I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[TheGoodBits]

45 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

 

 

When push comes to shove, many of the technological solutions needed for combating climate change are also not going to appease the progressive left.

 

At this point, we are probably headed for a close-to worst case scenario.

 

Case in point, we are decades away from renewables like solar and wind being able to generate enough electricity to meet our growing demand. Meanwhile we have 50 year old technology , nuclear, that is being decommissioned all over the world that could get us carbon-free in 30 years. 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-really-could-go-nuclear/ 

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate 

 

And what's more, we have the potential for a next generation nuclear reactor technology that was first discovered in the 1970s and then forgotten, which could drastically improve how we generate power with nuclear. https://grist.org/article/next-gen-nuclear-is-coming-if-we-want-it/ 

 

Humanity kinda missed the ball on this one... not too late certainly but we're running decades behind schedule. And nobody seems to be pushing nuclear as a significant part of the solution, when it almost HAS to be. 

Edited May 7, 2019 by skinsfan_1215

[No Excuses]

27 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

Humanity kinda missed the ball on this one... not too late certainly but we're running decades behind schedule. And nobody seems to be pushing nuclear as a significant part of the solution, when it almost HAS to be. 

 

One of the only moonshots to actually getting us out of this mess is still fusion power and it seems to be attracting private sector funding which is a good thing. A good article on this in the Economist a few days ago:

 

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2019/05/04/fusion-power-is-attracting-private-sector-interest

 

Hypothetically, if one of these new fusion power startups can deliver a functional prototype by 2030 as they hope to do, there might then be a downstream effect of really turbocharging an alternative energy solution that can outcompete fossil fuels. It’s a massive long shot.

Edited May 7, 2019 by No Excuses

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

Case in point, we are decades away from renewables like solar and wind being able to generate enough electricity to meet our growing demand. Meanwhile we have 50 year old technology , nuclear, that is being decommissioned all over the world that could get us carbon-free in 30 years. 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-really-could-go-nuclear/ 

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate 

 

And what's more, we have the potential for a next generation nuclear reactor technology that was first discovered in the 1970s and then forgotten, which could drastically improve how we generate power with nuclear. https://grist.org/article/next-gen-nuclear-is-coming-if-we-want-it/ 

 

Humanity kinda missed the ball on this one... not too late certainly but we're running decades behind schedule. And nobody seems to be pushing nuclear as a significant part of the solution, when it almost HAS to be. 

 

1.  The problem with nuclear power is you are trading one long term problem for another.  There still is no long term solution for the waste generated by nuclear plants (your one article talks about power plants that use nuclear waste for power.  It isn't normal nuclear waste.  They are using converted weapons grade nuclear material.  Obviously, we don't have a lot of interest in seeing the proliferation of plants that are based on converted weapons grade nuclear material.  And the waste they generate is still radioactive).  You've introduced a problem with an  unknown associated long term costs.

 

I'd rather go ahead with climate change and start talking about how we are going to mitigate the (likely) negative impacts.

 

2.  The easiest solution is conservation.  You talk about our growing energy needs.  Why our are energy needs growing (the US and the western wold in general)?  (And just to be clear, per a person, they aren't really growing.  They are about flat, but why aren't they actually negative per a person.)

 

All sorts of things are more energy efficient than ever. cars, electronic devices, homes (insulation and building materials), even the transportation/delivery of energy has gotten more efficient.

 

We could easily sustain a standard of living much greater than 30 years ago and consume much less energy (and in general just much less, which would generate much less pollution in general and solve a whole lot of problems).  But instead people live in bigger homes, while having fewer children.  And of course a bigger home just means needing more stuff to fill it, more energy to heat and cool it, etc.

 

We've in general bought into a narrative that we need stuff, we need more, and we need to consume more.  When we really don't and in general studies show that our more stuff isn't making us happier or healthier.  If anything, it is making us less happy and less healthy (a big part of the obesity crisis is just increases in serving sizes).

 

We've had a failure of leadership because people have (and continue to) to ignore the easy solution to the problem (since Jimmy Carter).  The solution would solve a whole host of problems beyond climate change.  And it isn't just the right, but the left is equally implicit on this failure (Though, I'm not trying to equate the Republicans (and even more specifically Trump) to the Democrats on whole host of other topics, including general competence.)

 

The left talks about solving climate change (and most other environmental issues (mostly)) through changes in technology, while ignoring good old conservation.

