Flinging Dung
- Thread starter Gmoney4WW
- Start date
I’ve said for years that any plan which relies on emission reductions by the likes of China and India is destined to fail. Therefore:
I would like to see the US along with the rest of the world invest heavily in CO2 recapture and CO2 scrubbers. We can’t prevent our neighbors from increasing their emissions but maybe we can figure out a way to take them out of the atmosphere. Technology isn’t near where it needs to be but hopefully science/technology can find an answer.
Meanwhile, keep advancing the reasonable transition to renewables (green) while safeguarding our economy and power supply. Natural gas and nuclear need to be part of the solution worldwide at least until technology advances .
I would like to see the US along with the rest of the world invest heavily in CO2 recapture and CO2 scrubbers. We can’t prevent our neighbors from increasing their emissions but maybe we can figure out a way to take them out of the atmosphere. Technology isn’t near where it needs to be but hopefully science/technology can find an answer.
Meanwhile, keep advancing the reasonable transition to renewables (green) while safeguarding our economy and power supply. Natural gas and nuclear need to be part of the solution worldwide at least until technology advances .
Thanks for posting. Our government needs to get behind these technologies with the same commitment they have green energy. They need to be honest with the American people as well as themselves regarding future world emissions. As I’ve said for years, any plan which solely relies on our buddies in Asia is guaranteed to fail. Investing in carbon recapture and scrubbing R&D is vital.
Captured CO2 makes a really great secondary recovery medium for residual reservoir petroleum ...
Just sayin'
Just sayin'
Every use helps, even if it temporarily is for use in materials that make more of it.
That will be even more expensive and unrealistic than investing in renewable energy.
These have been criticized for being prohibitively expensive by the Venetian community. They were constructed behind schedule and at A large cost overrun. I discussed it with our bed and breakfast host while we were there.
I would prefer to see the money go to R&D. We need to find technologies which will allow us to somewhat offset what others are emitting. (I acknowledge we aren’t currently near where we need to be to make this economically feasible). They world isn’t decreasing emissions in my lifetime.
Hoping and praying that science will find you a viable solution, when it has already found you one.
“Lord why didn’t you save me from drowning?”
”Why did you refuse to climb into the boat I sent for you?”
Your views are narrow. First of all, the first production of technology will be expensive. Second, this project is worth it. It is preservation of world history and art. This technology can be used for other projects, and will become cheaper each time it is used. And a brilliant engineer can find other things the tech will be useful for. In very different projects this tech can find other purposes, after studying the effects that it has.
The cost is negligible compared to the costs for the US to follow the Green New Deal. Bet you wouldn't be worried about cost on that. You would follow that until our economy collapsed. You find fault because you can, not because their is reason to find fault. Yes there were several faults in how this project was executed, yes there were great over expenditures. That simply leaves great room for improvement on a valuable(and successful) 1st attempt.
While the Chinese and Indian boat cause a great whirlpool in the water. That whirlpool sucks our boat down with it after we climb in. Thus eliminating any value in spending all our money on trying to stop the inevitable. We all end up dead at the bottom of the sea.
I don't know what you know about the topography of the land and sea surrounding Venice, but this solution is a niche one. Venice exists essentially on a small series of islands surrounded by a lagoon, which is buttressed by a few long island chains (ex: the Lido) that border the Med.
The reason the solution works at all, is that in this case, the topography lends itself to blocking off the waters of the Med via narrow passages out to the main part of the Adriatic. Of course this setup does exist elsewhere in the world, but it's not a broad applicable solution that will help stave off rising tidewaters elsewhere in the world, and ultimately, it's ability to block water is only as good as the elevation of Lido.
That combined with the fact that the cost to barricade those small channels was extremely expensive is just another reason I say that "living with climate change" will ultimately be much more expensive than what's currently being asked of the world in terms of minimizing its progression. It cost $6 Billion dollars to do a relatively simple construction project.
Also, the inhabitants are worried that in the case of continual global warming that would lead the walls to act as near permanent barriers, the lagoon itself would be detrimentally harmed as it becomes a cesspool for waste and algae that can't be cycled into the Adriatic.
of the Consorzio pursued its task to guarantee the proper completion of Mose and to ensure the conclusion of the defense system on 2018.[citation needed]
While MOSE's supporters say it can handle the threat of rising waters from global warming, others have doubted the project can face this challenge. Luigi D’Alpaos, a professor emeritus of hydraulics,[21] wrote that "MOSE is obsolete and philosophically wrong, conceptually wrong," for example.[9] The problem is that while the gates could hypothetically deal with rising waters, they could only do so by raising the floodgates so often that they would function as a "near-permanent wall." This, in turn, would devastate the lagoon's drainage and interchange with the Adriatic Sea; Venice's lagoon would become a "stagnant pool for algae and waste" if the gates were usually left up.[9]
Last edited:
I don't know what you know about the topography of the land and sea surrounding Venice, but this solution is a niche one. Venice exists essentially on a small series of islands surrounded by a lagoon, which is buttressed by a few long island chains (ex: the Lido) that border the Med.
The reason the solution works at all, is that in this case, the topography lends itself to blocking off the waters of the Med via narrow passages out to the main part of the Adriatic. Of course this setup does exist elsewhere in the world, but it's not a broad applicable solution that will help stave off rising tidewaters elsewhere in the world, and ultimately, it's ability to block water is only as good as the elevation of Lido.
That combined with the fact that the cost to barricade those small channels was extremely expensive is just another reason I say that "living with climate change" will ultimately be much more expensive than what's currently being asked of the world in terms of minimizing its progression. It cost $6 Billion dollars to do a relatively simple construction project.
