Quote: @Skodin said:
@ pumpf said:
@ Skodin said:
There is zero wrong with being a contrarian. One of the greatest minds of our generation wrote a book on how to be young contrarian. Contrarian doesn’t mean be an asshole. Latching on to wildly speculative theories with ulterior motives for global domination and using that as a reason to justify actions putting others at increased health risk is being an asshole.
I would like the board experts here in climate change to explain how climate change happens, actually happens, understanding the thermodynamics, glacial-interglacial cyclical eras, the molecular structure of GHG gases, solar albedo, functions of surface temperature, and most importantly how 95% of scientists are wrong. The same data understanding that we all take for granted in understanding our daily temperature, seasonal variety, etc, is the back bone for this same climate science.
I am currently enrolled in a program at MIT for Climate Science, not policy, but the understanding of the science of CO2 and worst, CH4. Understanding the different periods of changing climate on earth and why heat currently gets trapped inside our atmosphere. When taken from a scientific breakdown, it seems quite obvious on why the planet is getting warmer, humans exacerbate the problem by production.
What stake people have in denying CC speaks more about them versus the nature of the science.
In science, everything this a theory. Gravity is theory, feel free to disprove it.
With respect to your expertise in these matters, can you answer the questions that I alluded to previously?
- If the climate "changed" in the past (before the Industrial Revolution), what caused it?
- What percentage of CC (that is happening now) can be attributed to man vs. the factors that, previously, caused it (in the past)?
- Is there evidence for CC on other planets? I've read that there is, but I would prefer to hear it from someone who actually studies this stuff.
- If there is (CC on other planets), what is the cause? Is it similar to the causes for CC in our planet's history?
These are questions for which I've never heard any answers. So if you could help, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
These are legit questions, which I can address in greater detail later. But quickly 3 and 4, is it possible sure, I haven’t delved into what other planets systems are like because frankly I don’t live on other planets. Here is something that is mind blowing, what we see when we see in Jupiter isn’t this big floating rock, the surface being what is visible, but realistically a large ball of thick gas. Regarding previous cyclical changes, absolutely they have happened, I will be glad to give a better explanation of the history later on, but outside of the baseline changes, we can see that humans are producing a staggering amount of CO2 and CH4 above the earth’s baseline which is exacerbating the issue.
Think about CC like this. Currently solar radiation moves from the sun to the US. Some of it is absorbed, some of it reflected. Reflection depends on numerous things, say white surfaces vs black surfaces as an example. That heat is reflected back into the atmosphere, most importantly the two strata above us. With a layer of green house gases in the initial two layers what it does it stop that heat from full releasing away from the sun. It reflects in many different directions, also being absorbed by cloud layers etc, sending heat back into the earth and ocean. This GHG layer traps this heat between the GHG layer and the earth, increasing the amount the surface cooks. Now why CO2 and particularly CH4, their Global warming potential is based on their molecular structure, how thick they are compared to the rest of the strata made up O and N. CH4 is 20X more challenging for the heat radiation to pass through than CO2 due to its molecular structure.
These are simple examples that have fascinating details, but just from these 3 practices you can get the gist.
CH4 can be released by the earth in many ways, but is an exacerbated issue by let’s choose 3 human practices:
1) Livestock
Just the number of ruminants we have created due to human consumption is a staggering number. Not only is the number of animals a massive number but the amount of CH4 they release in belching is frightening. Estimates say an average cow will produce 90kg of CH4 annually, multiply that number 1.5 billion plus livestock every year, the CH4 non necessary production is significant. Instead of the abolishment of livestock for food, groups are working various feedstock technologies to lower the amount of methane produced from the stomach chambers of these animals.
2) Coal/Fossil Fuel extraction from the earth
This one is kind of a no brainer, but as an example in room and pillar coal extraction in places Kentucky, gasses will work through the various strata of the earth looking for a place to move. With this, they can fill these chambers, which have pressure vents, leading to the escape of Ch4 layers beneath the earth actively being sent into the atmosphere. A good example of managing this would be a regular local landfill with the organic processes of the layers deep of garbage needing a release, they vent, monitor, and flare the Ch4 before leaving the atmosphere.
