The opposite of get in the water and cool down…

[ChE1997]

Climate action tracker say - it's not breakneck enough

"The CAT rates China’s climate targets and policies as “Highly Insufficient”. The “Highly insufficient” rating indicates that China’s climate policies and commitments are not consistent with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C temperature limit and lead to a plateau of high, rather than falling, emissions levels.

China’s climate commitment in 2030 falls between two categories: “Insufficient” and “Highly Insufficient”. The CAT rates China’s commitments as “Highly Insufficient” as emission levels under its NDC commitments are substantially higher than what would be deemed 1.5°C compatible compared to its “fair share” contribution. For the purposes of this rating system, we treat China's NDC commitment as unconditional, as it has not indicated a level of ambition that would be achieved with international support (a conditional NDC target)."

yeah. that's the issue... The US, China, and India need to do a lot better.

From your link...

• China’s energy transition investments in non-fossil energy, storage, electrified transport and circular economy remains a global leader, and was larger than the next ten leading countries combined in 2022.

The US has a better outlook than China and India BECAUSE of what Biden did. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/2019-12-02/

We will miss the 1.5C target best case now is 1.8C and will probably be 2.0C unless we get a tech breakthough... And that is because we are still having the debate on climate change... Instead of doing something about it.

 

[BoDawg.sixpack]

yeah. that's the issue... The US, China, and India need to do a lot better.

From your link...



The US has a better outlook than China and India BECAUSE of what Biden did. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/2019-12-02/

We will miss the 1.5C target best case now is 1.8C and will probably be 2.0C unless we get a tech breakthough... And that is because we are still having the debate on climate change... Instead of doing something about it.

As a matter of global compliance almost no one is rated as "sufficient" on the overall rating. Even Norway is rated "almost sufficient" with many countries being "critically insufficient". "highly insufficient", or "insufficient" including Canada, The EU, Brazil, and South Korea. The point is that we're headed for a inflection point where adaptation is going to play a bigger role than prevention because the countries who are working to the Paris Agreement goals in good faith aren't going to be enough.

We have to adapt to the higher temperatures and learn to live with them until they come down, which could easily take another century.

 

[ChE1997]

As a matter of global compliance almost no one is rated as "sufficient" on the overall rating. Even Norway is rated "almost sufficient" with many countries being "critically insufficient". "highly insufficient", or "insufficient" including Canada, The EU, Brazil, and South Korea. The point is that we're headed for a inflection point where adaptation is going to play a bigger role than prevention because the countries who are working to the Paris Agreement goals in good faith aren't going to be enough.

We have to adapt to the higher temperatures and learn to live with them until they come down, which could easily take another century.

Again. That's the issue. We missed the target. If the USA had ratified Kyoto in 1997, we would be better.

the reason the 1.5C target was selected was not for achievability but because that was the highest increase with the least amount of foreseeable change to how and where humans (and our food sources) live.

 

[dudehead]

"We could power the world’s current electricity consumption by covering just 3.27% of the US with solar power plants." That doesn't seem like a lot to me, but I suspect it is.

https://www.axionpower.com/knowledge/power-world-with-solar/

 

[ChE1997]

"We could power the world’s current electricity consumption by covering just 3.27% of the US with solar power plants." That doesn't seem like a lot to me, but I suspect it is.

https://www.axionpower.com/knowledge/power-world-with-solar/

It's not the number, it's cost to install and getting the power to everyone.

It's also why Trump's Solar Tariff put us years behind. We lost at least 10.8 GW of solar due to them. The jobs on Solar are in installation. Which are domestic. The tariff made the panels more expensive. Which makes the payoff longer, which makes them make less sense to install.

And think of it this way for domestic renewables. Every watt of wind and solar made is a watt we don't have to burn natural gas to make. That's a watt of natural gas we can export for more US money. That's energy independence.

 

[BoDawg.sixpack]

"We could power the world’s current electricity consumption by covering just 3.27% of the US with solar power plants." That doesn't seem like a lot to me, but I suspect it is.

https://www.axionpower.com/knowledge/power-world-with-solar/

Any data out there on how much the crypto mining boom has contributed to overall energy consumption?

 

[Jacknut]

Sen Kennedy / climate change

 

[ChE1997]

Any data out there on how much the crypto mining boom has contributed to overall energy consumption?