Edited May 7, 2019 by PeterMP

[TheGoodBits]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

1.  The problem with nuclear power is you are trading one long term problem for another.  There still is no long term solution for the waste generated by nuclear plants (your one article talks about power plants that use nuclear waste for power.  It isn't normal nuclear waste.  They are using converted weapons grade nuclear material.  Obviously, we don't have a lot of interest in seeing the proliferation of plants that are based on converted weapons grade nuclear material.  And the waste they generate is still radioactive).  You've introduced a problem with an  unknown associated long term costs.

 

I'd rather go ahead with climate change and start talking about how we are going to mitigate the (likely) negative impacts.

 

Hazards associated with storing nuclear waste aren't going to end our species. Climate change could. 

 

I know states and countries don't really want to turn chunks of their land into radioactive wastelands, but big chunks of land are current non-radioactive wastelands so we can probably figure it out. Maybe Elon Musk wants to earn a living transporting nuclear waste to the moon if there isn't a better option. Dunno, but it seems like we have options. 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

Hazards associated with storing nuclear waste aren't going to end our species. Climate change could. 

 

I know states and countries don't really want to turn chunks of their land into radioactive wastelands, but big chunks of land are current non-radioactive wastelands so we can probably figure it out. Maybe Elon Musk wants to earn a living transporting nuclear waste to the moon if there isn't a better option. Dunno, but it seems like we have options. 

 

There's no credible evidence that climate change is going to end our species.  Really, that's just silly talk.  The current extinction crisis could, but that's almost all tied to loss of habitat, other types of pollution, and other issues (e.g. over fishing, introductions of non-invasive species, etc. ). 

 

Climate change is not happening faster than the geographical movement of species can happen.  Climate change is an extremely small part of the current extinction crisis.

 

And in reality, putting a bunch of money into building a new nuclear power plants just distracts and takes resources from the issues that are the major drivers of the current extinction crisis.  Actions that mitigate against the likely negative impacts to climate change can actually help deal with the most direct issues driving the current extinction crisis.  For example, one key component of any plan to mitigate against the negative impacts of climate change should be pulling development back from major bodies of water and allowing for the re-establishment of more natural and historical flood plains to reduce the damages from the likely increases in future flooding.  Doing that, allows nature to re-claim those flood plains, which will help filter pollution before entering major water ways diminishing the impact of pollution and re-establishes natural habitats for a large number of species that have been lost due to development.

 

I can put money and resources into mitigating against the impacts of climate change that actually help me deal with other issues (and actually including climate change).  Building more nuclear power plants might help in the fight against climate change, but it does nothing (and even adds on) to the real larger issues driving the current extinction crisis.

 

(And, note, above I said MIGHT because in reality, building more nuclear power plants in the absence of a strong global agreement that actually works doesn't actually do you much good.)

 

Transporting nuclear waste to the moon isn't a very viable solution.  Explosions of rockets and the like are are not unheard.

Edited May 7, 2019 by PeterMP

[TheGoodBits]

"Geographical movement of species" sounds great until you realize we have 10 billion people on the planet, borders that will be enforced, wars that will start over said borders, and importantly also an extremely limited area capable of growing enough food to feed 10 billion people that is also impacted by the changing climate. So yeah I guess "extinction" might be a bit strong of a term but "complete collapse of our civilization" certainly isn't out of the question. 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

"Geographical movement of species" sounds great until you realize we have 10 billion people on the planet, borders that will be enforced, wars that will start over said borders, and importantly also an extremely limited area capable of growing enough food to feed 10 billion people that is also impacted by the changing climate. So yeah I guess "extinction" might be a bit strong of a term but "complete collapse of our civilization" certainly isn't out of the question. 

 

I'm talking about non-human species that are going extinct.  For example, climate change is a very small part of the on-going amphibian extinction crisis because amphibians have and can move north if temperatures rise.  Amphibians are mostly going extinct because of other issues.

 

One of the largest potential issue with climate change is possible shifts in precipitation from areas that are fertile to areas that are not.  But we certainly have the ability to transport water and irrigate areas with low precipitation (and I'll point out with drip irrigation methods, this is more efficient than ever).  (Certainly, with costs, but I'm not at all sure that such costs aren't less than the long term storage of large increases in nuclear waste.)

 

In addition, climate change will open up more land and increase the growing season over the larger land masses (Canada and Russia).  Given our ability to irrigate and transport water, lengthening growing seasons, and opening more land to be used for agricultural reason, I'm not overly worried about our ability to produce food.  There is also new techniques that are also coming that (could be ramped up even faster rather than spend money on nuclear power) related to vertical farming and the like.