3) Rice paddies
Rice production globally accounts for a considerable amount of CH4 being released into the atmosphere. When rice paddies are flooded in current practice, the organic digestion that takes place between the soil and water bakes up CH4. Think a diluted waste water treatment/anaerobic digestion system. There are practices to limit or lower these CH4 production spots through active wetting/drying/dry seeding practices, but currently there are very little regarding incentivized protocols associated with switching practices.
I am not professing to be an expert on these matters, my MIT professors would be better suited for that, but it is fascinating to understand the basic science behind this issue. I’d be glad to discuss more if anyone else would like to.
Thank you for taking the time to write this up. Yes, I would look forward to hearing more about the "history" of CC. Thanks!
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ Skodin said:
@ pumpf said:
@ Skodin said:
There is zero wrong with being a contrarian. One of the greatest minds of our generation wrote a book on how to be young contrarian. Contrarian doesn’t mean be an asshole. Latching on to wildly speculative theories with ulterior motives for global domination and using that as a reason to justify actions putting others at increased health risk is being an asshole.
I would like the board experts here in climate change to explain how climate change happens, actually happens, understanding the thermodynamics, glacial-interglacial cyclical eras, the molecular structure of GHG gases, solar albedo, functions of surface temperature, and most importantly how 95% of scientists are wrong. The same data understanding that we all take for granted in understanding our daily temperature, seasonal variety, etc, is the back bone for this same climate science.
I am currently enrolled in a program at MIT for Climate Science, not policy, but the understanding of the science of CO2 and worst, CH4. Understanding the different periods of changing climate on earth and why heat currently gets trapped inside our atmosphere. When taken from a scientific breakdown, it seems quite obvious on why the planet is getting warmer, humans exacerbate the problem by production.
What stake people have in denying CC speaks more about them versus the nature of the science.
In science, everything this a theory. Gravity is theory, feel free to disprove it.
With respect to your expertise in these matters, can you answer the questions that I alluded to previously?
- If the climate "changed" in the past (before the Industrial Revolution), what caused it?
- What percentage of CC (that is happening now) can be attributed to man vs. the factors that, previously, caused it (in the past)?
- Is there evidence for CC on other planets? I've read that there is, but I would prefer to hear it from someone who actually studies this stuff.
- If there is (CC on other planets), what is the cause? Is it similar to the causes for CC in our planet's history?
These are questions for which I've never heard any answers. So if you could help, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
These are legit questions, which I can address in greater detail later. But quickly 3 and 4, is it possible sure, I haven’t delved into what other planets systems are like because frankly I don’t live on other planets. Here is something that is mind blowing, what we see when we see in Jupiter isn’t this big floating rock, the surface being what is visible, but realistically a large ball of thick gas. Regarding previous cyclical changes, absolutely they have happened, I will be glad to give a better explanation of the history later on, but outside of the baseline changes, we can see that humans are producing a staggering amount of CO2 and CH4 above the earth’s baseline which is exacerbating the issue.
Think about CC like this. Currently solar radiation moves from the sun to the US. Some of it is absorbed, some of it reflected. Reflection depends on numerous things, say white surfaces vs black surfaces as an example. That heat is reflected back into the atmosphere, most importantly the two strata above us. With a layer of green house gases in the initial two layers what it does it stop that heat from full releasing away from the sun. It reflects in many different directions, also being absorbed by cloud layers etc, sending heat back into the earth and ocean. This GHG layer traps this heat between the GHG layer and the earth, increasing the amount the surface cooks. Now why CO2 and particularly CH4, their Global warming potential is based on their molecular structure, how thick they are compared to the rest of the strata made up O and N. CH4 is 20X more challenging for the heat radiation to pass through than CO2 due to its molecular structure.
These are simple examples that have fascinating details, but just from these 3 practices you can get the gist.
CH4 can be released by the earth in many ways, but is an exacerbated issue by let’s choose 3 human practices:
1) Livestock
Just the number of ruminants we have created due to human consumption is a staggering number. Not only is the number of animals a massive number but the amount of CH4 they release in belching is frightening. Estimates say an average cow will produce 90kg of CH4 annually, multiply that number 1.5 billion plus livestock every year, the CH4 non necessary production is significant. Instead of the abolishment of livestock for food, groups are working various feedstock technologies to lower the amount of methane produced from the stomach chambers of these animals.