I'm sure it increased it. google could tell you...

 

[Captain Ron]

Always interesting to me when someone is declaring an emergency and is asking for change in behavior from others, but doesn’t seem to be living it themselves.

If a Baptist preacher preaches the evils of alcohol, but yet still profits off his ownership in a liquor store, I am skeptical of his true belief, or dedication to the cause.

Many of the politicians who are making the demands, are still flying around in private jets, have 3 or more homes etc. The fact the former speaker of the house demanded the 757 to fly back to SFO instead of using the Gulf Stream makes me question her belief as an example. Sure seems like some pigs are more equal than others.

I am not debating whether there is or isn’t man made heating etc, but just like the preacher, if you are gonna be preaching to me, you should be setting the example, not just when you get called out after the fact.

 

[ChE1997]

Sen Kennedy / climate change

Senator Kennedy? They guy that thinks you have to swear the oath of office on the Bible?

And he's asking dishonest questions...

 

[ChE1997]

Always interesting to me when someone is declaring an emergency and is asking for change in behavior from others, but doesn’t seem to be living it themselves.

If a Baptist preacher preaches the evils of alcohol, but yet still profits off his ownership in a liquor store, I am skeptical of his true belief, or dedication to the cause.

Many of the politicians who are making the demands, are still flying around in private jets, have 3 or more homes etc. The fact the former speaker of the house demanded the 757 to fly back to SFO instead of using the Gulf Stream makes me question her belief as an example. Sure seems like some pigs are more equal than others.

I am not debating whether there is or isn’t man made heating etc, but just like the preacher, if you are gonna be preaching to me, you should be setting the example, not just when you get called out after the fact.

It's not the Politicians. The politicians don't care. They only want to to stay in power and profit.

It's the scientists telling you this is an emergency... And have been for 30 years....

 

[dorndawg]

Always interesting to me when someone is declaring an emergency and is asking for change in behavior from others, but doesn’t seem to be living it themselves.

If a Baptist preacher preaches the evils of alcohol, but yet still profits off his ownership in a liquor store, I am skeptical of his true belief, or dedication to the cause.

Many of the politicians who are making the demands, are still flying around in private jets, have 3 or more homes etc. The fact the former speaker of the house demanded the 757 to fly back to SFO instead of using the Gulf Stream makes me question her belief as an example. Sure seems like some pigs are more equal than others.

I am not debating whether there is or isn’t man made heating etc, but just like the preacher, if you are gonna be preaching to me, you should be setting the example, not just when you get called out after the fact.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I don’t know how anyone on either side of the global warming argument feels confident in their position. There is no doubt the earth is warming but I don’t know how anyone can be confident humans are causing it, we have not been tracking weather long enough to make any definitive conclusions in my opinion. And people that deny it so vehemently will shrug off any amount of facts with “it’s a conspiracy”.

I don't think that there can be any doubt that humans are contributing to it. That science is not in question by anyone who is serious. The underlying issue is to what extent are we seeing natural cyclical climate change vs human accelerated/induced? For some people just the fact that humans contribute pushes them to adopt strong stances in favor of any effort to reduce that impact. For some people, they want to know how big the contribution is and then given some idea of how much of that impact could be mitigated and at what cost (i.e cost benefit analysis). They would be willing to help the cause if they can be convinced that it is worthy. That's about it for normal, critical thinking people.

For the rest, it is about political identity and they don't really care about much else and will not look at evidence, will not think critically and will not back down from whatever the current talking points happen to be for their side.

 

[dorndawg]

I don't think that there can be any doubt that humans are contributing to it. That science is not in question by anyone who is serious. The underlying issue is to what extent are we seeing natural cyclical climate change vs human accelerated/induced? For some people just the fact that humans contribute pushes them to adopt strong stances in favor of any effort to reduce that impact. For some people, they want to know how big the contribution is and then given some idea of how much of that impact could be mitigated and at what cost (i.e cost benefit analysis). They would be willing to help the cause if they can be convinced that it is worthy. That's about it for normal, critical thinking people.

For the rest, it is about political identity and they don't really care about much else and will not look at evidence, will not think critically and will not back down from whatever the current talking points happen to be for their side.

