Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[Tiberius]

40 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

 

Oil is free...until someone builds the infrastructure to exploit it.  You ***** ninny.

Oil is more expensive to exploit, dingbat. 

 

The cheaper energy, the more competitive the US will be. 

[row_33]

nuclear power is the answer

 

[transplantbillsfan]

5 hours ago, GG said:

 

Why don't you take the fight to Xi then?

 

Should probably start with ourselves since the US is by far the most responsible for emissions in the world on a per capita basis:

[transplantbillsfan]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Green energy will be way cheaper than the dig, drill, pollute fossil fuel industry and would put us at a competitive advantage with China, so they will have to change to cleaner energy, too. 

 

Yes, it will be cheaper.

 

Green energy is getting exponentially cheaper with time; can't copy the chart, but check Figure ES.5 on page 14 to see renewable costs in comparison with Fossil Fuel costs:

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30798/EGR19ESEN.pdf?sequence=13

2 hours ago, Foxx said:

and when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't out??

that's right... you don't need no stinking electricity.

 

There are these things called battery backups that would probably help there... plus, ya know, wind and sun aren't the only sources of renewable energy 

Edited November 27, 2019 by transplantbillsfan

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

nuclear power is the answer

 

 

I actually agree with you if we could put more safeguards in place and regulate it very strictly.

 

If I were an absolute Pollyanna, I'd be 100% supportive of nuclear power.  If used correctly there would be sooOOOOoooo much power provided to the world with relatively little resources and waste.

 

However, the human factor and skepticism of regulation is what makes me hesitant.

 

In an ideal world where we don't make mistakes, nuclear power is the obvious answer.

 

I just wonder how well we would handle it.

[Foxx]

8 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

... There are these things called battery backups that would probably help there... plus, ya know, wind and sun aren't the only sources of renewable energy 

yep. i have solar and my system is a net zero set up. however, that does not mean that if it were strictly off grid that i would never be without power.

[GG]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Should probably start with ourselves since the US is by far the most responsible for emissions in the world on a per capita basis:

 

For an alleged teacher, you have a lot to learn.

 

USA SHOULD have the highest emissions per capita because we produce 20% of global output with only 5% of global population.   As someone once said, we punch well above our weight. 

 

Then look at the slopes of the emissions graphs, and tell me which countries should take serious actions.    It's definitely not the US, which has had the steepest decline, even though it's still driving the global economy.

 

Said another way, the US is putting its money where the alarmists' mouths are, is still increasing its output while reducing overall emissions and manages to do it at far lest cost and disruption to the population.

 

But then again, you're seduced by an ignorant 16-yr old from Switzerland because she can navigate a yacht across an ocean.  Therefore she must know what she's talking about economics, energy, climate and emissions.

[KD in CA]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Should probably start with ourselves since the US is by far the most responsible for emissions in the world on a per capita basis:

 

Am I misreading these poorly labeled charts, or does the one on the right say the US and EU are the only places where per capital emissions are being reduced, while China is rapidly increasing?

Edited November 27, 2019 by KD in CA

[Joe Miner]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I actually agree with you if we could put more safeguards in place and regulate it very strictly.

 

If I were an absolute Pollyanna, I'd be 100% supportive of nuclear power.  If used correctly there would be sooOOOOoooo much power provided to the world with relatively little resources and waste.

 

However, the human factor and skepticism of regulation is what makes me hesitant.

 

In an ideal world where we don't make mistakes, nuclear power is the obvious answer.

 

I just wonder how well we would handle it.

 

 

Out of curiosity what current safeguards are in place for nuclear power here in the US, and what additional safeguards would you add?

 

Also please feel free to define what regulate it very strictly means.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

32 minutes ago, GG said:

 

For an alleged teacher, you have a lot to learn.

 

USA SHOULD have the highest emissions per capita because we produce 20% of global output with only 5% of global population.   As someone once said, we punch well above our weight. 

 

Then look at the slopes of the emissions graphs, and tell me which countries should take serious actions.    It's definitely not the US, which has had the steepest decline, even though it's still driving the global economy.

 

Said another way, the US is putting its money where the alarmists' mouths are, is still increasing its output while reducing overall emissions and manages to do it at far lest cost and disruption to the population.

 

But then again, you're seduced by an ignorant 16-yr old from Switzerland because she can navigate a yacht across an ocean.  Therefore she must know what she's talking about economics, energy, climate and emissions.

The same argument is often made about Jeffrey Dahmer.  He was a small town kid, so his murder rate per capita made him a relatively good neighbor in contrast to your David Berkowitz(s)  or a Wayne Williams.