2) Coal/Fossil Fuel extraction from the earth
This one is kind of a no brainer, but as an example in room and pillar coal extraction in places Kentucky, gasses will work through the various strata of the earth looking for a place to move. With this, they can fill these chambers, which have pressure vents, leading to the escape of Ch4 layers beneath the earth actively being sent into the atmosphere. A good example of managing this would be a regular local landfill with the organic processes of the layers deep of garbage needing a release, they vent, monitor, and flare the Ch4 before leaving the atmosphere.
3) Rice paddies
Rice production globally accounts for a considerable amount of CH4 being released into the atmosphere. When rice paddies are flooded in current practice, the organic digestion that takes place between the soil and water bakes up CH4. Think a diluted waste water treatment/anaerobic digestion system. There are practices to limit or lower these CH4 production spots through active wetting/drying/dry seeding practices, but currently there are very little regarding incentivized protocols associated with switching practices.
I am not professing to be an expert on these matters, my MIT professors would be better suited for that, but it is fascinating to understand the basic science behind this issue. I’d be glad to discuss more if anyone else would like to.
Thank you for taking the time to write this up. Yes, I would look forward to hearing more about the "history" of CC. Thanks!
I am not really going to get into every detail.... but the livestock issue.. we have really only replaced bison with cattle in terms of numbers here in the US. 200 years ago there were 50-60 million bison roaming the plains, and they have been replaced by about 90 million beef (which are smaller in stature so it would stand to reason that they are not expelling the same amount of gases as their larger counter parts. both animals digestive processes are similar.
if its more of a global issue then the solutions need to be applied globally and not unfairly targeting American producers while those in developing countries get a pass and put American ranchers out of business... of course IMO its not about the environment, its about packers getting to own the land, ranches, and animals as well as the packing houses.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ BigAl99 said:
Jimmy, small correction, weather and climate are two different things, it's hard to learn apples when all you are thinking is oranges. Its like saying gas and diesel are the same, they are used to run cars, two different systems, confusion is costly.
Well, in Jimmy's defense: there are A LOT of CC believers who treat them as though they are the same thing. When various weather events happen, *SOME* of the CC folks will chalk it up to CC. The "experts" in CC science will- sometimes- have to come forward in order to refute those things. So, like I said, it's not a big surprise that some folks get the two confused, since it is CC folks who are conflating them.
And, Jimmy doesn't need any defense because I know that he already knows this.
I don't agree with the "A LOT" generalization , but that's a personal opinion I see it the other way. You can't blow off the science because you dislike the messenger. I think perhaps the confusion is when some one says today's weather or the increased frequency of certain weather events, what is implied is fit's into a new and different trend. I am looking forward to Skodin's further posts. My wife is a plant pathologist and she has been looking at disease models for years and is truly in the camp of the cause effect of climate change and the impact of the worlds population on it. I have more the physics and chemistry slant on the topic, hope Skodin gets into Lorenz and Carnot, it's some really interesting stuff if presented well.
You are absolutely right, this is a global issue. America as the leading economy, who has the largest stake in a healthy planet for a growing economy and livelihood needs to take the leading position in these global affairs. The US military who is the brains behind global affairs on a long term outlook understand the significance of climate change and it’s global implications. We need to lead by example to keep programs like the Paris Climate Accord, not only going but holding economies WHO NEED AMERICA to higher standards. Easier to push Nigeria to cleaning up their O&G industry for renewables when we lead the planet in climate change influence.
*The reason I chose Nigeria is the availability of solar resource teamed up with their growing population, LAGOS, have over 21 million people in the MSA. That is the equivalent population of the top 9 US CITIES COMBINED. With US influence, those 21 million in Nigeria can have a lower CO2 impact per capita, which is what we need, what the world needs.
The growth of the global population, the rising of country status, economic development has been spurred by American leadership, influence, export, and innovation. Not a bad thing, it’s a great thing to raise people out of poverty. This doesn’t account for the global influence we have or had in regards to exporting technology and innovation vs China globally. With this one this issue we risk losing it all EXCEPT for Defense Sponsored influence. Who are you really better friends with, your neighbor who grows vegetables next to you, shares tools, or the neighbor with a stock pile of guns in house, with only that to offer? We have become the latter sadly. Through resource and energy, China is growing their global influence significantly, not only developing increasing trade relationships but influence in key resource areas. China’s ONE BELT ONE ROAD is their game plan.
Not embracing this challenge and leading from it, we are creating a massive power vacuum globally to be dominated by the CCP.
