I very well could have read his statement wrong, and in which case would retract my comment.
Climate Change: the costs of doing nothing
- Thread starter watu05
- Start date
It was stated in such a way as to imply that. But I figured unless TUMU was having a brain flatulation, she couldn't have actually meant that. I understood where you were coming from after you mentioned it Aston.
What’s the difference between a heatwave and climate change? The Mississippi River running dry…
If you don't see that the fall season has shortened into summer, a month of what was formerly considered fall, and winter, then you are more blind and ignorant to the situation than I already thought you were. Spring has shortened as well. That's what climate change is, more of the polar opposites, and less of the temperate seasons. Everybody else on this board sees that climate change is real.
He’s a lobster in a pot of water and the temperature is steadily rising…. He won’t understand the consequences of his situation until it’s too late.
if the icecap is melting and causing the oceans to rise, the melting icecap on land should be filling the rivers.
I prefer toads and frogs which can actually jump out of a pot, but completely agree.
Energy security, not climate change, is driving clean energy investment, IEA chief says
Energy security, not climate change, is driving clean energy investment, IEA chief says
The shadow of 2015's Paris Agreement looms large over the IEA's report.
This has basically been my entire argument. Make yourself less dependent on Cartel energy sources is goal #1 for the West right now, with a sub-goal of achieving that target using more cleanly energy sources as you transition.
And climate change will drive immmigration
Wow you're saying this one thing causes every problem and the solution is doing all the things you've always wanted to do? How fortunate
It's not a geolocated source. It might be a cartel, but it's a cartel located in your country.
Some minerals/metals needed are concentrated in certain regions. Others that we might be able to extract in the US will be hampered by environmentalists who don't want this mining done in the United States. The dependency on other countries for resources might actually increase.
Since there’s little we can do about climate change given the current direction of China and India this is probably the best argument I’ve seen for securing our southern border to ensure we have sufficient resources for our citizens as we deal with the effects of climate change
If you are referring to the batteries to contain that resource, then yes. I was referring to renewable resources. China is way ahead of us in the minerals/metals game.
That’s one part, yes. No matter the energy source you still will always have to make things to produce it/capture it and store it. Often those things are petroleum based. Sometimes they’re not. But there will always be components you have to source from elsewhere.
Yeah, regrettably the Democratic party often doesn't consider these as a valid part of the whole conversation.
Speaking of energy security, we are walking a very fine line hereEnergy security, not climate change, is driving clean energy investment, IEA chief says
Energy security, not climate change, is driving clean energy investment, IEA chief says
The shadow of 2015's Paris Agreement looms large over the IEA's report.www.cnbc.com
This has basically been my entire argument. Make yourself less dependent on Cartel energy sources is goal #1 for the West right now, with a sub-goal of achieving that target using more cleanly energy sources as you transition.
Maybe to some degree, but the issue with wind and solar isn't that it needs a constant stream of disposable resources to generate energy, though it does need a supply of parts (many of which we should be looking at producing in country)
Battery Storage and Nuclear have some consumptive resource problems.
Between 35 to 55 with 45 average per the report I read. I’ve learned to defer to you in all things petroleum related
It's certainly something to look out for. More related to the global shortage than anything else.Between 35 to 55 with 45 average per the report I read. I’ve learned to defer to you in all things petroleum related
Possible future at +2C visualized.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Last edited:
….and Libs still believe the US has the ability to keep global emissions below the stated drop dead target. Emissions not only will increase over the next 30 years they will accelerate due to emerging and growing economies in Africa and Asia. Might be time to start planning for the inevitable instead of sticking our heads in the sand.
This hurricane season has already bankrupted six home insurance companies and even reinsurers are considering moving out of Florida. Using tax payer money as an insurer of last resort to rebuild and insure homes in flood plains and coastal areas is a misuse of resources and folly. Yet domestic migration is still toward areas which will be most harshly affected by climate change. I hope they rent and don’t buy.
Fukushima… how reliable are some of these legacy plants and how safely are they disposing of their waste material?
The US is looking at building new nuclear btw, but the typical payback period for a classic nuclear plant is decades.
you have a house in an older neighbothood. You spend thousands renovating and modernizing, while your neighbors just throw trash in their yard. which has move impact on the sale of your house.
Unless you build them in a location where 40’ tsunamis are possible the current designs appear to be quite safe. That said, if you’re of the belief that climate change will lead to the end of mankind then I don’t see how the risk is not acceptable. We are decreasing nuclear power generation and those screaming the human race is doomed are leading the charge. Makes about as much sense as arguing the US can control global emissions going forward.
Exxon
www.theguardian.com
Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s
Oil company drove some of the leading science of the era only to publicly dismiss global heating