THIS. I catch hell from progressive friends when I toss most plastics in the trash instead of recycling (metals are all easily recycled, I try to go a better job there but also don't get down on myself if a High Life can makes it's way into the trash). Yes, before we used to "recycle" plastics, by which I mean we shipped them to China, slaves sorted through them for anything valuable, and the rest was put in the ground or ocean. Thankfully today, China's average standard of living is marginally better so that doesn't work anymore, meaning many "recyclable" plastics are burned or dumped here.

And don't even mention the one gal who uses probably 5 gallons of hot water (nat gas powered) to get all the peanut butter out of a jar "so they can recycle it". Talk about hustling backwards. Totally agree @horshack.sixpack, it's identity politics.

 

[Darryl Steight]

THIS. I catch hell from progressive friends when I toss most plastics in the trash instead of recycling (metals are all easily recycled, I try to go a better job there but also don't get down on myself if a High Life can makes it's way into the trash). Yes, before we used to "recycle" plastics, by which I mean we shipped them to China, slaves sorted through them for anything valuable, and the rest was put in the ground or ocean. Thankfully today, China's average standard of living is marginally better so that doesn't work anymore, meaning many "recyclable" plastics are burned or dumped here.

And don't even mention the one gal who uses probably 5 gallons of hot water (nat gas powered) to get all the peanut butter out of a jar "so they can recycle it". Talk about hustling backwards. Totally agree @horshack.sixpack, it's identity politics.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

THIS. I catch hell from progressive friends when I toss most plastics in the trash instead of recycling (metals are all easily recycled, I try to go a better job there but also don't get down on myself if a High Life can makes it's way into the trash). Yes, before we used to "recycle" plastics, by which I mean we shipped them to China, slaves sorted through them for anything valuable, and the rest was put in the ground or ocean. Thankfully today, China's average standard of living is marginally better so that doesn't work anymore, meaning many "recyclable" plastics are burned or dumped here.

And don't even mention the one gal who uses probably 5 gallons of hot water (nat gas powered) to get all the peanut butter out of a jar "so they can recycle it". Talk about hustling backwards. Totally agree @horshack.sixpack, it's identity politics.

I have a neighbor who, upon me moving in years ago, seemingly stood in wait for my first appearance close enough to my curb to deliver me a recycle bin. First time I met her. ONLY time she has ever spoken to me. In 20 years. She makes the rounds in ours, and surrounding, neighborhoods on trash days and digs through people's trash for items she deems still valuable or that "shouldn't" go to the landfill. The result? Her yard and property are basically a landfill. She literally just move a percentage of the landfill to her yard. Luckily it's a large property and hidden by woods. I have not pointed this out to her as I suspect my observations might not be well received. Plus, she scare me a little...

 

[dorndawg]

I have a neighbor who, upon me moving in years ago, seemingly stood in wait for my first appearance close enough to my curb to deliver me a recycle bin. First time I met her. ONLY time she has ever spoken to me. In 20 years. She makes the rounds in ours, and surrounding, neighborhoods on trash days and digs through people's trash for items she deems still valuable or that "shouldn't" go to the landfill. The result? Her yard and property are basically a landfill. She literally just move a percentage of the landfill to her yard. Luckily it's a large property and hidden by woods. I have not pointed this out to her as I suspect my observations might not be well received. Plus, she scare me a little...

Folks have strange hobbies, man...

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I remember that and it scared the crap out of me. I also got scared when they said Acid Rain was fallen and there was a hole in Ozone. I believed it then. We went from second ICE Age to Global warming in 20 years. Every fire, weather pattern and flies farting are blamed on climate change. Too much politics and money to know what to really believe. So yes, I believe the climate changes, but it always is changing.

They did actually create regulatory rules on plant emissions which scrubbed the pollutants so that the acid rain problem was mitigated. It didn't suddenly just marry someone basic and cancel out. I recall the uproar from the politicians supported by those companies about the cost being too high to do anything about it.

If only we could just let common sense corporate leadership put in just enough safety to do what needs to be done....

 

[WrapItDog]

Interesting. What kind of thermometer they use on mercury?

The one on the right

 

[Boom Boom]

Getting paid to find truth or find more funding or promote their benefactors ideas? That’s not a right or left only issue. I’m skeptical of everyone involved. Don’t kid yourself that the alarmists aren’t making tons of this. Al Gore has bought some nice beach front properties so he can watch the oceans wipe them out I guess (assuming the reports of his purchases are true, I haven’t been to his house lately).