What American industries are being harmed by the implementation of stricter rules regarding carbon? Fossil Fuels? Massive animal AG? If the sharecroppers I mean smaller US farmers want to have a stake in this then they better back policies that utilize these tools for Grass Lands, Rice Cultivation, Soil Enrichment, Livestock Management, not push back on them. The emissions output from the US livestock industry ALONE is the equivalent of Iraq’s total annual emissions number, 1/3 of Saudi’s. Why can’t WE have Shell pay the farmer for better land practices in offsets of carbon? If we remain divided it means Shell can continue to be the asshole, supporting the narrative to say climate change isn’t real making money in what should be a dying industry on a dying planet. When you do that Shell wins, the farmer, you, and I lose.
Regarding Fossil Fuels, the costs / energy, the job creation and employee wealth associated, the technology now weighs in favor of renewables despite FF being subsidized by the G20 4X to the value of renewables. If you had to incorporate the financial cost associated with Climate Change, in the costing factor on an energy basis, FF would be DEAD. We have amazing minds in this country with the greatest access to more information than ever before, if we slide over some of our financial focus from dying industries and defense to climate related programs, this would be solved in a significantly tighter timeline than what we are on now.
You understand how hard it is come up with cross border, cross aisle solutions for this crisis that affects every single one of us, when one side says CLIMATE CHANGE ISN’T REAL. How do you effectuate programs based on economic drivers for these stakeholders (needing their input) when you have a portion of the country fighting back with limited understanding of causes and potential benefits? It takes big boy actions to do this, because climate change is an existential threat to all of us.
Quote: @Skodin said:
You are absolutely right, this is a global issue. America as the leading economy, who has the largest stake in a healthy planet for a growing economy and livelihood needs to take the leading position in these global affairs. The US military who is the brains behind global affairs on a long term outlook understand the significance of climate change and it’s global implications. We need to lead by example to keep programs like the Paris Climate Accord, not only going but holding economies WHO NEED AMERICA to higher standards. Easier to push Nigeria to cleaning up their O&G industry for renewables when we lead the planet in climate change influence.
*The reason I chose Nigeria is the availability of solar resource teamed up with their growing population, LAGOS, have over 21 million people in the MSA. That is the equivalent population of the top 9 US CITIES COMBINED. With US influence, those 21 million in Nigeria can have a lower CO2 impact per capita, which is what we need, what the world needs.
The growth of the global population, the rising of country status, economic development has been spurred by American leadership, influence, export, and innovation. Not a bad thing, it’s a great thing to raise people out of poverty. This doesn’t account for the global influence we have or had in regards to exporting technology and innovation vs China globally. One this issue we risk losing it all EXCEPT for Defense Sponsored influence. Through resource and energy, China is growing their global influence significantly, not only developing increasing trade relationships but influence in key resource areas. China’s ONE BELT ONE ROAD is their game plan.
Not embracing this challenge and leading from it, we are creating a massive power vacuum globally to be dominated by the CCP.
What American industries are being harmed by the implementation of stricter rules regarding carbon? Fossil Fuels? Massive animal AG? If the sharecroppers I mean smaller US farmers want to have a stake in this then they better back policies that utilize these tools for Grass Lands, Rice Cultivation, Soil Enrichment, Livestock Management, not push back on them. The emissions output from the US livestock industry ALONE is the equivalent of Iraq’s total annual emissions number, 1/3 of Saudi’s. Why can’t WE have Shell pay the farmer for better land practices in offsets of carbon? If we remain divided it means Shell can continue to be the asshole, supporting the narrative to say climate change isn’t real making money in what should be a dying industry on a dying planet. When you do that Shell wins, the farmer, you, and I lose.
Regarding Fossil Fuels, the costs / energy, the job creation and wealth associated, the technology now weighs in favor of renewables despite FF being subsidized by the G20 4X to the value of renewables. If you had to incorporate the financial cost associated with Climate Change, in the costing factor on an energy basis, FF would be DEAD.