Also, the inhabitants are worried that in the case of continual global warming that would lead the walls to act as near permanent barriers, the lagoon itself would be detrimentally harmed as it becomes a cesspool for waste and algae that can't be cycled into the Adriatic.
of the Consorzio pursued its task to guarantee the proper completion of Mose and to ensure the conclusion of the defense system on 2018.[citation needed]
While MOSE's supporters say it can handle the threat of rising waters from global warming, others have doubted the project can face this challenge. Luigi D’Alpaos, a professor emeritus of hydraulics,[21] wrote that "MOSE is obsolete and philosophically wrong, conceptually wrong," for example.[9] The problem is that while the gates could hypothetically deal with rising waters, they could only do so by raising the floodgates so often that they would function as a "near-permanent wall." This, in turn, would devastate the lagoon's drainage and interchange with the Adriatic Sea; Venice's lagoon would become a "stagnant pool for algae and waste" if the gates were usually left up.[9]
Just because you did a little 24hr wikipedia research project doesn't prove anything. Mose won't be fully operational until 2023. There are those who believe in it, and those who don't. I could spend ten minutes finding those that espouse the opposite of your negative cheerleaders,(there are several) but I'm not on a mission to prove anything you say wrong. Their theories won't be proven or disproven until it is fully operational for a few years. And you calling it a little niche project is limiting the research possibilities/probabilities in order to prove a point. That thinking is inside a very small box.
It's funny how you jump on the easiest post in a topic to jack with, ignoring that it's just one example. This is an informational repository topic. That it 'proves' your point that it will be costly to deal with climate change is laughable. You picked the one example with massive cost overruns, and all it is, is an outlier. Guess what, you still haven't addressed the fact that you want to use the Green New Deal and such, which will cost an inordinate amount of money. That will drive our economy into the ground, and will fail due to India and China. Stop jumping on the one easiest post in a topic because you can and just let it go. This is a topic that is, and should be for information's sake.
India and China WON'T let you address this head on. It doesn't matter if you are addressing it short term or long term.
Through jawing with you on this exercise in your own futility. There is no true point to continuing this argument.
Last edited:
The only reason I commented on it was because I have been there and spoken to locals about it. It does solve a problem, no doubt, but it shouldn’t be looked to as a sign that we can solve the same or similar problems elsewhere. For example there are islands in the Chesapeake bay that have completely disappeared under rising tidewaters, and there are no real viable solutions to block those because io the expanse of the bay and the fact that it has a major river feeding into it constantly.
I think there are many, many reasons that we should quickly transition away from a carbon base infrastructure and only one of them is due to climate change. I think it also provides much more energy security. That’s a big reason I support the changes despite their expense Because I think in the long run the expense will be cheaper than the cost of doing nothing.
I do find it hilarious that you and poke spend all day railing against China and then you choose to just to totally back them in their efforts to not decarbonize. Sounds like you guys are closet commies
Last edited:
So your answer instead is to keep trying to tread water instead of trying to survive the maelstrom in the boat that the lord sent for you? Good talk.
There are more efficient and more cost effective methods of energy storage already being planned as per of renewable developments in the future. Most revolve around the use of hydro power.
I have no idea why seemingly intelligent people can’t understand science and simple mathematics. Silly to carry on conversations about this topic with the same.
….and no, I don’t back China. In fact I’ve been one of China’s biggest critics. Backing China would be clinging to the fantasy that China will decrease its emissions. It’s absolutely absurd there are some posters who still maintain this belief. Sort of like not being able to look at simple mathematics and understand the solution I backed is certain to fail.
Where did you get that we back China in their lack of effort to decarbonize. The issue is that we cannot control them and India's actions. Never did myself or Lawpoke say we supported their country. Quite the opposite. We're not watu. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
It’s interesting how some place their hopes on a technology solution for curing or coping with the effects of climate change but not for addressing its root causes.
It's interesting how all you and Aston can do is criticize a topic that provides after the fact solutions to the problem, to prop up your root causes theme. When your root causes solution is dead in the water over things we cannot control, you still support it. We should be dividing our money between economically feasible root cause solutions and after the fact solutions.
Thanks for polluting this topic.
You say you want to be open to solutions, but you are only open to your ideological solutions. You are just as closed off as the right wing of the republican party. Get out of the way, and let rational centrist policies do some good.
The far right and the far left are the problem, not one or the other.
We support addressing the root cause. The problem is that China and India do not. How can you not understand this after all the discussions on this board. You keep regurgitating the same old crap while ignoring the reality of China and India ramping up coal fired energy. Please give us your detailed plan for how the world is going see emissions plateau by 2024 given the current action of the countries mentioned above?
As I’ve said for years, we better be coming up with alternative plans which don’t rely on China and India making significant emission reductions in the near future.
What you say is that China won’t stop using fossil fuels and that’s doesnt align with the effort that (if financially viable) should be pursued to combat climate change…. Then you say that we should just allow them to do exactly what they want and not stop using fossil fuels, and that we should just adapt to both them and us continuing to use fossil fuels much as we have been instead.
That is a textbook support of China’s goals and interests. You are literally playing into their hand.
That’s because your after the fact solution A) isn’t scientifically viable on a macroscopic scale and B) is long term more expensive and destructive than addressing the root cause, which you already whine about being too expensive.
Please point out where I said we should allow China to continue to expand fossil fuel consumption? I have stated the fact that they are expanding the same.
Please point out where I said the US should continue to use fossil fuels in the same amount we have been?
Back to China, what exactly is the Biden Admin doing to prevent China from expanding its coal mining and construction of new power plants?
Last edited:
You have a serious problem with reading comprehension or are still trolling. But whether we support their position or not, does not do anything to change their actions. You can get all of us to sing kumbaya in unison and their actions won't change.