Skepticism is fine. But the truth here is clear.

 

[ChE1997]

THIS. I catch hell from progressive friends when I toss most plastics in the trash instead of recycling (metals are all easily recycled, I try to go a better job there but also don't get down on myself if a High Life can makes it's way into the trash). Yes, before we used to "recycle" plastics, by which I mean we shipped them to China, slaves sorted through them for anything valuable, and the rest was put in the ground or ocean. Thankfully today, China's average standard of living is marginally better so that doesn't work anymore, meaning many "recyclable" plastics are burned or dumped here.

And don't even mention the one gal who uses probably 5 gallons of hot water (nat gas powered) to get all the peanut butter out of a jar "so they can recycle it". Talk about hustling backwards. Totally agree @horshack.sixpack, it's identity politics.

Plastic recycling is a scam.

Always has been.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

Skepticism is fine. But the truth here is clear.

As Ron said, when the people calling for change due to what they say is man made climate change actually change their behavior, I’ll take it seriously. All for clean air and water, not for unnecessary taxes/costs and fear mongering.

 

[Boom Boom]

As Ron said, when the people calling for change due to what they say is man made climate change actually change their behavior, I’ll take it seriously. All for clean air and water, not for unnecessary taxes/costs and fear mongering.

Many do. You're up.

 

[QuadrupleOption]

Why I think we should get rid of gas-powered cars and coal-burning plants:
1) New tech is cool.
2) Dependence on foreign oil has put us in a bind on the international front. The Saudis are ******** but we support them because we need their oil. Yes, we have a ton of local oil reserves too and we use most of our domestic production internally.
3) Improved air quality in large population centers is an admirable goal in and of itself. Electric vehicles will go a long way to cleaning up the air in large cities and improving overall health.

We will still need oil as long as we have a need for plastics, and burning it has been the best source of power for a long time. We're getting to the point where that's not the case.

Once electric cars become cheap (and sexy) enough I expect that the US will voluntarily switch. I liked my hybrid, especially when gas prices went haywire and I'm not a tree-hugging global warming alarmist. I just like saving money. If solar ever becomes affordable and efficient enough I'll switch there too.

 

[mstateglfr]

Climate change has happened constantly throughout this planets existence. I live 300 miles from the ocean and yet I can go a mile from my house and pick up sharks teeth and sea shells from the ground. the earth is going through a natural cycle. I have no doubt that humans have contributed to the acceleration of change but thinking that we can stop it is stupid. There are entirely too many people on this planet, ole Mother Nature is going to fix that problem one way or the other. She’s going to thin the herd. She might even eliminate the human species all together and start over with something different.

Thread should have ended here.
I mean, what are we to do, right? We are powerless and must just accept whatever is coming.
We helped accelerate the issue, so clearly we aren't powerless, but NOW we are powerless and should just lie down to what's coming.

That is 17ing absurd.

We have the clear ability to impact the world in which we live, but you are ready to just accept theass suffering and elimination of our species.
Why not fight and try to continue? Mass suffering and death across the world will cripple economies and throw even stable governments into chaos and upheaval. That certainly isn't a good thing, so perhaps trying a preemptive approach would work better? You know, maybe we spend money and change things now so there is less destruction of civilization later?



Wild idea, I know.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

THIS. I catch hell from progressive friends when I toss most plastics in the trash instead of recycling (metals are all easily recycled, I try to go a better job there but also don't get down on myself if a High Life can makes it's way into the trash). Yes, before we used to "recycle" plastics, by which I mean we shipped them to China, slaves sorted through them for anything valuable, and the rest was put in the ground or ocean. Thankfully today, China's average standard of living is marginally better so that doesn't work anymore, meaning many "recyclable" plastics are burned or dumped here.

And don't even mention the one gal who uses probably 5 gallons of hot water (nat gas powered) to get all the peanut butter out of a jar "so they can recycle it". Talk about hustling backwards. Totally agree @horshack.sixpack, it's identity politics.

I always tried my best to recycle, but living in Rankin County cured me of that. Check out any travel baseball tournament and observe the sheer number of one-use plastic bottles piled up in the garbage can (and everywhere else). BB gun at a freight train.