You understand how hard it is come up with cross border, cross aisle solutions for this crisis that affects every single one of us, when one side says CLIMATE CHANGE ISN’T REAL. How do you effectuate programs based on economic drivers for these stakeholders (needing their input) when you have a portion of the country fighting back with limited understanding of causes and potential benefits? It takes big boy actions to do this, because climate change is an existential threat to all of us.
the arrogance of those pushing this shit is why so many wont embrace it. Share croppers... what a dick thing to say, it really shows your ignorance in the matter.
and the subsidies paid to FF vs renewable we have had this conversation before and I posted a lost of info refuting that statement and you didnt respond so save that one as I wont waste my time again.
have a good day.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
@ greediron said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
@ greediron said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
Sorry Greed but first using “Plandemic” as a source and then using the Faucci Bill Gates angle is looney fucking tunes. My girlfriend has been in healthcare for 15 years and it’s maddening to read the amount if idiots that believe any of the shit from Plandemic.
Plandemic is fucking nonsense, debunked horse shit. I am not even going to go into that one because it would be 10 pages of debunking everything.
Secondly, Gates. Largest philanthropist in the country and a real billionaire unlike Trump, who steals from his own charity. But you think this is a “follow the money” type scenario from one of the world’s most charitable human beings.
Well do your research and follow the money. First off when Fauci did have to register a patent for a discovery of a vaccination back in early 2000’s, per federal law, he was in fact paid for it. Over the next 10-15 years he made total royalties of $46,000. If I remember correctly he donated it to charity.
So these 2 evil masterminds who are not motivated by greed, but genuinely want to help people, are going to try and fuck over the American people for financial gain?
BULLSHIT.
Sorry but just because we all know that’s what Trump would do, doesn’t mean that’s everyone else’s motivations.
It’s a virus, something we have never seen before. Very hard to predict, the speed, the transmission, the mortality rate. Has Fauci been wrong in some early hypotheses and predictions? Absolutely. Does that mean we should stop trusting him, or make him less qualified to be in his position? Fuck no.
The speed at which some of you latch onto unproven conspiracy theories from disgraced nutjobs and question the actions of dedicated scientists is fucking amazing. We can’t get half of you to believe in the science and research behind climate change, but you can watch one wackadoodle with a youtube video throwing Fauci under the bus and you’re all in.
God help us.
Sorry, I don't take your opinion serious either. So carry on, live in fear, believe what they feed you. I won't bother to respond since the little I read of your response has any relevance to my opinion.
But yes, God help us.
So you are the one who is quoting a youtube source who falsified the data in her experiments, is a joke in the medical community, who claims Fauci and Gates are using Americans as guinea pigs in some money making scheme ...
and then you tell me “you don’t take my opinion serious“ that this dumb bitch’s wackjob video has been debunked and to “carry on, live in fear, believe what they feed you”.
I would try to explain the concept of irony as clearly it’s totally lost on you, but I don’t think pictures, crayons and small words are going to help.
Show me the evidence of the money trail you suggested. That was your premise: this is a nefarious money making scheme by two guys who IMO clearly don’t seem to care about money, but by all means - prove your opinion. Did you follow the money? Where did it lead?
Or did you find it was a dead-end nothingburger and you’re too chicken-shit to admit the truth?
I didn't quote anything that I can see. I referenced that video as something to look at.
And no, I have plenty of research, I just choose to ignore you. Your approach is so asinine and I don't feel the need to feed a troll.
Ahhh ... so we are going with the “I know the answer, but I’m not going to tell you and just ignore you” defense.
Cool!
I remember that tactic in 2nd grade when I was caught trying to explain something I had no fucking clue about either.
nope. just don't feel the need to feed the troll blathering on and on. But I am glad you recognize that you had no fucking clue what you were talking about.
Yes, when I was in 2nd grade.
The fact you resort to the same tactic as an adult because you can’t prove anything you hypothesized about, nor can you prove anything I was wrong about, is embarrassing.
But I get it, you prefer to rely on feelings rather than facts.
Quote: @Skodin said:
You are absolutely right, this is a global issue. America as the leading economy, who has the largest stake in a healthy planet for a growing economy and livelihood needs to take the leading position in these global affairs. The US military who is the brains behind global affairs on a long term outlook understand the significance of climate change and it’s global implications. We need to lead by example to keep programs like the Paris Climate Accord, not only going but holding economies WHO NEED AMERICA to higher standards. Easier to push Nigeria to cleaning up their O&G industry for renewables when we lead the planet in climate change influence.