 

(I'll add, that our problem with feeding the world is not currently and I suspect never will be in the future the space to grow the food.  We generate plenty of food to feed everybody in the world.  The problem is a matter of economic and political will.  Space is not the issue and newer technology is making the amount of space needed even less important.)

 

(Now, I will add, the prime areas to grow food might migrate away from the US because of changes to growing seasons and precipitation patterns so things like having enough food (for most people) might become more of an issue in the US than it has been in the past so it might be bad for the US.  In a warmer world, instead of the US being a net agriculture producer, we might become a net agriculture importer, which will have an economic impact and potentially national security impact.  But on a species and even civilization wide level, it is unlikely to have the impact that you suggest)

 

The complete collapse of our civilization is extremely unlikely.  It might be a less ideal civilization for the US.

 

(Though, again, I need to separate climate change from the larger extinction crisis.)

 

But in the context of proliferation of nuclear power and nuclear waste, you are ignoring the fact for something to happen in terms of climate change, it has to be a global proliferation.  It can't be just a US thing.  It has to be a US, Russia, China, Europe, South America, and even Africa and Middle East thing.  We can't just talk about increasing nuclear power and nuclear waste in the US.  If we do, then all we do is make fossil fuels cheaper for the rest of the world that will happily and readily consume them as they try to catch up to our standard of living.  

 

We'll be making nuclear technology, power, and waste available to a large number of people that don't have a history of being good people and makes it more likely that the materials and knowledge will fall into the hands of people that have extreme agendas.

 

and most likely we'll be doing it FOREVER!

 

Are you claiming that such a proliferation of nuclear energy, knowledge, and waste can't potentially have major ramifications to our civilization? 

Edited May 7, 2019 by PeterMP

[TheGoodBits]

This is really interesting... the answer to solving climate change? More grazing animals. Added benefit: also feeds the world. 

 

 

[twa]

I thought meat eaters were bad for the environment?

 

Goats for every yard.... right McSluggo?

[ixcuincle]

 

[China]

CO2 levels are the highest since humanity began

 

CO2 levels on Earth have officially hit 415 parts per million (ppm), according to readings taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawai'i. That's the highest level since homo sapiens came onto the planet, meteorologist Eric Holthaus tweeted, and represents an increase of 15 ppm over just the past three years. "We don't know a planet like this," Holthaus said.

 

The last time carbon dioxide (CO2) levels hit such a high was around 3 million years ago, when the average temperature in the Arctic as 15 degrees Celcius (60F). At that point, the north was covered by trees, not ice, and mean sea levels were believed to be at least 25 meters (82 feet) higher.

 

CO2 emissions, largely caused by humans burning fossil fuels, keep heat trapped on Earth that would normally disperse into space. They have already led to a 1 degree C rise in global temperatures, with further increases expected unless action is taken by world governments. That could cause sea level rises, flooding, severe storms, droughts and forest fires, among other problems. The UN estimated that climate change and human activity could result in the disappearance of over a million plant and animal species.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

=================================

 

Exxon Predicted 2019’s Ominous CO2 Milestone in 1982

 

Atmospheric carbon dioxide sets a new record every year. This year’s cracked the ominous milestone of 415 parts per million (ppm) thanks to ever rising emissions from human activities. The sharp rise might seem like something nobody could’ve predicted but there’s at least one group of scientists that were on the money 37 years ago: Exxon’s ace team of scientists.

 

Internal memos unearthed in InsideClimate’s Pulitzer-winning 2015 investigation into the company revealed all sorts of solid science being done even as the oil giant sowed doubt in public. Bloomberg reporter Tom Randall revisited the memos in light of the world’s new carbon dioxide milestone and tweeted a graph from one showing just how much Exxon knew what our future would look like.

 

It’s eerie seeing how well the company understood both climate science and the world’s patterns of economic growth built on the back of fossil fuels. Here’s that chart, annotated for ease of reading:

 

 

The prediction is a pretty damn good one. The world is now about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it was and carbon dioxide levels are at 415 ppm. The estimate was part of Exxon’s “high case” scenario, which assumed fossil fuel use would quicken and that the world would be able to tap new reserves in the late 2000s from at the time unreachable shale gas. The memo also warned that the extra carbon dioxide would enhance the greenhouse effect and that an “increase in absorbed energy via this route would warm the earth’s surface causing changes in climate affecting atmospheric and ocean temperatures, rainfall patterns, soil moisture, and over centuries potentially melting the polar ice caps.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

Edited May 14, 2019 by China

[Bozo the kKklown]

Language isn’t safe for work but whatever, he right.