So I went the way of multiple use. I now try and save the bottles and reuse them. But your High Life example made me think. I do all this stuff for water and plastics, but have never thought twice at all about one-use beer cans/bottles. I mean I'll guess I'll start being the dooshbag that takes my bottle back to the bar and ask them to fill it up with draft.

 

[mcdawg22]

I always tried my best to recycle, but living in Rankin County cured me of that. Check out any travel baseball tournament and observe the sheer number of one-use plastic bottles piled up in the garbage can (and everywhere else). BB gun at a freight train.

So I went the way of multiple use. I now try and save the bottles and reuse them. But your High Life example made me think. I do all this stuff for water and plastics, but have never thought twice at all about one-use beer cans/bottles. I mean I'll guess I'll start being the dooshbag that takes my bottle back to the bar and ask them to fill it up with draft.

That’s one thing that irks me about mixed drinks in plastic cups. Go to a beach bar down here and you take your cup back and ask them to use the same cup and they won’t. So we waste a cup, but good news! It has a paper straw!

 

[RiverCityDawg]

Thread should have ended here.
I mean, what are we to do, right? We are powerless and must just accept whatever is coming.
We helped accelerate the issue, so clearly we aren't powerless, but NOW we are powerless and should just lie down to what's coming.

That is 17ing absurd.

We have the clear ability to impact the world in which we live, but you are ready to just accept theass suffering and elimination of our species.
Why not fight and try to continue? Mass suffering and death across the world will cripple economies and throw even stable governments into chaos and upheaval. That certainly isn't a good thing, so perhaps trying a preemptive approach would work better? You know, maybe we spend money and change things now so there is less destruction of civilization later?



Wild idea, I know.

"Destruction of civilization"? It ain't that serious. That's the issue. Yes, climate change is occurring. Yes, humans are contributing. But it's not near the disaster as is being portrayed by some. Humans will adapt like always.

The resources being spent to combat climate change would be much better spent trying to pull people out of poverty. "Clean Energy" is expensive, and we're asking people to sacrifice for something way out in the future when they are more worried about paying their bills this month and feeding their family. So the average temp in 50 years will be 4 degrees more. Gee wiz, what a disaster. Yes, please raise my electricity rates to subsidize economically inefficient renewables so the earth overall is slightly cooler for my grandkids. It's just a bassakwards way of prioritizing.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

"Destruction of civilization"? It ain't that serious. That's the issue. Yes, climate change is occurring. Yes, humans are contributing. But it's not near the disaster as is being portrayed by some. Humans will adapt like always.

The resources being spent to combat climate change would be much better spent trying to pull people out of poverty. "Clean Energy" is expensive, and we're asking people to sacrifice for something way out in the future when they are more worried about paying their bills this month and feeding their family. So the average temp in 50 years will be 4 degrees more. Gee wiz, what a disaster. Yes, please raise my electricity rates to subsidize economically inefficient renewables so the earth overall is slightly cooler for my grandkids. It's just a bassakwards way of prioritizing.

I for one am concerned about the future. You give all that money to 'pull people out of poverty' (whatever that means) and it's just going to end up in the drug trade and padding the wallets of Dollar General, Walmart and McDonald's. Not a great leap forward in my book. We do enough of that charity work already.

At least clean energy is inspiring people to think and innovate, and adds decent, technological jobs to the economy. That effect compounds itself.

You say it's a bassakwards way of prioritizing, well I say your thought process is just lazy and concerned about your immediate surroundings.

 

[Boom Boom]

I for one am concerned about the future. You give all that money to 'pull people out of poverty' (whatever that means) and it's just going to end up in the drug trade and padding the wallets of Dollar General, Walmart and McDonald's. Not a great leap forward in my book. We do enough of that charity work already.

At least clean energy is inspiring people to think and innovate, and adds decent, technological jobs to the economy. That effect compounds itself.

You say it's a bassakwards way of prioritizing, well I say your thought process is just lazy and concerned about your immediate surroundings.

I've agreed with Goat on two posts in a row. What the 17 is happening???

 

[RiverCityDawg]

I for one am concerned about the future. You give all that money to 'pull people out of poverty' (whatever that means) and it's just going to end up in the drug trade and padding the wallets of Dollar General, Walmart and McDonald's. Not a great leap forward in my book. We do enough of that charity work already.