*The reason I chose Nigeria is the availability of solar resource teamed up with their growing population, LAGOS, have over 21 million people in the MSA. That is the equivalent population of the top 9 US CITIES COMBINED. With US influence, those 21 million in Nigeria can have a lower CO2 impact per capita, which is what we need, what the world needs.
The growth of the global population, the rising of country status, economic development has been spurred by American leadership, influence, export, and innovation. Not a bad thing, it’s a great thing to raise people out of poverty. This doesn’t account for the global influence we have or had in regards to exporting technology and innovation vs China globally. With this one this issue we risk losing it all EXCEPT for Defense Sponsored influence. Who are you really better friends with, your neighbor who grows vegetables next to you, shares tools, or the neighbor with a stock pile of guns in house, with only that to offer? We have become the latter sadly. Through resource and energy, China is growing their global influence significantly, not only developing increasing trade relationships but influence in key resource areas. China’s ONE BELT ONE ROAD is their game plan.
Not embracing this challenge and leading from it, we are creating a massive power vacuum globally to be dominated by the CCP.
What American industries are being harmed by the implementation of stricter rules regarding carbon? Fossil Fuels? Massive animal AG? If the sharecroppers I mean smaller US farmers want to have a stake in this then they better back policies that utilize these tools for Grass Lands, Rice Cultivation, Soil Enrichment, Livestock Management, not push back on them. The emissions output from the US livestock industry ALONE is the equivalent of Iraq’s total annual emissions number, 1/3 of Saudi’s. Why can’t WE have Shell pay the farmer for better land practices in offsets of carbon? If we remain divided it means Shell can continue to be the asshole, supporting the narrative to say climate change isn’t real making money in what should be a dying industry on a dying planet. When you do that Shell wins, the farmer, you, and I lose.
Regarding Fossil Fuels, the costs / energy, the job creation and employee wealth associated, the technology now weighs in favor of renewables despite FF being subsidized by the G20 4X to the value of renewables. If you had to incorporate the financial cost associated with Climate Change, in the costing factor on an energy basis, FF would be DEAD. We have amazing minds in this country with the greatest access to more information than ever before, if we slide over some of our financial focus from dying industries and defense to climate related programs, this would be solved in a significantly tighter timeline than what we are on now.
You understand how hard it is come up with cross border, cross aisle solutions for this crisis that affects every single one of us, when one side says CLIMATE CHANGE ISN’T REAL. How do you effectuate programs based on economic drivers for these stakeholders (needing their input) when you have a portion of the country fighting back with limited understanding of causes and potential benefits? It takes big boy actions to do this, because climate change is an existential threat to all of us.
The number one thing we need to do is to create “Standard of
Living” tariffs.
In the preTrump free trade era, we created high ecological standards
for our companies to follow, but these high standards didn’t apply to imported
goods. This gave them an economic advantage
over us, which moved jobs overseas, while at the same time creating a loophole
that prevents our caring of the environment from manifesting. As long as we import our goods from countries
that don’t care about the environment, it will always be a losing battle for
the Earth. We need to create a financial
incentive that encourages our suppliers to do the right thing, and “Standard of
Living” tariffs are the means to do that.
Any goods that are coming in from a country that has lower standards of
living (particularly environmental) will be tariffed an amount that equals the
amount our suppliers have had to pay to meet the regulations we’re following. So they’re given a choice, rise to our level
of caring or pay the same cost anyway which we can use to subsidize our businesses. So maybe a good from Germany might have no tariffs
because they are meeting our environmental requirements, and the same good from
China might have noticeable tariffs because they don’t.
Quote: @medaille said:
@ Skodin said:
You are absolutely right, this is a global issue. America as the leading economy, who has the largest stake in a healthy planet for a growing economy and livelihood needs to take the leading position in these global affairs. The US military who is the brains behind global affairs on a long term outlook understand the significance of climate change and it’s global implications. We need to lead by example to keep programs like the Paris Climate Accord, not only going but holding economies WHO NEED AMERICA to higher standards. Easier to push Nigeria to cleaning up their O&G industry for renewables when we lead the planet in climate change influence.
*The reason I chose Nigeria is the availability of solar resource teamed up with their growing population, LAGOS, have over 21 million people in the MSA. That is the equivalent population of the top 9 US CITIES COMBINED. With US influence, those 21 million in Nigeria can have a lower CO2 impact per capita, which is what we need, what the world needs.