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

Big Anti-Histamine making bank from the climate crisis.

Edited May 23, 2019 by Cooked Crack

[twa]

Quote

 

Remember when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed that if we don’t do something about climate change the world will end in 12 years, and then she faulted the GOP for taking her literally and not being able to take a joke? "You’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal," she tweeted earlier this month.

Well, apparently Democrats can’t take a joke either because according to a Rasmussen poll released today, a staggering 67 percent of Democrats believe Ocasio-Cortez’s climate change warning to be completely legit.

According to the poll, 48 percent of all likely voters agree that the United States has only twelve years left to fight climate change before the effects are irreversible. The poll did not identify Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders (who still believes the doomsday prediction to be true) while conducting the survey. According to the poll, 40 percent disagree with the prediction, and 11 percent are undecided.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/poll-democrats-overwhelmingly-believe-u-s-has-only-12-years-to-fight-climate-change/

 

 

Just what is the intelligence of a sea sponge?

 

[FanboyOf91]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Cooked Crack]

Let's check in on the party of science.

 

 

[twa]

 

What other option besides 'freedom gas' do the enlightened prefer?

 

[No Excuses]

The CFACT numbers look poorly cited and not matched by what the IEA outlooks project:

 

https://www.globalenergyinstitute.org/look-iea’s-new-global-energy-forecast
 

Quote

 

Renewables Use Grows Rapidly: Total demand for renewable energy sources—including hydropower, wind, solar (PV and concentrated), biofuels, marine, geothermal—is expected to increase about 81% by 2040, at which time they will account for 20% of overall energy demand. Solar energy grows at the fastest rate and by 2040 will supply nearly nine times as much energy as it did in 2017. Over the same period, wind energy will grow to four times its 2017 level. Bioenergy also is slated for fast growth. Bioenergy is today and will remain the most widely used renewable energy source. It accounted for about 70% of total renewable energy in 2017 and is expected to account for 51% in 2040. About half of current biomass in use today is tradition solid biomass—wood, dung, etc. The use of modern biomass (mostly as transportation fuels but also in power generation), however, grows rapidly and by 2040 accounts for 68% of total biomass demand in 2040. Much of these renewable fuels and technologies will be used in developing countries, which are estimated to account for about 69% of the total increase in renewable energy consumption globally.

 

 

I suppose fudging numbers might have something to do with the fact that "CFACT" still denies a link between GHG emissions and climate change.

Edited May 30, 2019 by No Excuses

[twa]

so burning wood and dung?

[Renegade7]

[The Sisko]

Extreme weather is pummeling the Midwest, and farmers are in deep trouble

 

 

Oh dear. This is truly tragic. Try to look on the bright side though. If that climate change thing was real and not just a Chinese hoax, they’d really be in trouble.

[Cooked Crack]

2nd clip is a quick summary.

Edited June 1, 2019 by Cooked Crack

[twa]

 

Quote

Until they embrace nuclear energy as a key to reducing emissions, the party’s many presidential candidates will be hard to take seriously on climate change.

Climate change is the No. 1 issue for Democrats, with a recent poll showing 82 percent of Democratic voters listed it as their top priority. To appeal to those voters, contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination routinely call climate change an “existential threat” to the nation and the world. But amid all their rhetoric and promises of massively expensive plans to tackle the problem, these same Democrats — with the notable exception of Senator Cory Booker — steadfastly refuse to utter two critical words: nuclear power.

The Democrats’ disdain for nuclear energy deserves attention, because there is no credible pathway toward large-scale decarbonization that doesn’t include lots of it. That fact was reinforced Tuesday, when the International Energy Agency published a report declaring that without more nuclear energy, global carbon dioxide emissions will surge and “efforts to transition to a cleaner energy system will become drastically harder and more costly.”

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/democrats-curious-disdain-for-nuclear-power/

 

 

 

[No Excuses]

There are quite a lot of Democrats running who support expanding nuclear energy use and/or investing in nuclear power advancement. It’s not just Cory Booker.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/climate-change/

 

And the Democratic house passed the Nuclear Energy Research and Innovation Act last year. 

 

“Lets manufacture a poorly researched article so rubes like twa push it forward” - someone at NR who knows the clickbait mindset of the average GOPer really well. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by No Excuses