At least clean energy is inspiring people to think and innovate, and adds decent, technological jobs to the economy. That effect compounds itself.

You say it's a bassakwards way of prioritizing, well I say your thought process is just lazy and concerned about your immediate surroundings.

Tell that to the poorest in this world burning wood fires and/or depending on coal-fired plants for their power. Or the single mom of 4 paying much more for her power bill so that her state can tell everyone how they're "saving the planet" with wind and solar instead building another gas fired plant that actually works year round, takes up far less land space, and prevents them from having to buy into the spot market. Saving the planet in theory 50-100 years from now with economically inefficient green energy is a first world concern at the expense of the poor.

That aside, if we really wanted to spend money in the energy sector to reduce carbon emissions in a way that actually helps that issue, it would be towards nuclear (incl R&D) yet the most hardcore climate alarmists also seem to be anti-nuclear, which just doubles down on the ignorant and insane.

 

[mstateglfr]

"Destruction of civilization"? It ain't that serious. That's the issue. Yes, climate change is occurring. Yes, humans are contributing. But it's not near the disaster as is being portrayed by some. Humans will adapt like always.

The resources being spent to combat climate change would be much better spent trying to pull people out of poverty. "Clean Energy" is expensive, and we're asking people to sacrifice for something way out in the future when they are more worried about paying their bills this month and feeding their family. So the average temp in 50 years will be 4 degrees more. Gee wiz, what a disaster. Yes, please raise my electricity rates to subsidize economically inefficient renewables so the earth overall is slightly cooler for my grandkids. It's just a bassakwards way of prioritizing.

Did you read the quote I was responding to? I didnt come up with the claim of civilization being destroyed, I responded to it. If you want to go after someone, go respond to the person I responded to since they said the entire human race may be eliminated since there are too many people on the planet for us to stop what is happening.

There are entirely too many people on this planet, ole Mother Nature is going to fix that problem one way or the other. She’s going to thin the herd. She might even eliminate the human species all together and start over with something different.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

SMH, All these chlamydia experts in a climate thread

 

[ChE1997]

"Destruction of civilization"? It ain't that serious. That's the issue. Yes, climate change is occurring. Yes, humans are contributing. But it's not near the disaster as is being portrayed by some. Humans will adapt like always.

The resources being spent to combat climate change would be much better spent trying to pull people out of poverty. "Clean Energy" is expensive, and we're asking people to sacrifice for something way out in the future when they are more worried about paying their bills this month and feeding their family. So the average temp in 50 years will be 4 degrees more. Gee wiz, what a disaster. Yes, please raise my electricity rates to subsidize economically inefficient renewables so the earth overall is slightly cooler for my grandkids. It's just a bassakwards way of prioritizing.

4C higher temps would be a destruction of civilization.

Period. says every respectable climate scientist.

It would shift the climate north by 1000 miles. A large number of farmland would be unable to grow the crops it does now...

Any coastal city would require seawalls as the sea level would be 3-9 feet higher. In Mississippi, Moss Point and Pascagoula would be an Island As would Pass Christian. Gulf shores and Orange Beach are under water. Baton Rouge would be on the Gulf.

Naples and Boca Raton are the southern end of Florida

Clean Energy was required to make the US energy independent. And it is required to grow to keep us energy independent.

As for pulling people out of poverty, if every church in america sponsored a homeless person. each church would have to take care of 0.5 homeless person. If only the Jesus has said take care of them****

$175.3 billion. That is how many dollars it would take to bring every person in the United States up to the poverty line... The US Defense budget, increased $100 billion since 2022. If we wanted to "End Poverty" we could without even noticing it in the budget..

 

[ChE1997]

Tell that to the poorest in this world burning wood fires and/or depending on coal-fired plants for their power. Or the single mom of 4 paying much more for her power bill so that her state can tell everyone how they're "saving the planet" with wind and solar instead building another gas fired plant that actually works year round, takes up far less land space, and prevents them from having to buy into the spot market. Saving the planet in theory 50-100 years from now with economically inefficient green energy is a first world concern at the expense of the poor.

That aside, if we really wanted to spend money in the energy sector to reduce carbon emissions in a way that actually helps that issue, it would be towards nuclear (incl R&D) yet the most hardcore climate alarmists also seem to be anti-nuclear, which just doubles down on the ignorant and insane.