The growth of the global population, the rising of country status, economic development has been spurred by American leadership, influence, export, and innovation. Not a bad thing, it’s a great thing to raise people out of poverty. This doesn’t account for the global influence we have or had in regards to exporting technology and innovation vs China globally. With this one this issue we risk losing it all EXCEPT for Defense Sponsored influence. Who are you really better friends with, your neighbor who grows vegetables next to you, shares tools, or the neighbor with a stock pile of guns in house, with only that to offer? We have become the latter sadly. Through resource and energy, China is growing their global influence significantly, not only developing increasing trade relationships but influence in key resource areas. China’s ONE BELT ONE ROAD is their game plan.
Not embracing this challenge and leading from it, we are creating a massive power vacuum globally to be dominated by the CCP.
What American industries are being harmed by the implementation of stricter rules regarding carbon? Fossil Fuels? Massive animal AG? If the sharecroppers I mean smaller US farmers want to have a stake in this then they better back policies that utilize these tools for Grass Lands, Rice Cultivation, Soil Enrichment, Livestock Management, not push back on them. The emissions output from the US livestock industry ALONE is the equivalent of Iraq’s total annual emissions number, 1/3 of Saudi’s. Why can’t WE have Shell pay the farmer for better land practices in offsets of carbon? If we remain divided it means Shell can continue to be the asshole, supporting the narrative to say climate change isn’t real making money in what should be a dying industry on a dying planet. When you do that Shell wins, the farmer, you, and I lose.
Regarding Fossil Fuels, the costs / energy, the job creation and employee wealth associated, the technology now weighs in favor of renewables despite FF being subsidized by the G20 4X to the value of renewables. If you had to incorporate the financial cost associated with Climate Change, in the costing factor on an energy basis, FF would be DEAD. We have amazing minds in this country with the greatest access to more information than ever before, if we slide over some of our financial focus from dying industries and defense to climate related programs, this would be solved in a significantly tighter timeline than what we are on now.
You understand how hard it is come up with cross border, cross aisle solutions for this crisis that affects every single one of us, when one side says CLIMATE CHANGE ISN’T REAL. How do you effectuate programs based on economic drivers for these stakeholders (needing their input) when you have a portion of the country fighting back with limited understanding of causes and potential benefits? It takes big boy actions to do this, because climate change is an existential threat to all of us.
The number one thing we need to do is to create “Standard of
Living” tariffs.
In the preTrump free trade era, we created high ecological standards
for our companies to follow, but these high standards didn’t apply to imported
goods. This gave them an economic advantage
over us, which moved jobs overseas, while at the same time creating a loophole
that prevents our caring of the environment from manifesting. As long as we import our goods from countries
that don’t care about the environment, it will always be a losing battle for
the Earth. We need to create a financial
incentive that encourages our suppliers to do the right thing, and “Standard of
Living” tariffs are the means to do that.
Any goods that are coming in from a country that has lower standards of
living (particularly environmental) will be tariffed an amount that equals the
amount our suppliers have had to pay to meet the regulations we’re following. So they’re given a choice, rise to our level
of caring or pay the same cost anyway which we can use to subsidize our businesses. So maybe a good from Germany might have no tariffs
because they are meeting our environmental requirements, and the same good from
China might have noticeable tariffs because they don’t.
it would never happen, its always the US has to shoulder more of the burden because we are the US... well that shit dont sail anymore and that is why Trump was elected. The workers of this country are tired of killing themselves and watching their profits and jobs go offshore. if there is to be a global effort then the rules need to be applied evenly around the world. this is either a global issue or it isnt.
and the corporations dont care because they make more money by moving those jobs overseas for cheaper labor with less regulations on pay, worker safety, etc.
just like ag, the giants like Tyson, Smithfield, etc that own over 75% of the industry dont care about the US or the environment because they can make more money by selling Brazil or Argentina beef and polluting and exploiting with no consequence than to meet environmental and worker standards here in the US. Skodin tries to blame the small operator.. that is really showing ignorance on the issue, the small guy has to do it right, he cant afford to buy politicians or to pay the EPA fines. Want to see real abuse, its not coming from the family operators, its the corporate farmers that have pushed out the family guys by using the environmentalists as puppets to do their dirty work.
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
@ greediron said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
@ greediron said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
@ greediron said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
Sorry Greed but first using “Plandemic” as a source and then using the Faucci Bill Gates angle is looney fucking tunes. My girlfriend has been in healthcare for 15 years and it’s maddening to read the amount if idiots that believe any of the shit from Plandemic.
