighting foam and other industrial uses.
For generations, 3M kept much of what it knew to itself, not informing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — or the public — until the late 1990s, when the EPA began taking notice of the rising research outside of 3M showing PFAS's persistence in the environment. T
"It’s an absolute outrage that, in the name of profit, for decades they suppressed this information, and they continued to pump these chemicals out in incredible quantities into the natural environment," Coulson said. "And the terrible result of that is that some communities, like Parchment, have had to bear the brunt of it."
Some 46 Michigan locations have PFAS compounds in groundwater that exceed the EPA's 70 parts-per-trillion health advisory level. The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy has estimated PFAS could be found at more than 11,300 sites in Michigan — fire stations, municipal airports, military sites, refineries and bulk petroleum stations, wastewater treatment plants, old landfills, and various industrial sites.
Seventeen rivers, lakes, streams and ponds throughout Michigan have "do not eat" fish advisories, or limitations on consumption of fish, because of PFOS contamination, including Saginaw Bay, Lake St. Clair and portions of the Au Sable, Huron, Flint, Saginaw and St. Joseph rivers.
We're trying to figure out what's causing it. My hypothesis is that it only affects posts made by people who have Grammarly installed. Others on staff think I'm crazy, which is highly possible.Can we get this freaking post issue fixed, what the hell already. I can't even edit or hide the freaking thing.