While I agree that Nuclear is the best baseload option, Wind and Solar are cheaper to run that any other power source. More Renewable NErergy lowers Electric costs.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

Many do. You're up.

You’ve inspired me. For the next “global summit on how to use working people’s tax dollars to line political pockets while weakening national security and pretending to be concerned about an energy and climate crisis”, I’ll join via Zoom instead of taking a private 757. Every little bit helps.

 

[ChE1997]

You’ve inspired me. For the next “global summit on how to use working people’s tax dollars to line political pockets while weakening national security and pretending to be concerned about an energy and climate crisis”, I’ll join via Zoom instead of taking a private 757. Every little bit helps.

How does having more renewable energy weaken out national security? Are we planning on buying wind and sunlight from a country that hates us and whose citizens did 9/11?

And you are right, we should use the rich, non working people's tax dollars to pay for it.

Again, we use Natural gas for 32% of our energy. If we used it for 10%, it's an extra 56 BCFD of gas we could sell... at todays prices, That's an additional $1.6 Billion a day for US companies...

And that doesn't count oil, diesel or petrol used for transportation that would be sold with a higher electric car use.

So tell me more about how the "economics don't work"

 

[ckDOG]

Tell that to the poorest in this world burning wood fires and/or depending on coal-fired plants for their power. Or the single mom of 4 paying much more for her power bill so that her state can tell everyone how they're "saving the planet" with wind and solar instead building another gas fired plant that actually works year round, takes up far less land space, and prevents them from having to buy into the spot market. Saving the planet in theory 50-100 years from now with economically inefficient green energy is a first world concern at the expense of the poor.

That aside, if we really wanted to spend money in the energy sector to reduce carbon emissions in a way that actually helps that issue, it would be towards nuclear (incl R&D) yet the most hardcore climate alarmists also seem to be anti-nuclear, which just doubles down on the ignorant and insane.

This is where I think governments role should be. Technology/scalability/economics is going to drive behavior at the business side and the consumer side. I can't blame anyone without a luxury level income for for letting economics drive their behavior even if it's worse on our environment. That's most people on earth. I also can't blame businesses with massive capital investments in older/polluting tech from continuing a business model based on that tech. It's simple ROI.

Governments role here should be subsidizing the research into replacement scalable clean tech to speed up the transition to affordable clean alternatives. The status quo in energy doesn't really produce a swift change. It's too capital intensive with low counts of energy providers/competitors. The market just isn't fast with little motivation to change. If there's a major technology disruption and proves economical, then they get that motivation to change or someone else will enter the market and do it for them.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

How does having more renewable energy weaken out national security? Are we planning on buying wind and sunlight from a country that hates us and whose citizens did 9/11?

And you are right, we should use the rich, non working people's tax dollars to pay for it.

Again, we use Natural gas for 32% of our energy. If we used it for 10%, it's an extra 56 BCFD of gas we could sell... at todays prices, That's an additional $1.6 Billion a day for US companies...

And that doesn't count oil, diesel or petrol used for transportation that would be sold with a higher electric car use.

So tell me more about how the "economics don't work"

I think you missed my point. Political leaders have this attitude: “let’s all burn tons of fossil fuels so we can fly our private jets to an expensive party where we tell everyone we’re running out of energy, and pollution from burning fossil fuels is killing everyone, so let’s scare them into allowing us to screw them out of money so we can have more parties”
Some people respond with: “I’m so scared, take my money while I grab my ankles, that will help”
Others respond with, “that’s bologna”.

 

[ChE1997]

I think you missed my point. Political leaders have this attitude: “let’s all burn tons of fossil fuels so we can fly our private jets to an expensive party where we tell everyone we’re running out of energy, and pollution from burning fossil fuels is killing everyone, so let’s scare them into allowing us to screw them out of money so we can have more parties”
Some people respond with: “I’m so scared, take my money while I grab my ankles, that will help”
Others respond with, “that’s bologna”.

I think you miss the point.

It is not political.

I'm not "scared" because some political person told me.

I'm concerned because I've read the papers.

I'm scared because so many say "that's bologna" because someone they disagree with politically said it.

I swear some people would set themselves on fire to spite some rando's politics