Plandemic is fucking nonsense, debunked horse shit. I am not even going to go into that one because it would be 10 pages of debunking everything.
Secondly, Gates. Largest philanthropist in the country and a real billionaire unlike Trump, who steals from his own charity. But you think this is a “follow the money” type scenario from one of the world’s most charitable human beings.
Well do your research and follow the money. First off when Fauci did have to register a patent for a discovery of a vaccination back in early 2000’s, per federal law, he was in fact paid for it. Over the next 10-15 years he made total royalties of $46,000. If I remember correctly he donated it to charity.
So these 2 evil masterminds who are not motivated by greed, but genuinely want to help people, are going to try and fuck over the American people for financial gain?
BULLSHIT.
Sorry but just because we all know that’s what Trump would do, doesn’t mean that’s everyone else’s motivations.
It’s a virus, something we have never seen before. Very hard to predict, the speed, the transmission, the mortality rate. Has Fauci been wrong in some early hypotheses and predictions? Absolutely. Does that mean we should stop trusting him, or make him less qualified to be in his position? Fuck no.
The speed at which some of you latch onto unproven conspiracy theories from disgraced nutjobs and question the actions of dedicated scientists is fucking amazing. We can’t get half of you to believe in the science and research behind climate change, but you can watch one wackadoodle with a youtube video throwing Fauci under the bus and you’re all in.
God help us.
Sorry, I don't take your opinion serious either. So carry on, live in fear, believe what they feed you. I won't bother to respond since the little I read of your response has any relevance to my opinion.
But yes, God help us.
So you are the one who is quoting a youtube source who falsified the data in her experiments, is a joke in the medical community, who claims Fauci and Gates are using Americans as guinea pigs in some money making scheme ...
and then you tell me “you don’t take my opinion serious“ that this dumb bitch’s wackjob video has been debunked and to “carry on, live in fear, believe what they feed you”.
I would try to explain the concept of irony as clearly it’s totally lost on you, but I don’t think pictures, crayons and small words are going to help.
Show me the evidence of the money trail you suggested. That was your premise: this is a nefarious money making scheme by two guys who IMO clearly don’t seem to care about money, but by all means - prove your opinion. Did you follow the money? Where did it lead?
Or did you find it was a dead-end nothingburger and you’re too chicken-shit to admit the truth?
I didn't quote anything that I can see. I referenced that video as something to look at.
And no, I have plenty of research, I just choose to ignore you. Your approach is so asinine and I don't feel the need to feed a troll.
Ahhh ... so we are going with the “I know the answer, but I’m not going to tell you and just ignore you” defense.
Cool!
I remember that tactic in 2nd grade when I was caught trying to explain something I had no fucking clue about either.
nope. just don't feel the need to feed the troll blathering on and on. But I am glad you recognize that you had no fucking clue what you were talking about.
Yes, when I was in 2nd grade.
The fact you resort to the same tactic as an adult because you can’t prove anything you hypothesized about, nor can you prove anything I was wrong about, is embarrassing.
But I get it, you prefer to rely on feelings rather than facts.
lol, I love it that you are all worked up and calling names because I chose not to waste my time debating you. I was replying to Jimmy although I predicted my response would get some worked up.
I will spell it out simply one more time. I am not going to waste my time debating with an internet troll. I was talking with someone else and I choose to ignore your interjection that I prove something to you that you won't even read.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ pumpf said:
Thank you for taking the time to write this up. Yes, I would look forward to hearing more about the "history" of CC. Thanks!
I am not really going to get into every detail.... but the livestock issue.. we have really only replaced bison with cattle in terms of numbers here in the US. 200 years ago there were 50-60 million bison roaming the plains, and they have been replaced by about 90 million beef (which are smaller in stature so it would stand to reason that they are not expelling the same amount of gases as their larger counter parts. both animals digestive processes are similar.
if its more of a global issue then the solutions need to be applied globally and not unfairly targeting American producers while those in developing countries get a pass and put American ranchers out of business... of course IMO its not about the environment, its about packers getting to own the land, ranches, and animals as well as the packing houses.
Yup, the beef producers are still private. The meat industry doesn't like that. Pork and chicken have already been gobbled up.
|