[transplantbillsfan]

48 minutes ago, GG said:

 

For an alleged teacher, you have a lot to learn.

 

USA SHOULD have the highest emissions per capita because we produce 20% of global output with only 5% of global population.   As someone once said, we punch well above our weight. 

 

Then look at the slopes of the emissions graphs, and tell me which countries should take serious actions.    It's definitely not the US, which has had the steepest decline, even though it's still driving the global economy.

 

Said another way, the US is putting its money where the alarmists' mouths are, is still increasing its output while reducing overall emissions and manages to do it at far lest cost and disruption to the population.

 

But then again, you're seduced by an ignorant 16-yr old from Switzerland because she can navigate a yacht across an ocean.  Therefore she must know what she's talking about economics, energy, climate and emissions.

 

I have a lot to learn???

I'm certainly always trying to learn, but this post was pretty entertaining.

48 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

Am I misreading these poorly labeled charts, or does the one on the right say the US and EU are the only places where per capital emissions are being reduced, while China is rapidly increasing?

 

No you aren't misreading it, but is it really more commendable to go from utterly all time atrocious to just terrible than to go from relatively okay to bad? 

 

US might be improving, but at a snail's pace and, as the United Nations report above states, it's not NEARLY fast enough and we're one of the 7 countries most carelessly putting the rest of the world at risk as far as climate change is concerned.

[transplantbillsfan]

39 minutes ago, Joe Miner said:

 

 

Out of curiosity what current safeguards are in place for nuclear power here in the US, and what additional safeguards would you add?

 

Also please feel free to define what regulate it very strictly means.

 

What's the point of your post?

 

I'm not a nuclear power expert.

 

Are you?  

 

I like nuclear power.  But it's also pretty damn scary because of what it can do when things go wrong:  Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, etc.

 

My point is that Nuclear power would be the ideal answer if we could ensure preventing accidents like those. 

[KD in CA]

10 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

US might be improving, but at a snail's pace and, as the United Nations report above states, it's not NEARLY fast enough and we're one of the 7 countries most carelessly putting the rest of the world at risk as far as climate change is concerned.

 

Well yes, a 20% reduction is certainly more commendable than a 125% increase.  And how is a 20% reduction in 20 years a "snail's pace"?  I guess you'd just prefer we crash the economy and food supply chain so you can feel better about your global warming stats?  

 

 

[transplantbillsfan]

45 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

Well yes, a 20% reduction is certainly more commendable than a 125% increase.  And how is a 20% reduction in 20 years a "snail's pace"?  I guess you'd just prefer we crash the economy and food supply chain so you can feel better about your global warming stats?  

 

 

 

The average Chinese citizen is responsible for less than half the emissions the average American citizen is responsible.

 

And none of this is to say that the Chinese shouldn't do something as well, but we aren't in China.

 

The US clearly needs to do much more.  Pretty obvious.

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

The average Chinese citizen is responsible for less than half the emissions the average American citizen is responsible.

 

And none of this is to say that the Chinese shouldn't do something as well, but we aren't in China.

 

The US clearly needs to do much more.  Pretty obvious.

You just gotta love the argument, "but they are not helping, why should we?" 

[transplantbillsfan]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You just gotta love the argument, "but they are not helping, why should we?" 

 

It's just so bizarre that they think it's a legitimate defense.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

It's just so bizarre that they think it's a legitimate defense.

 

It's a economic and geopolitical concern, saddled along side the reality that unless the largest contributors make drastic changes (forgo their Industrial Revolutions) it doesn't matter what we do.

 

Your proposal destroys the US economy, and doesn't even address what you believe to be the problem.

 

 

[transplantbillsfan]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

It's a economic and geopolitical concern, saddled along side the reality that unless the largest contributors make drastic changes (forgo their Industrial Revolutions) it doesn't matter what we do.

 

Huh???? 

 

We've already gone through our Industrial Revolution...

 

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Your proposal destroys the US economy, and doesn't even address what you believe to be the problem.

 

 

 

My proposal????

 

Just what the hell is my proposal???

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Huh???? 

 

We've already gone through our Industrial Revolution...

 

We aren't the largest contributors, China and India are.

 

And they're going through an Industrial Revolution.

 

As the global economy grows, and other nations will as well, they'll use the cheapest energy sources to do so.

 

3 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

My proposal????

 

Just what the hell is my proposal???

 

You latched onto another posters ideals.

 

If you have a different idea, state it.

 

As an aside, we're already the global leader in pollution and emissions reduction.

[Tiberius]